Campaign Desk

The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years

Press needs to call Obama on distortion of McCain’s statement

By Zachary Roth Tue 1 Apr 2008 05:07 PM 

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s “100 years” notion.

But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it.

Here’s McCain’s full quote, in context, from back in January:

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty 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 would 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.

It’s clear from this that McCain isn’t saying he’d support continuing the war for one hundred years, only that it might be necessary to keep troops there that long. That’s a very different thing. As he says, we’ve had troops in South Korea for over fifty years, but few people think that means we’re still fighting the Korean War.

Nevertheless, back in February, Obama said: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another hundred years.”

And, on a separate occasion: “(McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another hundred years of war in Iraq.”

Since then, some conservatives have drawn attention to the distortion, and Obama’s been a bit more careful with his language. Today, for instance, he said: “We can’t afford to stay in Iraq, like John McCain said, for another hundred years.” It’s technically true that McCain said that, but Obama’s clear goal in phrasing it that way was to imply, falsely, that McCain wants the war to continue for that long. In other words, he’s gone from lying about what McCain said to being deeply misleading about it. Progress, of a kind.

Still, some outlets continue to portray the issue as a he-said, she-said spat. A long takeout on the controversy by ABC News, opining that McCain’s comment “handed his Democratic opponents and war critics a weapon with which to bludgeon him,” is headlined: “McCain’s 100 Year Remark Hands Ammo to War Critics: McCain Haunted by January Remarks Suggesting 100 More Years in Iraq.” And today’s L.A. Times story, headlined “Obama, McCain Bicker Over Iraq,” is similarly neutral.

To be fair, the ABC News piece does provide the quote in its full context, giving enough information to allow conscientious readers to figure out the truth. That’s better than the L.A. Times piece, which says only that “McCain has stressed since then that he meant that U.S. troops might need to remain to support Iraqi forces, not to wage full-scale warfare”—instead of simply telling readers that it’s clear from the context that McCain did indeed mean that. Still, neither piece stated high up and unequivocally that Obama is distorting McCain’s words.

To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing,

This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Subscribe Today

Comments

Aaron

Tue 1 Apr 2008 07:26 PM

Unless and until McCain himself states that Obama has it wrong, and describes how and when he will withdraw troops from Iraq if Americans continue to be "injured or harmed or wounded or killed", Obama's interpretation remains perfectly reasonable.

And what of Iraqi blood? Would you have us infer that, as McCain didn't mention it, it's irrelevant to him? How literal must we be?

padikiller

Tue 1 Apr 2008 07:56 PM

???????????????????

How in the Hell did this piece of well-reasoned criticism slip past the moonbat CJR editors?...

Mr. Roth had better quit writing common sense pieces like this and start toeing the CJR line if he wants to see any amount of byline ink in McLearyland..

JDS

Tue 1 Apr 2008 09:42 PM

When I heard McCain say this I believed he meant it would be fine to stay there 100 years, and I have seen nothing to change my mind. I do not think your interpretation is any more accurate than mine or Obama's. McCain does not say how long he will stay and says 100 years is not too long. Then he goes on to say the AlQaeda part and to me if troops are there to keep them from training,etc then the troops will still be in harm's way. I agree 100% with the above comment by Aaron. I also believe that McCain appears to thrive on conflict and that is the last thing any of us in this world need for the U.S. President.

kweberlit

Tue 1 Apr 2008 10:46 PM

Okay, so McCain is in favor of our troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years "so long as American troops are not being injured or killed." How is this magically supposed to start happening? And since Americans ARE being injured and killed now, why is it okay with McCain that they are in Iraq (if that is his pre-condition)? On the one hand, McCain says we have to stay in Iraq now because there is fighting going on. On the other hand, he also says we should stay indefinitely provided there is no fighting going on. Under what circumstances, exactly will our troops come home? Sounds like the only possible answer is "never."

padikiller

Tue 1 Apr 2008 11:54 PM

Kweberlit pondered

"Okay, so McCain is in favor of our troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years "so long as American troops are not being injured or killed." How is this magically supposed to start happening?"

padikiller schools

The same way it happened in Germany, Italy and Japan (countries we still occupy more than 60 years after WWII).

First we kick the living crap out of the opposition until they can't or won't fight anymore... Then we install an American-friendly government based on a constitution we write and cram down their throats... And finally we babysit the Iraqis at gunpoint while we toss just enough money at them to keep them quiet...

