Boo freakin hoo. Ol' Songbird is whining because this ad is so effective at pointing out how similar he is to Chimpy.

"100 Year War" McTrollop is really a crybaby. Pathetic.

Johnny Hotsauce made a great point a few days back. McCain has "A", the current situation, and "C", 100 years in Iraq without American casualties, but he's yet to explain "B": how we'll get there.

This compounds his problem.

He's already forgotten that he said it.

McCain's got another thing to explain.

I heard him tell a group he wouldn't take the US into the Middle East "over oil again".

Then, he later told the press what he meant when he used the word, "again".

He says he was referring to the first Gulf war. However, the official reason by Bush 41 for the first war was to liberate Kuwait.

So....does McCain actually believe the war in Iraq is over oil?

McCain brought up the commercials at a town hall meeting Friday in Denver, saying they are lies. He doesn't deny saying "100 years" in connection with U.S. military operations in Iraq, but says he was clearly referring to a possible peacekeeping force - not a centurylong war,


OK so how long is the war part expectable?

"After we win the war in Iraq, and we are succeeding - and it's long and hard and tough, with enormous sacrifices"

Only then will it be time to step back and provide support and protection for the radical anti-American muslim theocracy that we've paved the way for to take full charge of 1/3 of the world's oil.

Oh my! What will all the libs do if their candidate's comments are ever taken out of context?

heh

Johnny, if you can't stand the heat...get out of the campaign.
You think people bringing up your comment about us spending "100 years in Iraq" is being too impolite? You ain't seen nothing yet.

You ain't seen nothing yet.


Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-02 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

let the games begin!

McCain's reference to "100 years" signifies his
commitment for VICTORY in Iraq. He does not necessarily
mean to say we will be in Iraq indefinately.

(But - we will be there for 10, or 100 or 1000 if
need be. You cannot arbitralily 'surrender' 10
months from TODAY. You'll see. If your 'hero' Barack
wins the office he will very lamely [and dishonestly]
blame Bush for our continued presence in Iraq).

moveOn.org liberals are intellectually dishonest
in their characterization.

It goes to character. If the libs want to take the quotes out of context and use them the way they are, it just shows their lack of character. And if the sheep that follow them do not take the time to listen to the whole quote, then they are just as ignorant and intellectually dishonest as they accuse those on the right as being.

It is sort of like all the candidate's stance on tourture. You cannot condemn it if you are guilty of it.

Read an article yesterday describing the increase in "honor" killings in Iraq... like the young woman who was murdered by her family for having an unknown phone number on her mobil phone.

Saudi Arabia morals police are cutting the hair of young men who flirt with young womaen.

And the neo-cons are going to install a democracy in Iraq ?

Where would we put the DMZ as in Korea?

" If the libs want to take the quotes out of context and use them the way they are, it just shows their lack of character."

Nonsense. McCain said A and C. He's refused to talk about B. His feet need to be held to the fire.

I thought the article said he was a hundred years old. He should lash out about that too.

Wah wah wah. Wah wah wah. Wah wah wah. I'll bet he was crying like a baby as the Vietnamese were breaking his shoulders, the little wussy.

LetUsPrey-
Do you even begin to understand how twisted your comment is.

No wonder McCain is squawking so loudly.

Results from a new national study among 629 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and independent voters showed that after viewing a new DNC ad attacking Senator McCain, independent voters' favorability ratings of the senator decreased by 10% points.

The study was conducted by HCD Research on April 29, 2008, to obtain Americans' perceptions of a new DNC ad entitled "100" that attacks Senator John McCain. The ad features a clip from a January 3, 2008 town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire in which Senator McCain responded with his hundred year remark to a comment from an audience member who mentioned last year's White House statement about the U.S. having a possible 50 year military presence in Iraq.

Among the study findings:

Prior to viewing the ad, 57% of independents rated Senator McCain as either "Very Favorable" or "Mostly Favorable." After viewing the ad the number dropped to 47%. On the same measure, favorability ratings of Senator McCain by Republican viewers decreased by 4% points after viewing the ad, 80% to 76%.
In response to a hypothetical election matchup between Senator McCain and Senator Barack Obama, survey participants favored Senator McCain 39-36 prior to viewing the ad and favored Senator Obama 40-36 after viewing the ad.
In response to a hypothetical election matchup between Senator McCain and Hillary Clinton, survey participants favored Senator McCain 40-38 prior to viewing the ad and favored Senator Clinton 41-38 after viewing the ad.

