John McCain says the United States could stay "100 years... 1,000... 1 million years" in Iraq. But what does he mean?
The liberal group MoveOn.org began airing ads Wednesday against Republican John McCain, citing his claim that the U.S.
Haven't we been listening to talk of "100 years" of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.
"Instead of offering an exit strategy for Iraq, (Sen. John McCain is) offering us a 100-year occupation," Sen. Barack Obama said on the fifth anniversary of the coalition’s move on the then-oppressed Iraq. But it could have been any day; Obama uses the sound bite often enough.
What the "100 years" talk refers to is something McCain rightly said in response to a question during a New Hampshire townhall meeting in January. The question regarded Bush’s statement that we could be in Iraq for 50 more years. McCain sensibly responded: "Make it 100. We’ve . . . been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."
When asked to clarify, he would go on to say that it could be 1,000 years, or even a million years. These are the lines that try Democrats’ souls. But McCain was right about the long war. It was a sensible answer. And though it doesn’t sound like the most attractive answer -- who wants 100 years in Iraq? -- it was straight talk from a senator who has a better track record on Iraq than most. And it may not hurt his campaign, either.
John McCain has been insisting that his 100 years in Iraq comment is being taken out of context. That in fact what he meant is that American troops can stay in Iraq for fifty or 100 years if American troops are no longer being attacked. This assertion leads to a whole new set of questions that reflect McCain's lack of understanding of what is going on inside Iraq.
First of all, how exactly does Senator McCain envision getting to a point where there are no American casualties in Iraq? The idea of a large American troop presence in Iraq that does not draw any fire is farfetched. What we have in Iraq today is some odd and complicated mix of numerous sectarian conflicts with Americans stuck in the middle. This isn’t Korea. There will be no armistice or Demilitarized Zone. Senator McCain has not laid out any kind of a roadmap or strategy for how we get to this idealized scenario where American forces are no longer being fired upon.
Second, how long does he think it will take to get to this end state that he envisions? Will it take 10 years? Will it take 20? 30? When under his plan do American troops stop taking casualties? It would be good to know.
Finally, there is the question of a permanent presence in Iraq and the strategic costs to the United States. One of the Bush Administration’s premises for the war in Iraq, was the idea that we needed to eliminate Al Qaeda. But one of the major inspirations for Al Qaeda, was the American presence in Saudi Arabia. In a similar way, creating a large permanent troop presence in Iraq would act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and draw anger and suspicion from all over the Arab World.
Drill, drill on the range?
It's a never-ending debate. Republicans say Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be opened for oil drilling to help America achieve energy self-sufficiency. Democrats and environmentalists say there's not enough oil in ANWR to achieve that goal -- and certainly not enough to make it worth the environmental damage.
It's hard for the United States to complain that other countries limit access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S. production reduced world prices, other countries might expand production. What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater sales.
On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies for ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.
Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will remain. Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the power of foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year. It is a task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we don't start now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow. Count on it.
I know we’ve been down this road before, but since it’s been a while, and in light of Bush’s emphasis on ANWR, it’s probably worth keeping a few details in mind that the president neglected to mention.
"Drilling in ANWR would likely produce only 3.2 billion barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, not even enough to satisfy six months’ demand; oil would not begin to reach the market for another 10 years; and it would take 50 years to extract the full amount. For this pittance, the House leadership and the administration are willing to disturb hundreds of acres of pristine wildlife habitat."
I’d just add that the NYT reported a while back that oil companies are now “largely uninterested in drilling” in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because “any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America’s needs.”
My hunch is, the White House wanted to a) look like they were offering a proposal to address the gas-price problem; and b) try to pin high prices on congressional Democrats. I’d be surprised if anyone really fell for this nonsense, but given the president’s enthusiasm, it’s worth setting the record straight.
"Harold and Kumar" stars Kal Penn (right) and John Cho yuk it up at a panel discussion at the SXSW Film Festival in March.
Anti-war films tank at the box office. Hollywood has produced bomb after bomb (so to speak) and the bombs keep coming. Will one ever hit? Well, maybe this time at pair of stoners will be just the remedy Tinsel Town needs to attract an audience and make money. Ready or not, Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay hits theaters as mainstream Hollywood's first comedy to lampoon the United States' war on terror.
The best part of the review comes at the end when Variety describes the film as, “one of the ballsiest comedies to come out of Hollywood in a long time” — proving only that Variety needs to get out more. Maybe a field trip to Wal-Mart, or something. Ballsy? If there’s a finer resume enhancer in Hollywood than trashing America and the people who defend us, I’m unaware of it.
Try to imagine in the thick of World War II, Bob Hope making a film ridiculing our side. Good heavens, even a leftie like Charlie Chaplin had the moral compass to ridicule Hitler instead of Roosevelt and Churchill.
But don’t get the wrong idea. No one’s questioning anyone’s patriotism here.