What's so hard to understand about this?... Works like a charm...

Shreesh

Wed 2 Apr 2008 12:07 AM

The more you trivialize a real war with the rhetoric of war (or by sheer war of words), the more you desensitize just about everyone who is using it, one way or the other, to gain some personal end.
Does that mean you should not talk about it? No. It only means that you have to take an unequivocal stand against war and not make it sound like a poll issue. Any content analysis expert can tell you that the slant of the article is not concerned with setting right issues of honor or truth. It is plain and simple a desire to nail down an erring rhetorician.
Where do you lead from here? Will someone please recall the trauma of 9/11 that still rankles the hearts and minds of the average American? War is bad. So, please take a stand against it - not against individuals.

citygal

Wed 2 Apr 2008 12:50 AM

Mr. Roth, I find your comments here to be immoderate: 'But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said.'
As Shreesh and most other commenters here point out, McCain is treating the stationing of US soldiers on the soil of foreign nations as somehow right and proper. Obama is correct in referring to this attitude as bellicose in and of itself; I heard and saw the entire episode online and found no fault with the Dem's campaign's pointing out the warlike mindset behind it.

padikiller

Wed 2 Apr 2008 08:06 AM

The McLearyites are beside themselves with rage at Mr. Roth... Because he (GASP!) told the truth about free pass Obama is getting from the MSM over his distortion of McCain's comment..

This comment was hardly "bellicose", despite the whining of the moonbats here...

How in the Hell can the phrase "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" possibly be construed (by any reasonable person) as being "bellicose"?...

"War is bad"?... This is a useless and simplisitic assertion that doesn't belong in "professional journalism" .

"Bad" in what context? To whom?

Sure war is "bad" in the sense that no one wants it and that it should be avoided whenever possible. However, war is very often necessary.

Ask the Kurds if they think the Iraqi war was "bad"... Ask the educated women of Afghanistan, who have been freed from the slavery of Islamofascism, if they think the war was "bad"... Ask the average man on the street in Kosovo if he thinks the war was "bad".... Ask a Holocaust survivor if she thinks WWII was "bad"...

Keep your screwy liberal opinions of my journalism!

tyree

Wed 2 Apr 2008 09:11 AM

Admit nothing
Deny Everything
Make Counter Accusations

Liberal/Progressive Standard Operational Procedure.

As a man who judged debate tournaments 30 years ago, thank you Mr. Roth for standing up for the truth. The art of Reasoned Debate is not lost.

Diggs

Wed 2 Apr 2008 09:32 AM

The obvious difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain believes Americans are smart enough to know what he's talking about, and Obama believes Americans are dumb enough to believe what he's lying about.
I'm with McCain.

Dyadya Vanya

Wed 2 Apr 2008 11:42 AM

Roth is the one being misleading. For one thing, we are in fact still, technically, fighting the Korean War - there's only a temporary armistice, the two sides have never agreed on a final peace treaty. The reason we have troops in South Korea is because half of Korea is still controlled by a bellicose dictator that still claims rightful sovereignty over the whole Korean people, our troops are not there to prop up the South Korean government, fight South Korean insurgents and ethnic violence. The comparison between South Korea and Iraq is a pretty stupid one. If McCain thinks we need troops in Iraq for 100 years, he should tell us from whom those troops are supposed to be protecting the Iraqis. From Iran? Most Iraqis don' t think they need US troops to keep the Iranians away. Are we protecting the Iraqis from Al Qaeda? But the only reason Al Qaeda has a significant presence in Iraq is because US troops are there in the first place - so McCain is proposing we stay in a closed loop forever. And at what cost? Why?

McCain's remarks demonstrate that he is an irresponsible leader with no understanding of risks, costs, benefits, or any strategic give and take. And that's the charitable view.

padikiller

Wed 2 Apr 2008 12:17 PM

Some Liberal Wrote

For one thing, we are in fact still, technically, fighting the Korean War..

padikiller schools

If it weren't for the minor little FACT that nobody is "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" as result of the so-called "fighting" of the purported ongoing "war" in Korea... Then these silly moonbats might have a leg to stand on...

But they don't...

Let's check the Reality Scoreboard, shall we?...

Roth 1, Moonbats 0

That's just how it is, dudes..

Suck it up and deal with it.

