I’ve got nothing to quibble with about your post except to point out one thing you probably didn’t hear because it got no play in the MSM. There’s little known factoid about the 100 years statement, which is McCain’s NEXT statement. Here’s the whole thing:
“Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — “ (cut off by McCain)
McCain: “Make it a hundred.”
Q: “Is that ...” (cut off)
McCain: “We’ve been in South Korea ... we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ...”
Q: [tries to say something]
McCain: “AS LONG AS AMERICANS ARE NOT BEING INJURED OR HARMED OR WOUNDED OR KILLED [emphasis mine] 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 and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.”
You’ve got a military background. I’ve got a military background. What on earth does that statement mean?! Why have troops forward deployed to the Middle East if you’re not going to allow them to be “injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” That’s absurd, muddled thinking, the kind of stuff you get from the far left. “Let’s support our troops by wrapping them in bubble wrap and not letting them do their jobs.” It’s the pinnacle of dangerous dilettantism.
No matter how I read it, I see nothing that makes any kind of military sense, or even any kind of logical or common sense. Which is why I can’t find it in me to be too upset if this guy doesn’t become our next CINC.
I'd heard it before. When you mentioned it in your post, I went back to youtube to watch it again, just to make sure of what I might write back to you.
I cannot interpret what in the heck the interjection means, ". . . AS LONG AS AMERICANS ARE NOT BEING INJURED OR HARMED OR WOUNDED OR KILLED . . ."
It simply doesn't fit, even if he means something like, for example, Balad Air Base will have a primarily defensive mission, like Kadena Air Base performs on Okinawa.
Kadena defends Japan (primarily against China). Balad would defend Iraq (primarily against Iran) and, of course, support the Iraqi forces in any insurgency. But even on Kadena, safely removed as it is from immediate, hostile attack, airmen are subject to potential injury, harm, wounds and death. Balad, because of its location and the region's history, could never ever be immune to injury, harm, wounds or death inflicted by hostile forces.
To be forthright, I shrugged it off as an unfortunate slip which might have had meaning to McCain when he said it, but the tyranny of language being what it is, means nothing to the rest of us.
That’s absurd, muddled thinking, the kind of stuff you get from the far left.
Yes.
I cannot deny it. That's what it sounds like.
Which is why I can’t find it in me to be too upset if this guy doesn’t become our next CINC.
One thing is certain. Obama is an awesomely effective and quick thinking speaker. In public debate against Obama . . . and even Clinton's stiff and canned speechifying . . . McCain will reveal himself.
If that kind of absurd, muddled thinking and speech becomes apparent as an effect of age or personality, he's sunk. He'll be relegated to the status of Admiral Stockdale. (Ross Perot should never have put the Admiral in that position. Still makes me want to throttle Perot.)
Thanks very much for the exchange of thoughts.