Presidential candidate John McCain was on Larry King last night, and the subject of his controversial comment about the future of US involvement in Iraq came up. I'm sure you've heard it — John McCain's "famous 100 years statement." Every campaign has referred to it (some almost constantly) with varying degrees of . . . context? You be the judge. Here's the original statement, as delivered:
I'm sure just watching the video unleashes a pretty passionate response of your own. To see how the candidates are interpreting the statement for themselves,
Barack Obama said this in his speech following his victories in last Tuesday's Potomac Primaries:
When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice. John McCain won't be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning. Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for a hundred years in Iraq, which is reason enough to not give him four years in the White House.
Hillary Clinton said this at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last week:
Voters certainly won’t have any problems seeing the differences. Senator McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq for 50-100 years. I will start bringing them home within 60 days of becoming president of our country.
I don't know about you, but I find the words "wants to" and "mired" are pretty . . . interperative? Value-laden? Out of context?
Here's John McCain's explanation to Larry King:
It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq; it's if we succeed or not. And both Sen. Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal — that means chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we've achieved and al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen.
What do you think? Was McCain's original statement a poor choice of words? Is it proof that he's a war-mongering business-as-usualler? Or is it a realistic look at the aftermath of foreign involvement run amock?