Fact check: Democrats take McCain's remark on Iraq out of context
No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq.
The future Republican presidential nominee and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances.
That's a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain's position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone's lifetime.
THE SPIN:
Obama: "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years."
Clinton: "I've also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless, for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be _ 50 to 100 years."
THE FACTS:
The Democrats leave out a vital caveat.
When McCain was asked about Bush's theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.
That hasn't stopped the Democrats from making hay with the comment on a frequent basis. And it's seeped down to voters, one of whom challenged McCain this week on his remark.
The senator pointed to the half-century or longer U.S. presence in South Korea and other parts of the world where forces are stationed to deter conflict, not fight one.
"No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties," he said. In fact, some Americans do argue against permanent bases in far-flung places, but not with the same vigor they oppose a war with casualties.
The White House said in May that Bush envisioned a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea, where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years.
No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq.
The future Republican presidential nominee and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances.
That's a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain's position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone's lifetime.
THE SPIN:
Obama: "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years."
Clinton: "I've also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless, for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be _ 50 to 100 years."
THE FACTS:
The Democrats leave out a vital caveat.
When McCain was asked about Bush's theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.
That hasn't stopped the Democrats from making hay with the comment on a frequent basis. And it's seeped down to voters, one of whom challenged McCain this week on his remark.
The senator pointed to the half-century or longer U.S. presence in South Korea and other parts of the world where forces are stationed to deter conflict, not fight one.
"No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties," he said. In fact, some Americans do argue against permanent bases in far-flung places, but not with the same vigor they oppose a war with casualties.
The White House said in May that Bush envisioned a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea, where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment