It's official, McCain has the winning strategy as far as Iraq is concerned.

Speaking to reporters, as seen in this video, the Iraqi VP says he would be happy to see American forces leave Iraq by 20010.

That means... wait a minute.

2 take 1... add 5... no... no 5s...

Ok, I'll get a calculator.

20010 - 2010 = 18000 more years than Obama wants!  Take that you progressive peace loving unpatriotic defeatist.

That's 18000 years they want American troops to stay in Iraq.  So not only should American troops stay there, but I think China should take at least part of the country and maybe Brazil another.  It's obviously a lot to ask of US troops to stay there so long.

Importantly, moreover, it's time for Obama to admit defeat and introduce Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee.  It's the right thing to do.

I think it essential that we start talking about how the surge HAS NOT WORKED.  But we need to avoid arguments that are complicated and long.

If a city has a high crime rate, a surge of cops onto every street corner will cause crime to plummet.  Does this mean that the surge fixed the crime problem?  Of course not and the same is true in Iraq.

Tonight on HARDBALL, the subject of McCain's remark about staying in Iraq for a hundred years, and what he really meant by that remark came up again. And, as usual, at the mention of the 100 year remark, McCain's surrogate jumped right in to clarify what was really meant, and complain the comment was being taken out of context again.

Can't help it...I just snapped.

This is crap. I saw that clip. It was a town hall, and someone posed the question about how much longer would we have troops in Iraq...10 years? 15 years?  With great swagger and a total smart ass attitude, McCain said something to the effect of "I'll keep troops there as long as it takes, 50 years...or make it a hundred."

McCain's context was crystal clear in that clip. Let's let the clip respond to the surrogates who keep trying to rewrite the dialog.

This is the kind of crap that the Republican's should NOT be allowed to get by with...

This is an ongoing series from the national tour for THE UPRISING. You can order The Uprising at Amazon.com or through your local independent bookstore.

MINNEAPOLIS - During this whirlwind book tour, I've had trouble keeping up with the minute-to-minute trajectory of television's political debate. However, I didn't know that it is now considered out of bounds to talk about John McCain's support for staying in Iraq for 100 years. Watch this clip of me debating GOP hack Terry Holt on Fox News late last week to see what I'm talking about.

The ad sorta says it all... According to Ben Smith, AFSCME is also involved.

Hotline has these details.

AFSCME and MoveOn.org will begin airing a new ad in OH, MI, WI, and nationally on CNN and MSNBC on 6/18, attacking John McCain on Iraq. The ad, obtained from Hotline sources, will run for a week at a cost of $543K

As many people in the blogosphere have noted,  John McCain stepped in the "Hundred Years in Iraq" dookie again. His statement that it's "not too important" to bring the troops home has received most of the commentary. But for my money, it's his logic as to why it doesn't matter that raises an eyebrow. The idea that under his firm leadership (or something) no soldiers will die in Iraq.

John McCain has attempted to justify his comments about keeping troops in Iraq for "100 years" and his statement that "it doesn't matter" when the troops come home from Iraq by comparing the (future) situation in Iraq to the (current) situation in Korea.

He said in his appearance this morning (video here) that the important question was casualties, citing Korea as an example of a place where there are lots of U.S. troops who are not "coming home" any time soon, but where there are no casualties, so it is not a problem.

However, this is mixing apples and oranges.

With McCain's "100 years" comment, I figured someone had to parody Five for Fighting's "100 Years" to talk about McCain and Iraq.  And when nobody stepped up to the plate, I figured I'd have to do it then.

But unlike most parodies, it's not funny, but rather sobering, when you really start thinking about what 100 years of our military presence would actually start to look like.  Here's a music video of the song, if you're not familiar with it.

We often hear about news outlets slashing their budgets and downsizing their operations in an effort to save money, but there's one thing that the traditional media really needs to invest in and that's a dictionary, because it doesn't seem like they know what the word "clarify" means.

Twice in the past two days, the media has reported on outrageous or downright disturbing claims made by John McCain on the campaign trail to whip up the faithful, and then have described his backpedaling as "clarifications," rather than the flip-flopping, damage control that they are.  On Wednesday, McCain said:

The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money. The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects.

That's pretty clear, right?  A definitive statement that the bridge collapsed because of pork barrel spending.  But after the national co-chairman of his campaign, who also happens to be the Governor of Minnesota, objected, McCain was allowed to clarify and say what he really meant was:

...only that earmarks divert money from necessary projects toward unneeded pork-barrel ones.

Obviously we all misunderstood when he said "the bridge collapsed because..."   And then yesterday McCain said:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

My friends, that's a straightforward statement.  But damn, it does sound bad.  So the media allowed him to clarify it:

No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons.

Oh, he meant that other war...the one we fought 17 years ago.  Well, sure.  It's a shame that "the word 'again' was misconstrued."  Because he certainly never meant that it's happening today...or that it's ever happened before.  

"Again" doesn't mean again, "the bridge collapsed because," doesn't mean the bridge collapsed because, black is white, up is down, move along, there's nothing to see here...and the straight talking, moderate, maverick express rolls on.  

And of course there are other issues that have popped up during this campaign that McCain hasn't had to clarify, but that's only because the media chooses to ignore them.  But if they ever finish writing that novel and get back to doing their day jobs, perhaps they could get McCain to explain:

• What he meant when he said, on three occasions, that Iran was training Sunni extremists to fight in Iraq?  Since he is the self and media appointed foreign policy candidate, it would be nice to know if he's aware of the difference between Sunnis, Shiites, and their respective relationship with Iran.
• Which of Reverend John Hagee's positions does he endorse?  That the Catholic Church is a cult that conspired with Hitler, that Hurricane Katrina was a just punishment for the people of New Orleans, that America is cursed and doomed, or that abortions are available in public schools?
• Why he is now saying that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was a mistake when in 2003 he cited it as proof that the conflict was over?

And if that's too much hard work for the media, can they at least ask McCain to clarify exactly how many years he is willing to have American soldiers attacked, wounded or killed in Iraq?  So far we only know for sure that it's less than a 100 years.
   

Once again the Associated Press is helping with John McCain's efforts to lessen the impact of his saying he's fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years.  The lede in today's article

Republican John McCain defended himself Friday against television ads that accuse him of advocating a 100-year war in Iraq.

The ad accuses him of nothing.  It simply uses his own words against a backdrop of the cost of this war.  

Instead of taking stenography from the McCain campaign, the Associated Press should try watching the ad.

Read what the Republicans Wish You Wouldn’t

Flipper of the day: McCain was against 100 years before he was for it.
McCain on Health Care - He's trying to say he has a plan, but really...
McCain opposed seniors buying prescriptions through Medicaid.
McCain's health plan weakens state regulations - cuts coverage.
McCain's big health care plan = copy the states. Wow! Now that's creative.
And pay for it how? Elizabeth Edwards says McCain's plan "gross underfunding."
The problem is, experts say it won't work.
Another problem, no way to pay for it.
Let's face it, McCain's supposed health care plan is DOA.
McCain's latest FEC foreign donation trouble.
RNC v. DNC - trying to cut off McCain's "100 years" television ad.

His plans are dangerous. Help get the word out.

Read the complete Daily Flipper  and see an SEIU video on the flip. Flip it good.

I have been waiting, drooling for this kind of ad, and i'll bet you have to:

The Democratic National Committee has announced a new ad against John McCain, set to air on national cable TV. Their previous ad took McCain on regarding the economy, while this one goes after him for Iraq -- specifically his comment about staying "maybe a hundred" years over there

Eat it John:

Yesterday, General Petraeus wouldn't budge from his position, which was really quite simply stated:

We have no idea how long we'll be fighting in Iraq.
We have no idea how much it will cost.
We have no idea whether we'll win or lose.
We have no idea how many will die.
We have no idea how to define victory.

Oh, and our enemies keep changing.

First we give money and arms
to the Sunnis (supported by Al Qaeda)
against the Shia (supported by Iran).
And lo and behold, the Sunni become more powerful and dangerous!

Then we gave money and arms
to the Shia (supported by Iran)
against the Sunni (supported by Al Qaeda).
And lo and behold, the Shia are becoming more poweful and dangerous.

Maybe we should help the Sunni (Al Qaeda in Iraq) again?

Rinse and Repeat for 100 years.

And don't forget the intra-Sunni and intra-Shia battles too, upon which we have to take sides!

Rinse and repeat for 100 years.

(Tune in at 5 pm EST for live discussion of this at RadioInsideScoop.com)

Since the Republicans have realized what an albatross around his neck McCain's statements are about us being in Iraq for 100+ years, I figured a LTE was in order.

See below for more

In this blog post, I am going to do something I personally never thought I would find my self doing: defending both Barack Obama and John McCain.  In this Presidential election, both have been attacked in the media and misunderstood in general.

(Crossposted at Old Man McCain)

In the past few weeks, John McCain and his Republican sycophants have been trying to push his "100 years" comment into the memory hole. They know this is a devastating attack, that Americans don't want to stay in Iraq forever, and the Republicans are pissed that Barack Obama hits McCain over the head with this every time he makes a speech.

This video by Josh Marshall offers a pretty good analysis:

It is absolutely crucial for all of us in the progressive blogosphere to understand this issue, and know how to defend against it. The "100 years" comment is death for McCain's campaign, so we can't let them wash it away. More on the flip:

John McCain’s position on Iraq, his comparisons to the troop deployments in Germany and Korea, basically positions us so we could stay there "100 years" (if there are no troops getting injured or killed, to make it more comfortable).

There is a flaw in this plan and he glosses over or omits it entirely in his stump speeches: How many troops are to be deployed in Iraq for the 100 years?

In a Flying Circus sketch, Michael Palin, as Mr Orbiter, offered viewers a gesture so that while he paused between thoughts people weren’t  "nipping out into the kitchen to make a pot of tea, butter scones, or get the crumbs and bits of food out of the round, brown straw mats that the teapot goes on".  It was effective, simple, and clear; when he used the gesture, he was merely pausing and not finished with his speech.