57 blog reactions to blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html

s a bit like two ships passing in the night and each recognizing the other’s presence by blowing horns and flashing lights, but not engaging one another on a more detailed basis, as one might expect of close allies. Then there was the cheerleader for staying 50 or 100 years – to be fair, without violence and with only occasional outbursts of mutual resentment, as in Germany. His past statements should have suggested unbounded joy, but Mr. Straight Talk couldn’t seem to get it straight.

a timetable for their withdrawal.   Obama has called for just such a timetable. McCain has opposed one, famously saying that a substantial number of U.S. combat troops might need to stay in Iraq for another 100 years.   When asked about Maliki’s statement, McCain told reporters that it had been mistranslated—to which Maliki responded that, no, the English version was correct. At that point, some of McCain’

60,000 American dead and more than 300,000 wounded in Vietnam were not quite enough. Of course, McCain’s “100 years” statement was not about continuing the war in Iraq for that long; that’s been thoroughly discredited (even by the WaPo; see this). But that’s not the only misrepresentation in Conaston’s closing words. There is nothing in McCain’s speeches quoted here that indicates McCain wanted to escalate our troop presence (and casualty total) in Vietnam

without offering specifics. He now talks more about withdrawing, as he did last week when he said "we will withdraw, but we will withdraw with victory and honor." Of course the criticism of Sen. McCain's "100 years" remark involved taking his words out of context, but that's not something that the Times acknowledges. All in all it's fine piece of work from the Times, portraying Sen. McCain as an opportunistic flip-flopper and Sen. Obama as sticking to his original plan.

than withdrawing troops) to suggest McCain hates the troops. Or is cold-hearted, or uninformed. Or all of these. Not even the left blogosphere is buying this one. People can watch the video after all. This tactic of Obama’s, which we saw in the “100 days” fight, begins to seem like he is constructing a ransom note– take a letter from here, skip there and add a sentence there. On balance it did not work too well in the 100 days tussle, but you can always hope that the media will play along.

m positive of this. When Dean says or does something absurd, a laugh track must go off. Case in point, the new DNC ad. Yes, Howard Dean and the DNC are running an ad on a premise that has been repeatedly discredited. *insert laugh track here*

DNC Advertisement Shows Blown Up US Troops! Here is a screengrab from the DNC Ad in case they decide to take it down. Do you suppose they got the footage from an Al-Qaeda in Iraq snuff video? Take another look at this dishonest DNC ad attacking Senator John McCain... Pay special attention to the segment after they makeover McCain's "100 years" remark. The ad shows two US soldiers getting blown up by an IED! Here's the Democratic National Committee attack ad

The DNC, The Democrats and Howard Dean must be very proud. Much more on Howard Dean and the DNC using U.S. Soldiers being hit by an IED to score political points smearing John McCain: McCain’s ‘100-year war’ - Fact Checker

, February 8, 2008 “It’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” Washington Post Fact Checker, April 2, 2008 A more honest line of attack for the Democrats against McCain would be his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whether or not he has a clear strategy for winning the war, and the feasibility of a long-term occupation of a Muslim country by the

m positive of this. When Dean says or does something absurd, a laugh track must go off. Case in point, the new DNC ad. Yes, Howard Dean and the DNC are running an ad on a premise that has been repeatedly discredited. *insert laugh track here*