Wah wah wah. Wah wah wah. Wah wah wah. I'll bet he was crying like a baby as the Vietnamese were breaking his shoulders, the little wussy.

Posted by LetUsPrey at 2008-05-03 12:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Dear God...

Thanks for the props Danforth!

"McCain's reference to "100 years" signifies his
commitment for VICTORY in Iraq."

I don't think your comment is accurate Dean.

McCain said, "We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea 50 years or so, that'd be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it's fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al-Qaeda is training recruiting equipping and motivating people every single day,"

McCain is saying that he has no problem keeping American forces in Iraq if there were no casualties or injuries. He's comparing it to keeping units stationed in Asia.

His comments assume peace in Iraq will be achieved yet he has not put fourth a plan that differs from Iraq other than pledging to put more troops and more money in Iraq.

What McCain has to do to clarify the 100 years comments is to put fourth a plan that will lead to peace in Iraq so the situation in which "Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" can become reality. McCain's plan is just a continuation of the failed policies of Bush. If McCain cannot bring out that rose colored scenario he talks about then he needs to tell the American people how much money and how many lives he's willing to spend in life before he brings the troops home.

LetUsPrey, that is a disgusting comment.

"Thanks for the props Danforth!"

Well deserved, JH. It was the most salient point I've heard to date on the subject.

It goes to character. If the libs want to take the quotes out of context and use them the way they are, it just shows their lack of character. And if the sheep that follow them do not take the time to listen to the whole quote, then they are just as ignorant and intellectually dishonest as they accuse those on the right as being.

It is sort of like all the candidate's stance on tourture. You cannot condemn it if you are guilty of it.

Posted by sawdust



I agree with your point, dust, if applied to both sides. To hear this point made by ANYONE on the right, though, is simply breathtakingly funny.

Can't wait to see this cranky crazoid in the fall debates.

"McCain is saying that he has no problem keeping American forces in Iraq if there were no casualties or injuries."

Ok, when do the casualties stop so we can get on with our "Germany like" occupation???
That's the real basis for the validity of using his words against him, he was being so fucking dishonest when he said them. Any idiot, AFTER FIVE FUCKING YEARS, can see that as long as we have troops in Iraq there will be casualties. It isn't rocket science to realize that Iraqis do not want Americans occupying their country and WILL fight against us as long as we do.
McBush's criticism of the ads is hypocritical considering the dishonest way he presented his ideas about occupying Iraq.

their lack of character

We've had 8 years of Daffy Duck.

Do we need 4 more of Elmer Fudd?

With apologies to Mr. Duck.

I was for a hundred years war before I was against a hundreds years war.

John McBush

I was for a hundred years war before I was against a hundreds years war.

John McBush

Democrats:

"GORE DID NOT INVENT THE INTERNET!"

"McCain says we will be at war for 100 years."

Funny stuff, guys.

It goes to character. If the libs want to take the quotes out of context and use them the way they are, it just shows their lack of character.

It's hilarious to see Republicans develop such an appreciation for context, now that their presidential candidate has said he'd like the U.S. to be in Iraq for 100 years. Clearly you realize his comment is political poison.

Politics isn't pinochle. If McCain wants to explain his desire for a century-long presence in a Muslim country -- when most Americans eagerly anticipate the day we declare victory and get the hell out -- he can make it part of his standard stump speech.

I hope McCain's complaining drums up more MoveOn donations to run this ad.

McShrub apparently does not take into account the fact that as long as there is an American military presence in Iraq, the Iraqis (or a large segment of their population) will fight that presence. We are viewed now as an occupying force, NOT a peace-keeping force and we will continue to be viewed that way as long as our presence brings death and destruction to the populace. And yes, McShrub is correct, that could very well last 100 years according to his world vision. The very last thing this country needs is another 4 years of the current disaster known as the Bush policies.

McCain is saying that he has no problem keeping American forces in Iraq if there were no casualties or injuries.

No matter how long it takes, or how many soldiers we lose, or how much money we spend, to get to that point.

Even the sympathetic explanation for his "100 years" remark makes it sound like wishful thinking. We had a force in Lebanon that wasn't engaged in a war. How'd that work out for Reagan?

***** McCain is saying that he has no problem keeping American forces in Iraq if there were no casualties or injuries. He's comparing it to keeping units stationed in Asia. ******

......but if they keeping shooting at us.....then its too unstable for us to leave..........right....

.......heads we lose......tails they win.......

.......either way our country goes broke........

