Is Kerry seriously saying that we (the troops' families) care more about when they come home than whether they live or die!? We could keep parsing the reactions and the reactions to the reactions out like a fun house wall of mirrors. This is ridiculous.

When they come home is not as important as how their missions are managed to keep them as safe as possible and accomplishing the overall mission. I agree with that.

I wonder how long it will take for someone to pull out, "But they're over there fighting/dying/killing innocents/putting themselves in harms way for nothing/a lie!" It's been a mere 5 minutes since I've heard that gem.

I'm against the war and against McCain, but I think he's making a reasonable point here: we wouldn't be so concerned with getting troops out of Iraq if being stationed in Iraq were like being stationed in Japan or in Germany. Sure, literally, he said when the troops come home isn't important, but that's not the gist of what he's saying.

All McCain is saying here is that we have troops stationed all over the world. The relevancy isn't when soldiers as a whole are "coming home". It's how many are never going to see home again. Which is... completely right.

Now Sarah, I'm the only here who says that, and I've been quiet.

Dammit John! Did you learn nothing from the 100 years hulabaloo??

Personally I'd rather have my husband come home alive than fast, but hey... what do I know...

It's aggravating when sound bytes like this are used just to make someone sound foolish. Can we start ripping apart actual opinions instead of quotes that are shortened to appear offensive?

OK question....

I've been thinking about the tie to South Korea, Germany, and Japan. In those cases the US entered negotiated ceasefire or surrender agreements. (Which included geopolitical adversaries like China and the USSR.)

If our presence in Iraq is going to look like those situations, will we negotiate some sort of cease fire with our adversaries? Who would they be?

i don't see that it has to be either/or.
i also get depressed to think that we will have troops there permanently like we do in other countries.
and i also want to honor you have family members there.

Nothing against you, steph.

That was brought on more by something I overheard this morning (As a general note to the liberally-inclined, I think it might do your position some good if you guys implemented some sort of screening process. The 14 year-old anarchists with B.O. who can't string a sentence together and have never held a job, yet have somehow managed to assemble solutions to all of the world's ills aren't doing you any favors. If you weed them out I promise we'll try and deal with the crazy religious nutcases on our side).

I am not going to hold this against McCain, as I think that the candidates talk 24/7, and sometimes it comes out a bit wrong. I think policy positions that they have thought long and hard about are more telling than awkward phrasing.

That being said, I DO think it matters how long troops are there for a number of reasons. Of course we dont want any more troops harmed than necessary, but there are other consequences as well. Our long term presence fuels extremist opposition, it costs hundreds of billions of dollars, and uses resources that could be addressing other major risks to international security. I think we need to be honest and objective in looking at our presence in Iraq and decide if it does more harm than good. I think anyone looking at the tens of thousands of protesters in Iraq in opposition to the US Iraqi agreements would see that our presence has consequences. For international security, we need to be very sensitive to be seen as a helpful force and not an occupational force.

"Is Kerry seriously saying that we (the troops' families) care more about when they come home than whether they live or die!?"

I did not get this from what Kerry said at all.

I made the point clumsily, Jillness. Let me try again...

McCain said that when the troops come home is not what is important. The number of casualties are important.

Kerry's response was that that was out of touch because when the troops come home is the most important thing of all to us (the troops' families).

I'm saying that pretending that what Kerry said was we care more about when they come home than casualties is as ridiculous as Kerry pretending McCain said he believed troops' families don't care when they come home.

Yah, that's still clumsy. But, my point was that we could parse sound bytes back and forth here and completely ignore the actual positions, but that would be ridiculous.

Did that make more sense...?

Liberty - That's a good question and not easily answered in the space of a Sugar comment. Clearly, this war has been different from past wars from the get go and is unlikely to morph into a traditional situation at any point. We still have the ability to negotiate standing bases with the recognized governments of any given country whether or not the "adversaries" fighting within that country choose to cease fire.

What would the strategic benefit be and what would the consequences be are the real questions within your question, I think...

I think that McCain's comparisons to Japan and Germany are misleading. It's true that we have troops stationed there, but we're not fighting or defending ourselves in those other countries. We're at war in Iraq.

His comment about the troops coming home as being "not too important" was definitely not the best language to make his point.

And obviously the troops are better alive than dead. That goes without saying right? But it's a false choice between being away, and being dead. They can be home AND be alive.

Liberty I don't think we really know who needs to sign on to an agreement, if there even is an agreement. The current leadership is saying we can forget freedom of movement if there's an agreement and al-Malik keeps saying the clock is running on our presence. Those are our 'friends.'

I think knowing who we can make peace with falls under the category of "exit strategy" which we did not and do not have.

al-malik is incapable of running his own country, he has failed to put together a solid military or leadership and the fact that he has the audacity to say "our time there is limited" only strenghtens the argument that he is a mere puppet of iran. anyhoo,i think the point that kerry is trying to make is that the less time they are there, the less risk they have of injury or death. for mccain to say we should be focused on casualities instead of the length of time we are there, well if the troops werent there then they wouldnt be dying over there.
liberty-if we were fighting a country, it would be easier to negogiate a cease fire the influence of al qaeda in iraq is waning and now we are basically fighting citizens who have armed themselves againist us.