PhillyPhoton

Wed 2 Apr 2008 12:52 PM

Thanks for this article. As someone actually paying attention, it drives me crazy whenever I hear Obama repeat the "100 years of war" line, given it is misleading if not lying. I expected more from from a candidate that says he wants to change Washington. RIGHT.

BTW:
McCain continually gets attacked for saying in an interview that the economy is not his best subject. He's being quoted from a WSJ article from November 2005 where the author says McCain is "refreshingly blunt" about his economic background. (leave it to politicians to turn a positive into a negative).

In terms of throwing stones from glass houses, what exact economic background (education and/or professional) do either Hillary or Obama have? What economic theory supports erecting trade barriers (cancelling NAFTA) and raising taxes on oil suppliers in an effort to lower prices?

Haven't Democrats been complaining for the past 7.5 years that Bush is arrogant and unable to admit mistakes? So then McCain "admits" economics is not his best subject, and they attack him again and again for it. No wonder Bush refused to admit anything (to a fault).

Dyadya Vanya

Wed 2 Apr 2008 02:16 PM

Padikiller,
Try to think for second. The reason what McCain said is stupid is because our rationale for where we station our troops should have nothing to do with how "safe" they are. The troops aren't going on vacation. He's using an idiotic metric. We don't keep our troops in South Korea because they're not getting shot, we keep them there because they're protecting South Korea from North Korea. If we have troops in Iraq 50 years from now who are not getting shot, what will they be doing there? What's the external threat supposed to be? Does McCain believe Iran will be a threat to Iraq 50 years from now? Hell, maybe it will be, but even a conservative should be able to see that's a pretty negative message of no hope to be delivering to the electorate. It's nice to be blunt, but most Americans don't appreciate it honesty about bad things.

padikiller

Wed 2 Apr 2008 02:56 PM

Dya Wrote

If we have troops in Iraq 50 years from now who are not getting shot, what will they be doing there?

padikiller notes

Killing terrorists? Protecting borders? Operating forward air bases? Missile sites? Intelligence operations?

Who knows?

What's your point?

dya wrote

What's the external threat supposed to be?

padikiller responds

A few million radicalized Islamofascist extremists who are bent on the destruction of western democracies...

Dya Wrote

Does McCain believe Iran will be a threat to Iraq 50 years from now?

padikiller responds

What does Iran have to do with McCain's comments?...

Letters73

Wed 2 Apr 2008 03:10 PM

Dyadya Vanya wrote:

"McCain's remarks demonstrate that he is an irresponsible leader with no understanding of risks, costs, benefits, or any strategic give and take."

I respond:

One can legitimately attack and criticize McCain on a number of grounds, but as to this specific issue, what is more irresponsible: McCain leaving open the possibility of maintaining "a presence in a very volatile part of the world" so long as (and this is important) "Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." Or, Barrack saying that he will begin withdrawing troops immediately upon taking office. Given that most reasonable-thinking people on the left and right believe that as things stand now Iraq will fall apart as soon as we leave --- the progress we made will be undone, sectarian violence will increase, Iran will move in, etc. --- I'm afraid that Barrack trumps McCain in the "irresponsible leader with no understanding of risks, costs, benefits" derby.

xf

Wed 2 Apr 2008 03:35 PM

How imperialistic of Mr. McCain to assume that staying for 100 years is even an option. If the goal is the security of Americans, the strategy must be to stop provoking others, not promise to continue.

Suppose Iraq invaded us on the premise of restoring law and order to our corrupt nation, replaced our admittedly corrupt leader, but also took over our oil resources, and then decided to stick around for another hundred years. Would that make us more or less likely to want to attack them?

Whatever happens to Iraq after we leave is their issue to deal with, and they will do a much better job without us forcing our will on them. What happens to it while we are there is ours. As long as there are foreign invading armies in Iraq, people there will fight them. And they have the moral high ground, not us.

Staying in Iraq is as stupid as going there was in the first place. But for a potential president to be suggesting we will be staying 100 years while an active insurrection opposes our troops is a betrayal and serious threat to the troops currently there.

I'm shocked and disgusted that a man who himself was a prisoner of war is so willing to put others in that position over less than nothing.