...as there is an American military presence in Iraq, the Iraqis (or a large segment of their population) will fight that presence

Just like it happened in Germany and Japan.

........Maybe Bush was right.....McCain did go nuts in Viet Nam...........

Now that McCain has mentioned it, why are we still in Germany and Japan?

Why are we the only country in the world that needs a military occupation of its Allies?

When we won WWI we brought all the boys home to a parade and minded our own business. 20 years later we sent another generation of men to fight the same enemy. We lost 110,000 in WWI then 250,000 in WWII. That's why we keep an eye on our old enemies. Do you libs even know what a history book looks like? You live in a fantasy world.

"You live in a fantasy world...."

Well, I imagine you were another history-reading realist to tell Bush he'd need 500,000 men to subdue Iraq.

Nah....

Yes, Iraq has worked out so well because the historical realists were in charge.

As ever, you people are jokes.

"Just like it happened in Germany and Japan."

There is a huge difference between Japan/German and Iraq Goat. Those were conflicts between nations and traditional militaries. The wars ended with peace treaties between the parties involved.

What's funny is you don't seem to understand when you are jokes. REALISTS get a lot more done than you fart-knockers.

FANTASISTS spend five years in Iraq on the side of the Shia before deciding they need to be on the side of the Sunnis.

FANTASISTS then brag about the shift as if they're kids that have finally learned not to piss their pants.

When we won WWI...

We should have never got involved in WWI. The filthy Brits could have warned the Lusitania that there was a German sub patrolling the area and they could have avoided it. Churchill purposely failed to do that because he wanted the US in the war.

According to General Butler we got in to save the bankers who were afraid that France would lose the war.

Bankrupting Germany only propelled the nationalism offered by the Nazis.

While Germany and Japan pay something for their security I don't know why they can't protect themselves and allow us to station our troops on our borders.

Conservatives always promote the notion of "rugged individualism" at home - maybe we should export it as well.

There is a huge difference between Japan/German and Iraq Goat. Those were conflicts between nations and traditional militaries. The wars ended with peace treaties between the parties involved.

Posted by johnny_hotsauce

The difference is that we went after Saddam before it cost us hundreds of thousands of lives.

"Bankrupting Germany"

Brilliant strategery, don't you think?

we went after Saddam before it cost us hundreds of thousands of lives.

LMAO

Unless he planned to do it with rock bands the Iraqi Invasion Plan was doomed from the start, just like when he invaded Iran - a campaign much criticized by military analysts who condemned Saddam for a failure of leadership and strategy.

While Germany and Japan pay something for their security I don't know why they can't protect themselves and allow us to station our troops on our borders.

Protect against what? They weren't trying to build a military empire.

Protect against what? They weren't trying to build a military empire.

Posted by Ray at 2008-05-03 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Germany could not protect itself against the Soviet Union and Japan can't protect itself from China. Do we really want our former enemies strong enough to do so? What if they want another round with us? Do we flush another 200,000 soldiers down the toilet?
Right now Iraq can't protect itself from Iran. If we leave that lets Iran and Syria's influence spread across the Mideast. How long before we would have to go back and how many lives would be lost then? Or the human tragedy of Israel going nuclear on everybody in the area if they feel abandoned.
You have to think beyond the next election and your hatred of George Bush. There is a lot at stake here.

Boortz

I'd say you are a royal fool. Saddam was an enemy of Iran. The Maliki government is a Shia friend. Only recently Ahmadinejad paid a friendly visit.

The Soviet Union had no intentions of invading Europe and neither does China have designs on Japan. Taiwan yes, but not Japan.

PS I hate all politicians. What is at stake is America's economic future. It has none. Bankrupted by both parties.

And I don't give a shit what happens to Israel. They wanted to live among enemies.

This nonsense is about creating enemies to justify the biggest military buildup in human history. It's sucking the life of our economy.

So you want us to pull back into our shell? Leave the rest of the world? We tried that and got Pearl Harbor as a reward. The towel heads in Afganistan wanted us to leave them alone after the beat the Soviets and we got 9/11 as a result (save your conspiracy stories, they're boring). How many times do YOU bang your head against the same wall before figuring out that it hurts? Our economy is important, but avoiding another tragic worldwide war is more important.

Boortz

Got news for you. Washington's military empire is living on borrowed money and borrowed time. I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching this country self-destruct.

911 was a reaction to US military meddling in the ME. Probably to sucker Bush into proving bin Laden was right and to wear us down financially as they did the Soviets. Afghanistan was grateful for us helping them eject the Soviets. That is until Washington replaced the Soviets.

