McCain on Iraq: "Eliminate" Casualties or "Keep Them Down"?

John McCain says he's fine staying in Iraq for 100 years. On ABC's this week, he seemed to offer two sets of circumstances under which we'd stay that long. "How long? It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of casualties. If we can eliminate American casualties, that's the key to the success." But then he says "if we can keep casualties down" which is nuanced, but much different. 100 years times "casualties down" is a LOT of American casualties. Which is it? And if it's the elmination standard, how many years is McCain willing to stay in Iraq until we get to that point of no casualties?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• john
• mccain
• iraq
• 100
• years
• casualties
• down

[pig5689]

McCain is the most loathsome man in politics. The war in Iraq costs $2-billion each and every week. Only 60% of this is for supporting our military. The remaining 40% ($800-million) is paid to private contractors, like Haliburton, Blackwater, etc. The ravenous industrialists (and Big Oil) profiting from our presence in Iraq and the Middle East are keeping John McCain in a methamphetamine-induced stupor. They will do all they can to make sure McCain stays aware (& awake), able to whore.