Democrat Counter-Offer: 100 Years Of Capitulation
as opposed to 100 years of war...apparently
By haystack Posted in 2008 | GWOT | Iraq | John McCain | Peace at all cost | Tuck tail and run — Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[Via Politico, we have the forming of the Dem strategy for beating McCain in November:
John McCain is scheduled to deliver a major foreign policy speech Wednesday in Los Angeles, one with a heavy Iraq focus, but chances are Democrats won’t be listening. They’ve already distilled his views into an easy to remember formulation: 100 years of war.
It is a reference to an offhand remark made by McCain in January about the possible duration of the U.S. presence in Iraq, a comment that Democrats now portray as the equivalent of the McCain Doctrine.
McCain Doctrine...hunh. Has a sorta nice ring to it, dontchathink? I certainly like it better than the Obama Doctrine...the Obamatrine...of "Tuck Tail and Run."
Citing Obama's remarks on the 5th Anniversary of our presence in Iraq, Politico suggests the "real" hammer the Democrats will likely be swinging appears to something more like 100 years of capitulation:
Instead of offering an exit strategy for Iraq, he’s offering us a 100 year occupation.
Exit strategy is a great buzz word, and Occupation gets all the new generation of hippies chanting something incoherent about Attica, but as McCain reminded us in the REAL quote, we're 60 years running with a presence in Japan and Germany...50 in Korea...how is Iraq (long-term) different? Oh, that's right-there are still bad guys in Iraq with guns and explosives. We need to get the heck outta Dodge until there are no more bad guys. Why on earth would we have Soldiers doing the work of Soldiers where there is currently a need for...Soldiers?
When will we hear Barry and Hill demand an exit strategy in these places? September? October?
More below the fold..
Politico reminds us further down in the piece that McCain's original quote (mysteriously bastardized by the Left) meant to point out we are in lots of places around the world, and have been for a very long time:
...in response to a New Hampshire town hall questioner who asked about President Bush’s statement that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, McCain interrupted and said, "Make it 100."
"We've been in South Korea . . . we’ve been in Japan for 60 years," he continued. "We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."
The Democrats know there is a difference between an American presence in a foreign county, some of whom wear the Uniform, where we provide support and service...and watch out for our own best interests in security and intelligence...and an "Occupation." But this "straight talk" contradicts what the Democrats would have us believe. Leaving Iraq and negotiating with terrorists suits the Democrats just fine.
They are making clear what they mean to do with McCain in the General:
While reporters may have let up on the issue, Democrats have not.
“This is the middle of an entrenched, ethnic, religious, guerrilla war. The idea to stick it out for 100 years before they settle it is crazy on the substance and insane on the tactics,” said Jonathan Prince, a Democratic strategist who helped run John Edwards’ presidential campaign.
Regardless of what McCain meant, Democrats view his remark as a rare opportunity to define him early enough in the campaign to make the charges stick.
“It’s seldom you get such a clean shot. It’s such a remarkably clean shot,” said a senior Obama adviser, who asked that his name be withheld so that he could be candid. The “'100 years' comment is a frame,” the adviser explained, to nail home the message that McCain is “more of the same.”
Except he isn't more of the same, no matter how hard they will TRY to frame the debate to the contrary. McCain spoke up for MORE troops earlier in the game, and has taken a lot of cheap shots at the President and his SecDefs all throughout the war. It ain't gonna fly kids...but we get to the punch line on "page 2."
McCain's camp intends to “show the public that there is a way out of there without the worst consequences befalling us ... then you can re-earn their patience to do that.” You guessed it; Democrats have something different in mind:
Democrats plan a constant drumbeat on the comment, hoping to brand McCain as a dangerous choice at an already unstable time in the world, with mild echoes of Lyndon Johnson's 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater.
McCain’s quip at a campaign stop last year, when he sang “bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann” has only aided Democrats efforts to paint him as a warmonger. By highlighting McCain’s general hawkishness and his "100 years" remark, Democrats hope to create an entirely new narrative about McCain for the general election.
“[The comment alone] doesn’t yet do the job,” Prince said. “That is going to have to happen by redefining the image that John McCain has built up very well over decades: as a free-thinking, nonpartisan, independent, honest maverick.”
“But,” he added, “it’s an opening.”
So, if I have this straight, the plan is to redefine everything McCain HAS said and done over the years into something he hasn't...and THEN redefine everything he says he WILL do into something he won't. If they can do THAT, why, they just might pull this thing off!
Why don't they just run on why they're so much better instead of why McCain isn't? Nevermind...that was a rhetorical question.
Remember the Democrat motto:
Why fight for something you believe in when you can just take it away from those who have it already, and give it to those who wouldn’t know what to do with it if they DID?