Everyone and their dog is jumping on the bandwagon. The generals in the Pentagon are realizing what a drain this occupation is on the efforts in Afghanistan. Maliki realizes how unpopular this occupation has become with Iraqis and now supports the plan. Even George W. Bush is on board with his own competing "time horizon".

Where does that exactly leave John McCain and his "one hundred years war"?

Where does that exactly leave John McCain and his "one hundred years war"?

Offhand: Solidly in the Obama camp! ;)

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki

<link>

Link please to McCain's comment that he wants the "war" to last 100 years...

<link>

That must have taken you all of 5 seconds to Google up RS.

HST is suffering from Time Horizon Blackout Syndrome (THBS) this morning. ;)

RScommon:

<link>

Funny, I heard him specifically say "as long as the troops aren't being wounded or killed." Does that sound like WAR to you?

stinker12:

That must have taken you all of 5 seconds to Google up RS.

HST is suffering from Time Horizon Blackout Syndrome (THBS) this morning. ;)

Funny, I heard him specifically say "as long as the troops aren't being wounded or killed." Does that sound like WAR to you?

I tell ya, John McCain has a huge YouTube problem.

Link me to where RS said "wants" to last 100 years.

If we have troops occupying a foreign nation against their will, I would call that a war. Wouldn't you?

JesseD:

Link me to where RS said "wants" to last 100 years.

What part of "100 year war" don't you understand? Sheesh...

so what does that imply?

we could be in iraq for 100 years 'as long as the troops aren't being wounded or killed'? what the fuck does that mean? we get to turn tail and run if war resumes under the mccain plan? how is that any better than obama's plan to withdraw when things are relatively peaceful?

so mccain reserves the right to withdraw troops if we actually get in to a war and our troops might get 'wounded or killed'?

what kind of commitment is that? if obama's for withdrawal sooner rather than later and mccain allows withdrawal only later if they start getting wounded or killed, how is mccain's scenario any better than obama's?

and this is tried and true experience speaking for you? gimme a break. pure idiocy.

"Where does that exactly leave John McCain and his "one hundred years war"?

Free and clear. His early support of the surge is validated and the war ceases to be an issue.

As for "hundred years war," you are doing a sgtreservist with your misquotes. Just a left-handed Bushiehead, aren't you?

He has clearly stated that he doesn't care how long it takes. Americans, the generals in the Pentagon, Maliki, even Junior all care how long it takes. He's the odd man out. I reckon the GOP will have new candidate come convention time. Mark my words.