MoveOn promotes McCain "100 years" myth

MoveOn.org is running an ad that reinforces the myth that John McCain wants to continue the Iraq war for 100 years:

Hi, John McCain; this is Alex. He’s my first. So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog — that, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can’t have him.

As I've written before, McCain didn't say what the ad suggests. Here's the New York Times fact-check:

In several forums last January, Mr. McCain said he could envision a United States troop presence in Iraq for 100 years or more. But he did not mean to advocate a prolonged war, and he was clearly speaking in terms of a peace-keeping presence. The quotation Democrats most commonly refer to was from a town-hall-style meeting on Jan. 3 in Derry, N.H., when a voter mentioned that President Bush had spoken of “staying in Iraq for 50 years.” Mr. McCain interrupted to say, “Maybe 100.” But his comment came in the context of a broader lecture equating such a decades-long mission to American troop deployments in South Korea and Japan. He had also included a pretty big “if,” saying that such an enduring presence in Iraq, “would be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

Update 6/21 8:43 AM: Also, as commenters note, John McCain won't be president when "Alex" reaches draft age and he certainly won't be president in 100 years.

Comments

[geofferygellineck]

Good god that is insipid. That new Obama ad is very good, but this one is beyond the pale. I know they are not stupid, I am left with assuming intentional deceit.

Besides the mischaracterization of his comments, noone is coming to get Little Alex. Alex can avoid military service, but it will be difficult. He will have to be wily and ever-vigilant to avoid accidentally joining the armed services.

Oi. Reminds of my hippie aunt and uncle who raised my nephew to be groovy. Two years ago he joined the Marines and is presently in Iraq. I am not trying to diss my A+U, I love them too!

[Raleighite]

I agree the ad is bad, and a terrible idea from MoveOn.
However, I don't think you can say that Little Alex can avoid the military service. Who knows what will be happening when today's babies are eighteen? We've had a draft before, and we can have it again.
The biggest problem with this is that it has major potential to backfire. I can see now the reaction of MANY people who will say that this Mom is okay with OTHER people's children going to war to defend her freedoms, but her own child should be above military service. Obviously that is not the intended message, but it will still be what some people will take away.

[Jack Tanner]

Poor Alex - his mommy is going to make all his decisions for him. He's like the kids on my soccer team who want to sit on mommy's lap instead of play. Probably best for all that he not choose the military as their tolerance for whiny crybabies is a lot less than he'll probably be used to.

[Kevin]

Jack beat me to it. Mom won't let little Alex serve in his country's volunteer military when he's of legal age because she needs him around to make her heart pound.

ANd how old is that kid? Will McCain be able to "have" him in 2026?

Stupid.

[Rob]

Last time I looked, the only national politician advocating a return of the draft was Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who represents Harlem and part of the Upper West Side. I'm expecting to see the MoveOn ad targetting Rangel any day now.

[Howard]

Yeah, the ad seems to overshoot in terms of pulling on the old heart-strings.

But in terms of the actual McCain statements – “Mom” doesn’t say we’ll be fighting in Iraq for 100 years, just that McCain says we may be there that long (securing the peace or in some other role) and that maybe it will put Jr. at risk.

Repeating the “100 years” quote gives McCain a chance to explain his foreign policy/military plan for Iraq. He can use that ad campaign as a springboard to sell his message of progress in Iraq - why we're there, what we need to achieve, what the goals are, when they might be met - if he wants to.

Maybe a 100 year commitment to fight is exactly what McCain thinks we have to be ready to stand behind – to show the insurgents we are committed to the fight (isn’t that an argument we hear – the need not to back down?)

If the McCain camp ran an ad, for example, showing the Mom of a killed soldier saying Obama is willing to “surrender the gains” we have made in Iraq I think it would be just as fair a political statement - and equally sentimental or false. But again, it only “works” if Obama doesn’t articulate his plan and his goals.

[Rob]

It's worth noting that in the Washington, DC market, this ad is being run not by MoveOn but by AFSCME's political arm. Big Labor's big money rears its head.

[Jack Davis]

I can't wait until the election is over. Partisan nonsense rules the airwaves. I have two questions:
1.How would McCain guarantee that American troops in Iraq in a hundred years would not be attacked or killed? We don't seem to be popular now.
2. How could McCain, who will serve no more than 8 years, have any influence over whether they are still in Iraq in 2108?

Just curious...

[Seth]

The ad doesn't say anything about war. It refers to "stay[ing] in Iraq for 100 years" which IS what McCain said. How is it that MoveOn is promoting a myth?

You're putting additional information in their mouth and then blaming them for the content. Sure voters could get the wrong idea if they're poorly informed, but here's a news flash: Poorly informed voters have lots of wrong ideas. Heck, 60+ percent thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 in 2003.

