Questions on McCains 100 year commitment and the media

[JohnnyRingo]

I don't understand why the media is falling all over itself to excuse McCain for his statement that he plans to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

For a week now, I've heard repeatedly that the full statement was that he would "only stay if no one is being killed or injured", implying that Americans will not mind the occupation under those circumstances. Korea and Japan are mentioned as examples.

My first question is, aren't there Americans being killed and injured now?
Does this mean McCain wants to leave now?

Of course he doesn't. He now has appended his statement with "for 100 years after we win the war".

So now McCain wants to stay in Iraq until the shooting ends.... then stay in Iraq while there's peace, unless the violence resumes... in which case we'll have to stay until the shooting ends again.

McCain has walked into a circular argument in which we stay if there's trouble, and we stay if there's peace. Under no scenario can we leave in a McCain administration. There will either be "acceptable levels of violence" allowing our occupation, or "unacceptable levels of violence" requiring our presence.

My other question is why not one opponent or pundit has pointed this out when McCain supporters claim disingenuously that "he didn't say he wants to stay for 100 years".

Am I missing some logic in this debate? Is there some liability in calling him out on this?

I'm tired of screaming at the TV every time a pol or anchor apologizes for "taking him out of context".

[endarkenment]

1. They are busily trying to immunize him on this issue.

It is their job. They know that if he spends the next 6 months explaining why endless fucked up war is a great idea he will lose the election very badly.

[k8conant]

2. Forever is a long, long time and rather expensive

to boot.