2013

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from billings11. Show billings11's posts

    2013

    McCain has proposed that combat troops will no longer be necessary in Iraq in 2013. 100 years my ***

    "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from billings11. Show billings11's posts

    2013

    How about we look at it as the DNC took a selection of words, put them into the wrong context and spent millions of dollar advertising that McCain wanted to be in the Iraq war for 100 years?How about we look at it as Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee is using the "100 years war" statement as a campaign strategy to energize voters from the anti-war movement groups? Sen. McCain:�"I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years. What they care about is a sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is look, if Americans are there in a support role, but they're not taking casualties, that's fine."Obama on 4/5/08: "McCain wants to continue this war in Iraq for another 100 years." (followed by a large crowd reaction).Obama's advisor (Axelrod)�on 4/7/08: "Senator Obama hasn't said that Senator McCain said we would be at war for 100 years."

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from billings11. Show billings11's posts

    2013

    From factcheck.org:

    The DNC ad doesn't mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence. And the text of the ad paired with images of Iraq under siege leave a clear impression that McCain proposes to allow a century more of war, with U.S. involvement. That's not what he said, in New Hampshire or in other settings when he's been asked about it.

    The ad twists the sense of McCain's words by showing images of war, when he was really talking about a peaceful troop presence. Imagine how different the ad would seem if it showed images of, say, American troops walking the streets of Tokyo or Seoul and had included what McCain said about "Americans ... not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

    Anyone who didn't already know the fuller version of McCain's answer could easily be fooled into thinking that McCain would be perfectly happy to see the war continue. McCain has said quite clearly that he considers Democratic proposals for a quick withdrawal from Iraq to be "
    surrender," and so deadly fighting could well continue longer under a President McCain than under either a President Hillary Clinton or a President Obama. But what the DNC ad conveys is the opposite of what McCain said.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from billings11. Show billings11's posts

    2013

    So how do you think he meant it then? Different than what the DNC and Obama have said?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from billings11. Show billings11's posts

    2013

    He foresees the US military occupying the area to maintain peace.

    Is that different than what the DNC and Obama have protrayed?

    YES.

    I think you're missing my point...which was disputing "100 years war." No one except for the Democrats have said anything about a 100-year war.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from billings11. Show billings11's posts

    2013

    Okay, well I'm only disputing the 100 years war comment that I've been hearing for weeks...and if you agree that he didn't say that, then I'm not really referring to you, and you have no reason to keep responding to me.I DO�"look at it the way he meant it," but many Democrats do not. If you do, then great *shakes�her hands* I think we're done here.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    2013

    He foresees the -->-->US-->--> military occupying the area to maintain peace� See there you go again... He NEVER said occupying. He said a presence like Japan and S. Korea. Last I looked we are not occupying either.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share