[ZacC]

Seth,
It's obvious the ad is referring to the "hundred years of war" version of McCain's statement.

Few people would actually oppose having their children serving in the military and sitting on a base in Iraq if it was a peaceful, stable country like Japan. Such a scenario is not very controversial or much of an issue and certainly wouldn't make much of an enticing subject for a MoveOn ad.

In the case of this ad, MoveOn is implying (although not explicitly stating) that McCain intends for the US to stay in Iraq for another hundred years, regardless of the situation there. MoveOn makes it look like McCain is intransigent (if not warmongering), even though he has clearly stated conditions for a continued US presence in Iraq.

[Seth]

ZacC,

I don't know that it's true to say that "few people would actually oppose having their children serving in the military and sitting on a base in Iraq if it was a peaceful, stable country like Japan."

While I have no children, I would object to such an action because I oppose permanent bases in Iraq on the grounds that it portrays us as a colonial or imperial power to the host nation.

And while I concede that I'm probably in a minority, I would guess that I'd find more kindred spirits in MoveOn. Ergo, It is entirely possible that this is what they're talking about.

I will concur however that the ad COULD BE misleading, as to whether that is their intent, such things are unknowable.

If one watches the MoveOn commercial, then watches the YouTube video of McCain's "100 years" statement, Seth's "intention to mislead" question answers itself -- at least for anyone with an inclination to judge honestly.

MoveOn is the John Birch Society of the new millennium -- supremely self-righteous, partisan past the point of dishonesty, hateful of those with different opinions, blind to their own hypocrisy, seeing conspiracies of lies, greed and power behind everyone, however honest or good-intentioned, who opposes them.

Soon this "nasty soulmates" perception will be conventional wisdom by the way.

[Jinchi]

If one watches the MoveOn commercial, then watches the YouTube video of McCain's "100 years" statement, Seth's "intention to mislead" question answers itself -- at least for anyone with an inclination to judge honestly.

I seem to remember that the original YouTube video was enough to put McCain on the defensive in the first place. MoveOn's ad forces McCain to keep defending his position on Iraq - which, frankly, still seems to be that we'll be there as long a he has anything to say about it (whether Americans are getting killed or not).

Here's a more complete transcript of the McCain quote, which was an answer in a townhall-style meeting this past winter. To an fair-minded observer, McCain's meaning is clear; therefore so is MoveOn's (and many others', including the Obama staff's and Howard Dean's) dishonesty.

McCain:

"... Make it one hundred [years of US military presence in Iraq]... we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world ..."

[ZacC]

Jinchi,
The issue here is not whether we should stay in Iraq for another hundred years. As Brendan notes, one can reasonably debate that. The issue here is MoveOn's dishonesty. If one can be disingenuous but raise an important issue, that's acceptable with you?

Seth,
You seem to be taking a literal approach to the MoveOn ad. To be specific, MoveOn does not clearly state that McCain wants a hundred years of war in Iraq, so any such impression or conclusion is the fault of the viewer, not that organization.

This approach does not allow one to "read between the lines" and gives more subtle forms of dishonesty a free pass. In an earlier post, you noted that most Americans thought Saddam had a connection with 9/11. This impression was likely created by the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq (it certainly wasn't spontaneous). Your approach would not allow one to place the blame for the false impression on the Bush's administration but, instead, on the Americans for believing Saddam had a 9/11 connection.

As for MoveOn's target audience, I believe it's your typical American parent, the vast majority who have little opposition to US bases in peaceful regions, rather than those liberals who oppose a US military presence elsewhere in the world (or see it as a form of imperialism).

[Jinchi]

If one can be disingenuous but raise an important issue, that's acceptable with you?

I don't see the MoveOn ad as disingenous at all and certainly not dishonest.

In fact your defense of McCain (we'll stay in Iraq if it's peaceful and stable like Japan) is simply not his fundamental position. His position is that we can't leave Iraq until we've had "victory". I believe the phrase "collapse of civilization" pops up occasionally.

So if the high levels of violence continue, or the violence surges again to last year's peak - then we aren't leaving. That's McCain's position. That's the position MoveOn opposes. And that's why his 100 years comment is controversial.

[Seth]

I leave reading between the lines to folks more expert than I.

I do think that there is a legitimate criticism of a policy of permanent or semi-permanent occupation (regardless of whether or not we are in a state of war) and MoveOn is making that case here.

As a previous person suggests any suggestion that McCain favors a "100 year war" is someone arguing in bad faith. But that's not what they said. Reading beliefs into others statements that aren't there is what a previous poster calls "seeing conspiracies of lies, greed and power behind everyone".