Dyadya Vanya

Wed 2 Apr 2008 04:27 PM

Letters73,

Most Americans do not want to foot the enormous bill for maintaining military presences all across the globe indefinitely. What McCain appears to be saying is that it's America's job to play policeman to the world, and even if things calm down in Iraq, well, our troops are just going to stay right there looking for more trouble. Most Americans who are willing to support the war "as long as it takes" think that "as long as it takes" means until people stop shooting at us and Iraq calms down. McCain seems to be implying he'll take it a step beyond that - the same way we still have troops in Western Europe 17 years after the USSR collapsed. He apparently wants the US to make a permanent security commitment to the Middle East. I don't think most Americans have any interest in doing that. Why are we now the guarantors of Middle Eastern peace and prosperity? So A. this is politically a really stupid way for McCain to answer the question and b. I have to question McCain's judgement if he really believes that is the proper role for the USA.

padikiller

Wed 2 Apr 2008 04:55 PM

Now the moonbats are out in force...

Our "corrupt nation"?... Our "admittedly corrupt leader"?...

Since when did we "take over" the Iraqi "oil resources"?...

This kind of America-bashing nonsense is just too, too funny...

We still occupy Cuba and Puerto Rico 110 years after the Spanish American war...

We still occupy Germany, Italy and Japan 63 years after WWII...

To assume that we won't be in Iraq for a LONG time is just sophomoric stupidity...

LedZep

Wed 2 Apr 2008 05:14 PM

This piece is spot on. As for the critics:

Since McCain explicitly and immediately qualified his remark in a way that indisputably rules out the possibility he was talking about 100 years of war, it was indeed misleading at best for Obama to characterize the remark as referring to a war lasting 100 years. Nobody is saying troops would be there for kicks or because it would be nice for them to hang out there - again, McCain is clear on this as well.

If you're position is that he may as well be talking about war, because it's just a dangerous and bellicose policy to have permanent American military presence abroad, then you shouldn't be defending Obama, who doesn't take that position. Who has been calling for the withdrawal of troops from Germany? Kuwait? Japan? South Korea? Certainly not Obama or Clinton; among candidates it's actually only Ron Paul who takes that line. I think he's wrong about that, but at least he's consistent. Independently of that, to suggest that we're still fighting the Korean War is useless in this context. Call it war if you like, but it's not the kind of war that motivates "bring the troops home now," "no blood for ___", etc.

Again, if you already think McCain is irresponsible, bellicose, or whatever, then that's fine - you can take that view. But this piece is about the particular remark, and it's certainly right that the remark is being distorted in a pretty egregious manner. There's just no reasonable way to read McCain's comments that justify the "100 years of war" line.

David W. Lowe

Wed 2 Apr 2008 05:40 PM

The media should get on Senator Obama or Senator Clinton for any false or misleading charges about Senator McCain just as soon as they take Senator McCain to task for his false and misleading statements about Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. The media should treat all three candidates the same. It is time to stop giving Senator McCain a free ride.

tyree

Thu 3 Apr 2008 01:46 AM

Remember back in the old days when the liberal progressives said "Listen to the Generals?"
On a trip to Afghanistan, chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Stadd Gen. Peter Pace said
the US "can do whatever it is we want to do to have a dialog about how to fight this enemy. But the bottom line is that as long as our enemy is sworn to destroy our way of life, we are going to be in a war."
McCain understands that we can't surrender our way to peace. (see "French, WWII" as opposed to "French, WWI").
Obama and Clinton don't understand this simple fact of life.

Now that I think about it, I guess a country can surrender itself to peace, one last time, before it disappears. I guess that is what the Socialists, Communists, Islamists and some liberals want for the US.

weldon berger

Thu 3 Apr 2008 01:45 PM

Zach, your criticism is meaningless absent some indication of how long McCain would be willing to stay in Iraq while US troops are "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." There is nothing in McCain's public record to suggest that the answer would be different.

That aside, the question of whether it's a good idea for the US to permanently occupy a Middle Eastern country would seem to have been answered in the negative already.

padikiller

Thu 3 Apr 2008 02:19 PM

weldon berger wrote

Zach, your criticism is meaningless absent some indication of how long McCain would be willing to stay in Iraq while US troops are "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

padikiller asks

Says who?....

McCain specifically addressed a situation where Americans WEREN'T being harmed in Iraq...

This comment is just silly...

