New MoveOn Web Ad: Bush-McCain Strategy "Endless War On The Installment Plan"

"How do you get to 100 years in Iraq?," asks liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org in a new Web ad targeting John McCain.

Their answer: "Six months at a time."

The spot shows McCain, President Bush, and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making statements about the war as far back as 2003; McCain is quoted in December 2005, for example, saying "...we will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year."

As these quotes are shown, the cost of the war – in lives and dollars – is shown at the bottom of the screen, steadily increasing.

The minute long spot winds down with a McCain quote from two days ago in which the Arizona senator is quoted saying "success is within reach."

It closes with this: "The Bush-McCain strategy: Endless war...on the installment plan."

Watch it:



UPDATE: Republican National Committee Spokesman Alex Conant emails a response: "Moveon.org's strategy of retreat will leave Iraq to the terrorists and ultimately draw the U.S. into a wider and more costly war in the future. As major fact check and media organizations have confirmed, John McCain has never said that he wants the Iraq war to last 100 years – and any suggestion to the contrary is irresponsible. No one opposes war more than John McCain."

[remco82]

Well, first we went in there to find the WMD''s. None there. Then we wanted to hunt down Saddam. Bagged him. Next we were staying till they drafted a constitution. Accomplished. Next we would stay till they held a general election. Done. It''s like chasing the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. How long will Americans put up with this hooey? They get more upset when Burger King pretends to eliminate the Whopper. We''ve become a nation of proles, just like in Orwell.

[shingles1]

Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker writes about this:

But what the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn%u2019t really all that unfair. McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal%u2014that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we''ll stay.

[mattcat25]

Everyone has been attempting to hold this Administration to some sort of goal in which they would deem as a Victory. President Bush and his many (fired if they disagree) field commanders have constantly moved the goals and expectations on what we are to achieve in Iraq.

It is very factually apparent that the Republican Party whished to prolong our military involvement and occupation as long as possible in effort to divert Federal Funds to the Private Sector. Republican Presidential Nominee Senator John McCain plainly stated that the United States would stay in Iraq for as long as it takes, even if that would be 100 years%u2026he said it, and was not taken out of context as the Right Wing Spin Machine is attempting to revise what took place

Vote McCain is a vote for further corruption of our money and indefinable perpetual military conflict.

You decide.

[memekiller]

Who is saying McCain said the war should last 100 years? We all agree that he said US troops should stay in Iraq after we win. We''re all in agreement. The logical question to ask McCain is how long he''s willing to fight the war in Iraq, if Iraq continues pretty much as it is now. His answer is clear: as long as it takes. Even if it takes 100 years. And then he doesn''t care if we stay 100 more.

If he won''t stay 100 years to ensure victory, how long will he fight this war before he decides to leave, even if we don''t establish stability and democracy?

[whitepicks2]

Obama''s plan for troop withdrawal in which our troops exit at a rate of 1 - 2 brigades per month over 16 months is, in my view, a sound policy. A timetable both forcing the Iraqi government to get their act together and getting us out by June 2010.

Our troops are being asked to balance a sword on its tip. A mission suited for political leaders and diplomats, but, as we''ve seen time after time, an unsustainable situation for the military. We have lost 4,024 troops, another 30,000 wounded.

$510 billion of our tax dollars have been diverted to Iraq, instead of solving issues such as health care, the injustice of poverty, our children''s education, our crumbling infrastructure - all the while sinking us into a recession.

Some argue against setting a timetable, saying that it places our troops in "lame duck" status. To that I say that once our troops stopped being on the offensive and assumed an occupation mode they were, and are diminished in effectiveness.

As for dealing with the potentials of an intensified Sunni/Shia civil war, Iran''s influence, Al Qaeda reconstitution, and keeping peace, the Iraqi government with the security forces we''ve trained have ample time to prepare by June 2010.