Our economy is important, but avoiding another tragic worldwide war is more important.

By obliterating Iran? That is going to make a lot of friends.

Man are you gullible. You're a good example of why this country is self-destructing.

"Boortz

I'd say you are a royal fool"

With a name like "Boortz" that's self-evident.

With a name like Null . . .

With a name like Nullidiot

res ipsa loquitur

Spoken by a guy named after a goat...

That reminds me, time for another update on the Republican crime wave:

PITTSBURGH, PA November 9
A Republican flew into a rage at the Giant Eagle supermarket when employees refused to cash a million-dollar bill. 66-year-old Samuel Porter slammed an electronic machine on the counter and refused to give his name to authorities. He was then taken to the Allegheny County Jail. The largest bill currently in circulation is the $100 dollar bill.

"With a name like Nullidiot"

Give me a break, Chris. I'm not Latino, after all.

Spoken by a guy named after a goat...

I'll be the first to admit that I like to butt heads, am stubborn, piss in my own beard, have horizontally slit pupils, and yes, probably smell real bad.

You point is...? that your name fits you, too?

"You point is...? that your name fits you, too?"

Yes, Nullifidian does fit me. You do know what the word means, right?

I was curious what Nullifidian means.

Nul`li`fidi`an
a. 1. Of no faith; also, not trusting to faith for salvation; - opposed to solifidian.
n. 1. An unbeliever.

I already knew "Nullifidian" meant atheist.

I call him "Nullidiot the Atheist" whenever I'm not calling him burritobrain.

"I call him "Nullidiot the Atheist" whenever I'm not calling him burritobrain."


I really don't care what some idiot blogger calls me.

I think the number of atheists on this blog are about 50/50 with the
number who believe in God.

Sometimes I think all you self-proclaimed "atheists" on here are just having a
testosterone contest among yourselves and trying to look like that SNL skit Quien es mas macho? hahaha

While the righties are having a "quien es mas tonto?" debate of their own...

We should have never got involved in WWI.

Posted by OzarkAggie at 2008-05-03 11:49 AM | Reply

Off topic, but very true. The Euros were at the point of economic exhaustion. Had we stayed out, they would have all collapsed about the same time.

Then influenza came along and did anyway.

Hindsight is so very accurate

Boortz-why didn't Bush invade saudistan before we lost thousands of AMerican lives? It's not like he didn't have 50 warnings, or there wasn't any al queda track record...

And as history and Bush himself has shown, Saddam wasn't a threat to the US, never was a threat to the US, but he was an annoynace to the Iranians,who suckered the Village Idiot-in-Chief into getting rid of him and handing Iraq to their shia brothers.

As they say in Tehran durka durka Mission Accomplished durka.

Sometimes I think all you self-proclaimed "atheists" on here are just having a
testosterone contest among yourselves
~Chris


Chris what would you speculate about the self-proclaimed "religious"?

NorthGuy, so you would support an invasion of Saudi Arabia? That's fine with me. After 9/11 we should have gone WWII on the whole Mideast so those goat farmers (no offense Goatman) will leave us alone. It worked for Germany and Japan.
Saddam not a threat? He tried to kill Bush the First, remember that? Neither Bush may be brilliant but we can't let other countries try to kill ex-presidents.

The difference is that we went after Saddam before it cost us hundreds of thousands of lives.

Posted by BoortzPal at 2008-05-03 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

RRRRIIIIIIIGHT!
I see. We went in and took all of the WMDs so that we couldn't attack us (or anyone else) in the future...
Oh, wait a minute, we didn't find them.

Maybe, if he actually posess WMDs, the dumbfucks like W, Cheney and Wolfy who planned this shit wouldn't mind giving a straight answer for where they are at.

A bit of advice for you..... Get a fucking life and quit trying to rationalize a botched and bungled war that has cost way too many lives and certianly too much of my money.

The truth is sad. Just sad.

He tried to kill Bush the First, remember that? Neither Bush may be brilliant but we can't let other countries try to kill ex-presidents.

Posted by BoortzPal at 2008-05-03 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:


Actually tried???? or just sait it?

First of all. Saddam Hussein did NOT try and kill Bush41. It's more lies from the Kuwaities just like the incubator story. Secondly Dubya did NOT save thouss of lifes. He killed THOUSANDS of lives. thirdly it asn't our place to decide with regards the invasion of Iraq. THAT was for the UN Security Council to have decided. Wrong on ALL kinds of counts.

