McGentrix wrote:Blatham, you like to express your opinion regarding the PR machine of the Republican party. What is your opinion of the often used Dem PR of McCain wanting to make the Iraq war last 100 years? That seems to be one of the many battle cries from the left these days. For example:
-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).
-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).
-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).
Do you have an issues with these statements?
It's not a bad question. First of all though, there's a historical and readily identifiable PR/propaganda machine set up in and by the conservative camp which doesn't have a comparable reflection on the liberal side. That's something the left has to properly understand and then copy or match or handle in some manner.
Here's the youtube clip (ten seconds or so) where McCain made the '100 years' statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
The context has McCain saying it would be fine if US troops were there for 100 years
if no troops are being injured. He makes the comparison with S Korea and Japan. However, he goes on to mention that it's "a volatile part of the world". Yes it is. And Iraq/Afghanistan are now the most volatile of all, and the most dangerous to Americans, as a consequence of the two invasions. All of which makes his 'so long as no troops injured' proviso pretty empty.
Still, you are correct to point to an element of exaggeration in Dem accounts of what McCain said and meant through omitting that proviso.
But two points can be made here. First, exaggeration of this sort is an absolute staple of political rhetoric ("Wright's speeches are filled with hate"). One would perhaps love to see such exaggerations removed from the discourse, but it won't happen in politics or in soap advertisements or in mother's describing the wonderfulness of their children. All we can do, I think, is draw a line at purposeful falsehoods and otherwise, try to fill in the context to give a fuller picture when 'our' guy is hit.
The second point is that any such statement a politician makes (or that the opposition brings to the foreground) ought to be considered in relation to other statements on the matter the politician has made or other policy stances he/she has taken on similar matters.
And here, McCain is certainly susceptible to serious criticism because of his statements and policy positions on what he thinks are proper uses of the US military and his stances on what the US ought to be doing as regards the middle east. There's simply no question that McCain would be far more willing than the Dem candidates and the US population (perhaps more willing even than Bush, according to his own statements pre 9/11) to use the military in order to reshape the world according to the perceived interests and preferences of the US. That's a critically important matter for the electorate to understand and consider.
I'm sure he deeply regrets this response he made that day. It has allowed the Dems to take a simple sound bite and from it, create an easy to understand narrative which will not fall well on the ears of most americans - precisely like 'god damn america' from Wright or 'the first time I've been proud' from Mrs. Obama.