IMO, I think Kerry was saying that to have a family member overseas is a huge sacrifice, and it shouldn't be treated lightly. But I do agree that analizing every word of each candidate isn't productive.

I also think that even someone who thinks about Iraq like McCain does should be working towards an exit strategy. Exiting should be a goal we try to attain as soon as our goals are met. As I said before, there are some big negatives when it comes to our presence in Iraq and international security.

thats what saddens me the most jillness, the fact that as a vet, mccain doesnt see the need for a solid exit strategy. his comments of a 100 years and the recent one, support that

Why does he need to publicize an exit strategy?

UD, I think the most important aspect of it is to let the Iraqis know that we aren't planning on colonizing/occupying their country. I don't think he needs to "publicize" his exact plan, but it should be a priority of the next President to get us out of Iraq as soon as our goals are accomplished. I think our goals will vary with whoever becomes President, but regardless, we should have an objective to work towards.

“I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.

“I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.” –John McCain

oh and this

What do you think of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki meeting with Ahmadinejad in Iran? It was surprising to me, because al-Maliki has been the main contact for Iraq, and if the Bush adminstration was tuned into them and their needs and their progress...why would he consider this ok given his "appeasement" stance? Since they did not mention it before it happened, it seemed as if it was a surprise.

Why has McCain not addressed this development?

"But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East..."

See...that is the thing. Obama has NOT said that he would withdraw "regardless" of the consequences. If McCain isn't going to represent Obama accurately, then maybe he doesn't have a point.

all of mccains comments have pointed towards him believing that we will be there indefinetly, he has never even mentioned the words exit strategy nor does it seem like he believes that we need one.

here you go:
Those gains would be lost if we were to follow the policy advocated by Senator Barack Obama to withdraw most of our troops and leave behind only a small “strike force” to battle terrorists. That is, in essence, the same strategy of withdrawing from Iraq’s streets that failed in 2006. John McCain advocates continuing the successful counterinsurgency strategy that began in 2007.

flutter he doesn't just "want them there" read his site to find out specifics.

i dont think mccain "wants them there" but i do truly believe that he does not forsee our exit out, his offhand comments support that theory.

well read his REAL STANCE on the issues and don't focus on soundbytes.

I'm starting to sound like Jill!

He doesn't foresee telling us, the public. There's a difference. You don't talk about leaving until the job is almost done. We've got more important things to accomplish in Iraq.

whats his real stance? gw had a real stance of controlled spending and small governnment when he ran and now we have a large government and a deficit. i would much rather listen to the soundbytes that come of out of the horses mouth rather than read what sounds good to a young republican intern

So you believe all the soundbytes coming out of Obama's mouth? Bitter? Wright? etc. etc.????

Because if you do with one, I'm assuming you do with all.

Especially since McCain is not Bush and he's FAR from Bush.

and who is a republican intern?

I assume you also think Michelle isn't proud to be an american?

No Sy, she is a proud American, now. This is the first time she's EVER been proud to be an American...

i think the thing with wright is irrelavent just as i thought the thing with hagee is irrelevant and yes i understood the bitter comment because its kinda true. the republican intern was a smart ass comment referring who writes those blurbs on those sites. sorry i just dont see mccain sitting down in his robe with a mug of cocoa writing on his website, im pretty he (like all the others) pay someone to do that. i wasnt comparing gw to mccain, my point is that its a whole different ballgame when your running. the only thing you can do to gain some insight into politicians is read between the lines

im sure michelle obama never thought for a minute whether or not she was a proud american until that moment.

Ok. But reading between the lines is one thing, but ONLY listening to SOUND bytes is about as stupid and pointless as it can get.

I just love this double standard. Obama says something that is a "slip" and it's FOCUS on the ISSUES, McCain slips and you SAY that all you listen to is what he says in 10 second bytes and don't even want to LEARN what he has said on the issues regardless if he wrote it or "an intern" (which I doubt an intern would ever get that special of an assignment).

i dont only listen to soundbytes believe or not i pay attention.

I mean seriously, this is what I look like right now

read your comment number 35!!!!

here it is "i would much rather listen to the soundbytes that come of out of the horses mouth rather than read what sounds good to a young republican intern"

i never said obama's comement was a slip, he truly believes those guys are bitter just as mccain doesnt have an exit strategy for this war.

please tell me how I'm misinterpreting this, because I don't see it.

What are you saying flutterpie? Are you implying that Michelle has lived a priveledged lifestyle, and never thought how blessed she was to have the opportunities that she had, until then? Sounds pretty self-centered to me.

Gotta go put kids to bed. Be back in a bit (like an hour)