Q. What fantasy world does McCain live in where we continue to occupy Iraq and have no casualties?

[flpoljunkie]

I write this because CNN is at this moment defending John McCain yet again on the "100 years comment." At least Dana Bash did finally point out that the GOP did the same thing to John Kerry re the "I voted for it before I voted against it"--minus any explanation of what Kerry really meant. The media made no effort to explain what Kerry really meant--though today they work overtime to defend John McCain. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell defended McCain on this every day for a week on her new show--minus the day she was out--and she's done it since!

It's fair game, McCain. Get over it!

[LawSchoolLiberal]

1. A world...

A world where the people we're fighting are uniformed armies, or at least forces acting on behalf of a defined power. He keeps referring to Japan, Germany and Korea. The problem, of course, is that all of those conflicts included surrenders or ceasefires. Of course, even if some of the forces active in Iraq are indirectly supported by states, there is no defined power structure, so no government can tell them to lay down their arms.

[flpoljunkie]

4. I truly think McCain is dangerous. Who would feel safe with his finger on the red button?

[anonymous171]

2. Corporate media is facing extinction.

[Aloha Spirit]

3. I dunno, maybe this world?

[flpoljunkie]

5. Kick!

[karynnj]

6. The other difference is that Kerry's when explained made sense

Kerry, in fact, was answering questions at a rally and was asked about his No vote on funding. He explained in detail the two different votes, what they were, how he voted, and how they were different. He was within a few minutes asked the same question by a heckler and answered in the unfortunate shorthand after saying he already answered. The media went beyond not explaining - they went out of their way to play dumb. With McCain, that qualification was likely added after the fact after he said the 100 years in exaggeration. The problem is that McCain is smart enough to know that that qualification won't happen.

To paraphase Kerry, in McCain's case there is a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying situation, if he thinks that it is possible in the near term to have Americans there with no violence. Our presence is drawing the violence there.

Here is a link to Kerry (at about 1:22 minutes in) speaking of this saying that McCain ignores what our intelligence people say. http://www.johnkerry.com/multimedia/video - first video with Chris Wallace.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Thanks, Karynnj. A link to bookmark.

[karynnj]

8. You are welcome

I thought Kerry's response was 100% on target, because it lets McCain get his correction - then challenges the answer as McCaim finalized it. Very classy - avoiding the quibble over the added qualification - and in some ways is a stronger condemnation. The condemnation though comes from the facts Kerry cites - that our own intelligence doesn't foresee a peaceful Iraq, like Korea or Germany. It leaves the viewer to question if McCain is lying or ignoring the facts. This does require believing Kerry, but he has been consistently correct.

[flpoljunkie]

9. I listened to the entire segment. Kerry was very good, despite Wallace's constant interruptions to

try and score points. Wallace is an insecure interviewer.

I thought particularly striking was when Kerry said that McCain is now contradicting himself on staying in Iraq after telling Charlie Rose otherwise.

[karynnj]

10. He was very good - which is why the stories of

the Clintons saying he is dead to them are stupid. If we are so unfortunate to end up with HRC as the nominee, he has said he "will work his heart out" to elect the Democrat. No one has been as consistently good on so many issues against McCain. The Clintons have spent more time praising McCain than countering him.