This is just latest round of the The Ole' Liberal Two-Step that we routinely see form the "professional journalist" of the MSM. Another trip to that wacky alternative reality that we know as McLearyland.

weldon berger

Thu 3 Apr 2008 03:02 PM

Actually, padikiller, McCain introduced an irrelevancy into a question aimed at determining how long he'd stick around Iraq under current conditions. Since there's absolutely no indication that US troops will ever be in the position of occupying the country without getting shot at, it's meaningless.

padikiller

Thu 3 Apr 2008 04:14 PM

weldon berger wrote

Actually, padikiller, McCain introduced an irrelevancy into a question aimed at determining how long he'd stick around Iraq under current conditions

padikiller refutes

No he didn't. He specifically responded to a question about conditions fifty years in the future. You are simply denying the plain reality here.

BTW, are you a journalist?

There was no reference, either in the question posed to McCain or in McCain's answer, to the current conditions or circumstances in Iraq.

Davol

Thu 3 Apr 2008 04:58 PM

Oh did Oboma twist McCain's own words against him. Poor McCain who gave liberals this great ammo to use against him. Sounds to me like Republicans are being treated to their own medicine here. I guess it only bothers me to see Oboma behaving like a Republican. I hope that's not what I get when I vote for him.

inmypajamas

Sat 5 Apr 2008 08:33 PM

Uh, Davol, it's ObAma. You'll miss his name on the ballot if you're looking for ObOma.

Obama is tweaking McCain probably because Soros told him that he needs to stop wasting his time going after Hillary. Obama is a smart guy; he knows exactly what he is doing. Smart, yes. Honest? Not so much.

rsf

Mon 7 Apr 2008 09:39 AM

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right?

On the one hand, we do not need candidates -- or the media! -- misquoting or misparaphrasing each other's actual words as Sen. Obama apparently has, and he is NOT justified by anything that Sen. McCain might be guilty of: no excuses please!

On the other hand, the candidates should be called for what they actual do say AND DO NOT say,including attempts to misdirect us. I don't suppose any one would care too much if we stayed in Iraq 100 years if no one was being killed--but that is all but meaningless eyewash. The question is, how long will Sen. McCain keep us in Iraq if Americans ARE being killed.

(Iraqis will be killed if we are there or we leave. I think the question is, will things be worse if we leave or worse if we stay.)

factbased

Tue 8 Apr 2008 05:58 PM

Obama misrepresented McCain's statement. McCain talks about what he'd do with a peaceful, stable Iraq. Obama just speculates on what McCain would do if Iraq continued to be violent and unstable. Obviously, McCain wants us to stay for at least a few years; Obama won't talk about getting out in less than what, 2 years from now? To stop the speculation, McCain should state just how long he's willing to tough it out if the violence and unrest continues. Otherwise it's too easy to believe he's giving an open-ended commitment to continuing the conflict.

expatriot

Fri 11 Apr 2008 09:40 AM

With David Axelrove shaping Obama's messages, what can one expect?

If the media doesn't make the effort, there's no "Truth in Advertising" in politics. But isn't it sobering that Axelrove is himself former MSM. He knows exactly what he's doing and his former colleagues are enablers in this case, as in others. Why?

Arminius

Sat 26 Apr 2008 09:59 AM

I'm beginning to think it's time to start some type of remedial reading program from liberals. This article clearly shows that Obama and the Democrats were lying about McCain's "100 years" comment. However, the liberals he apparently read the article and still concluded that Obama was not being misleading. Only an extreme partisan or someone with poor reading comprehension could draw such a conclusion.

Aaron

Tue 13 May 2008 04:42 PM

As any thinking person, conservative or liberal, knows, McCain could remove the ambiguity by uttering a simple sentence: "If American blood continues to be shed for [X] years, it will be time to withdraw."

So why doesn't he? That is, if in fact he's not willing to stay in Iraq 100 years or more, either way.

juandos

Wed 14 May 2008 04:11 AM

Good stuff Mr. Roth!

Kudos to you sir...

Post a comment

We ask our readers to express opinions in a manner respectful to the readers and writers of CJR. Criticism of ideas is strongly encouraged, but personal, ad hominem attack will result in deletion of posted comments and, after one repeat violation, banning of the individual user. CJR reserves the right to edit or delete, for reasons of content, comments submitted to CJR. We also ask users to please keep posts to the topic at hand; those wandering far afield or appearing to be spam may be deleted. Please read the complete comment policy and full legal disclaimer.

 

Name: Email Address:

URL: Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)