Larry Mohr

Speaking of 100 years, when is McCain going to come clean with his medical records?

Bottom Line.

McCain is a dumbass for even coming close to saying this.

Any one who wants to try and draw a parallel to the S. Koreans and fundamentalist radical Muslims in Iraq and the situation we have in South Korea and try and sell the American people we will have the same 100 peace keeping operation in Iraq has to be a complete fucking idiot.

Well, there is that.

...Do you libs even know what a history book looks like? You live in a fantasy world. Posted by BoortzPal


Would this be the same history book that tells us the world is 6000 years old?

"...LetUsPrey-Do you even begin to understand how twisted your comment is...Posted by BetelG..."

Repeat after me: I will Not swiftboat a Republican. I will not swiftboat a republican...

Shiiiit. we are going to need a crapload of Tissues for the whole republican constituency this year cause yer whining your asses off...

BWAWAWA

O'Reilyesque Morons.

It's hilarious to see Republicans develop such an appreciation for context, now that their presidential candidate has said he'd like the U.S. to be in Iraq for 100 years. Clearly you realize his comment is political poison.

Posted by Rcade

What's hilarious is that after 7 years of Bush and around 4 of horrendous approval numbers, you liberals still have to lie about McCain in order to win... just shows how much Obama and Clinton suck.

Why not give the whole quote and let it stand on its own?

I don't expect an answer, I'm sure there's another thread about "McCain's pastor" that needs to be posted...

"What's hilarious is that after 7 years of Bush and around 4 of horrendous approval numbers, you liberals still have to lie about McCain in order to win... just shows how much Obama and Clinton suck."

What's hilarious is watching you rightwingers scream, squeal and whine when tactics that were used against John Kerry four years ago are used on your candidate.

Hahahaha. What goes around, comes around. Now, I got a question for you. Why does John McTrollop advocate 100 years of war in Iraq? And why has he admitted that the war in Iraq was a war for oil?

rob....did you see the howard dean interview this morning on fox news sunday?
when the ad that the dnc is playing was shown it, of course, stopped right before the qualifying statement about IF there were no casualties and dean seemed pissed that wallace had the gall to actually question him on the ad and dean still said that it didnt matter if all of the ad was shown or not.
and this idea that its NOT the same as korea.....there may be truth in that but this comment from mccain was just an exageration like we all do. such as.....there must have been a million cars in front of me....now was there REALLY????
or IM gonna kill you......are you REALLY?
or WOW bl2 that THING REALLY IS HUGE>...well thats a bad example because ITS TRUE.....LOL

AMD
You ain't seen nothing yet.

Posted by CalifChris at 20

yeah chris.....you said this concerning shit coming from the dems...AND THATS JUST SO WRONG.......why? how do I know that....well because all we EVER hear about is the right wing conspiracy and the right wing attack machine....thats ALL we ever HEAR about in the media or from candidates, so how can the left come after him since all of thier people are "political choirboys"?

The real question about McCain is why he was given a 100% disability only three years after he regained his flight status.

I say the Navy didn't trust him with a sea-going command, and it wasn't because of stenosis.

It's a hard point to make, but the Vietnamese broke him once, and probably did it again just for grins. Then two years in solitary?

Time does heal old wounds, but at 3am he's just as likely to be having cold sweats and a bad dream as he would be answering the phone.

Still I'll stick to my ABCs. Anyone But Clinton.

Hey BL2, when are the Houston Rockets going to change their name to the Houston Firecrackers, or the Houston Duds?

"Rockets" my ass. lol


Lucky for you, though, that they lost. The Lakers would've humiliated them.

Bushlovertwo-
re: "...because all we EVER hear about is the right wing conspiracy and the right wing attack machine....thats ALL we ever HEAR about in the media or from candidates..."

Where do we hear about this most in "the media"?

(If you link to a FOX NEWS clip featuring a Hillary Clinton quote, my head may virtually explode just for anonymous kicks)

Bushlovertwo-
Do you have a link to el Rushbo, or Matt Drudge? (Well, a subscription fee to the greatest show of raw and empty egotism's site is required, so I understand if you can't link me to Limbaugh, but I'm sure Matt Drudge has a link to something pertinent...

(Just trying to help out)

Robthe*-
What Bu....McCain said was clear:

'It's dandy if we're in Iraq forever once we've won.'

This would be a wonderful and cheery patriotic stance were it not so displaced from reality and even time itself.