As to my reference about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, that is precisely my point. It isn't the Bush administration's fault the American people were mistaken. It's the fault of the people for not challenging their own assumptions, and seeking out good information.

I would contend that the faulty Iraq/AlQueda connection had a lot more to do with uninformed Americans (some in the media) that didn't see a distinction between a secular totalitarian Sunni government (Hussein), and a radical Shia cleric (bin Laden). As far as they were concerned and Arab is an arab, but by the point we were experiencing buyers remorse pinning the blame on the elephant became in vogue. So of course it was the administration's fault. Gone are all traces that the citizen was in dereliction of his duty to be informed and participatory.

The administration is to blame for a fair number of problems in our nation at the moment, but lets not pretend that we didn't go romping along on the war party willingly.

Seth, your statement

"I do think that there is a legitimate criticism of a policy of permanent or semi-permanent occupation (regardless of whether or not we are in a state of war) and MoveOn is making that case here"

is baloney.

One doesn't need to read between the MoveOn's lines to see that. If, in its ad, MoveOn were criticising US military presences (If you think these presences are "occupations" you really need to look into them) in places such as South Korea and Japan, MoveOn would have mentioned these countries, AS McCAIN DID, prominently, in the very comment the MoveOn ad is misrepresenting. Instead MoveOn's ad mentions only Iraq. Brendan and everybody else knows why MoveOn does that.

By the way, bin Laden is a radical Sunni. not Shia. You are right about most media figures' and most Americans' former lack of knowledge in this area -- and in the often misreported "fundamentalist/secular" divide too. I think your mistake may be in thinking they understand it now.

[Nyhannegater]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/the-choice.html

[Howard]

I have lost the point that "nameless" is trying to make. The fault may be mine, of course.

“MoveOn”, as a group, seem genuinely outraged that the US went to war preemptively. I think Move-On is generally asking this : what does McCain want to accomplish in Iraq, and how and when.

They have certainly simplified the issue (if bringing real people and their lives into the equation is a simplification) but I don't see why you believe they are being dishonest.

You have a long list of disreputable adjectives ("supremely self-righteous, partisan past the point of dishonesty, hateful of those with different opinions, blind to their own hypocrisy, seeing conspiracies of lies, greed and power behind everyone, however honest or good-intentioned, who opposes them...") but it would better serve your argument to give some examples or elaborations.

Invective, standing by itself, doesn't add to the discussion.

My answer to commenter Howard was wiped out an hour or so after it was shown on this page (why did that happen, Brendan?). As best as I can remember, here it is:

Below are some examples to justify the invective:

A) MoveOn's "General Betray-Us" ad

B) MoveOn's "Bush is Hitler" ads

C) MoveOn's "John McCain, don't you dare kidnap my cute little baby and make him fight your 100 year war in Iraq" ad

[Howard]

A few responses...

The "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad did miss the mark (in my humble opinion), but the point appeared to be trying to question if the general was capable of speaking with objectivity.

I do think it was wrong to prejudge his testimony (or his motives) and I don't think the military should be made accountable for the foreign policy decisions made by others. Still, the question being raised was – “is Petraeus presenting a military opinion or a political (Foreign Policy) opinion”?

It was a valid question but directed at the wrong individual (and one I would indeed consider "honest & good-intentioned").

***

MoveOn never created an ad "saying Bush is Hitler".

There was ad that was apparently shown for a short period of time, as part of an open submission program on their site, but it wasn’t theirs.

It also didn't exactly equate Bush with Hitler - it compared what the film maker thought were certain similar tactics employed by each toward swaying public opinion.

Yes, given the Hitler legacy it’s still a shocking comparison (which led to that video being removed from their site) but it isn't what you say it was ("Bush is Hitler").

Of course others have invoked the name of Hitler themselves, to warn about failing to "face up to evil"…

Additionally, Move.On pulled the video and apologized for every letting it appear on their site. It was never even run as an "ad". (BTW, I think there were two of them, not one).

***

The McCain ad is the item in question now, where apparently you also see sinister motives.

I just don't see exactly where they are being "self-righteous", "hateful" or "hypocritical". I don't agree with all their positions or how the 'message' their campaigns, but I don't see how you can assign these characteristics to them.

I think you are correct in your factual points.

The Bush / Hitler "pieces" (I'm not sure what to call them, if not "ads" intended to sell MoveOn's point of view) were made by interested parties in response to MoveOn's solicitation for anti-Bush "pieces". These pieces were hosted on the MoveOn site until outraged viewers made a fuss. I'm told one of the pieces showed Hitler's face morphing into Bush's (or vice versa). I'm told the other piece juxtaposed Bush speaking and Hitler speaking. Perhaps the pieces did not actually say "Bush is Hitler".