Earnest, sad, and righteous, they are not. More inspired by M*A*S*H or Dr. Strangelove than The Deer Hunter or Coming Home, a new pack of political films that defy the clichés of the post-9/11 Iraq War cinema has arrived. Rife with satire and absurdity, with more ambiguity and less agit-prop, they don't toe the MoveOn party line and go beyond the familiar war-is-hell mantra. As documentary filmmaker Michael Tucker says: "Yes, it's tragic and horrible. Duh. What else is there?"
For one, there's the bizarre madness of it at all, as shown in Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. While ostensibly a raunchy teen comedy, the film's archvillain is a racist, ignorant deputy chief of Homeland Security who sends Harold and Kumar to face the horrors of Gitmo. "While it's obviously absurd," co-writer-director Hayden Schlossberg acknowledges of the film's premise, "there's an element of truth. There have been people thrown in Guantánamo who have done nothing. We like the idea of doing something about these subjects in a way that's not serious."
"Sincerity handicaps you," explains Tucker, who co-directed a number of Iraq docs, including Gunner Palace. "Trying to be earnest about something—it does nothing to explain it," he says. "That's why the fiction films have largely failed—because people are already in that emotional place."
Deficit hawk John McCain is making the case for the stimulating effect of tax cuts.
Republican John McCain said Sunday that cutting taxes and stimulating the economy are more important than balancing the budget, and accused both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of supporting tax hikes that would worsen the impact of a recession.
The proper way to prepare to meet the entitlement challenge consists of three essential elements: Change entitlements to slow their cost growth; eliminate all nonessential spending in the remainder of the budget; and, most important but often overlooked, adopt policies that promote economic growth. The greater the economic growth, the larger the economic pie, and the greater the public and private resources available to finance entitlement obligations and other national priorities.
Last year's federal budget illustrates the importance of economic growth to the federal budget's overall health. The federal budget deficit was recorded as 1.2% of GDP, half its average level over the past four decades. This modest deficit occurred despite the fact that Congress has been on a decade-long spending binge; despite the fact that not a single entitlement program has been significantly reduced since the late 1990s and two entitlements, Medicare and farm support payments, have been significantly increased; and despite the fact that we are in the midst of costly but necessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The consensus that tax increases are needed for fiscal balance is wrong. The next president can fund our defense priorities, maintain tax cuts, and balance the budget. A tax-increase consensus blurs the basic debates over our budget priorities in 2008 -- and severely limits our choices in 2028.
The federal deficit halfway through this budget year is at an all-time high, the Treasury Department announced Thursday, and the national debt is growing as well. But before we blame Washington politicians for their irresponsibility, stupidity and cowardice -- and we should -- we may want to look at another culprit: the American people. We, too, bear some responsibility for our $9 trillion federal debt and $50 trillion in governmental promises of future benefits.
Yes, cutting taxes and increasing spending is irresponsible, as is allowing Medicare and Medicaid costs to rise so quickly, as is failing to achieve a long-term fix for Social Security and retirement security, as is developing (and protecting) a Byzantine tax code and dysfunctional budget process, as is pork. Yada yada yada. Washington deserves a lot of blame for the growing national debt, despite some genuinely thoughtful and courageous leaders, and must take the lead in solving the nation's fiscal problems.
But we share the blame. We want lower taxes but more government services. We go to great and morally questionable lengths to avoid paying the taxes that we now owe. We want to stop working as early as possible and draw retirement benefits for as long as possible.
Is the United States still looking for this man?
More than six years after the 9/11 attacks, the United States still does not have a coherent plan to destroy a key staging area for terrorist attacks into the country, according to an independent government watchdog.
Still, the administration's answer to this "clear and present danger" is to send more aid to Musharraf and trust that he will take care of our problem for us. We are still farming out the battle to Muslim generals who in spite of the diplomatic rhetoric and posturing clearly do not have our best interests at heart.
The strategy is at odds with the Bush doctrine of preemption. The head of the CIA has now verified that at least a remote part of Pakistan -- essentially a break-away Islamic province -- is harboring America's Enemy No. 1 and presenting a direct and urgent threat to the homeland.
Instead of carpet-bombing the terror camps and safe houses there (as opposed to the occasional drone-fired missile), we're playing a dangerous game of wait-and-see. If we have intelligence specific enough to know the type of terrorists al-Qaida's training along the Pakistan border, why aren't we acting on it?
This GAO report may be the most damning condemnation of the Bush administration's counter-terrorism efforts. The report goes on to say that the Bush administration has failed to develop any plan to address the Al Qaeda threat. Worse, the report finds that Al-Qaeda is now able to attack the United States and represents the "most serious" threat to this country.
The report's opinion of the Bush administration efforts speaks for itself. Not only have we not met our goals but we have no plan to meet our goals. Al-Qaeda can now attack the United States. Al Qaeda in Pakistan is the most serious threat. Al-Qaeda is using the Pakistan tribal areas to put the finishing touches on its plans to attack the United States.
It is really not a good thing to have incompetent people running this country.
