Jane persuasively argues that McCain changes his positions to attract his party’s base. I won’t disagree but I also think there is a note of genuine confusion in McCain’s flip flops. We could give him the benefit of doubt since it could be argued that he has a right to change his positions as new or additional information comes to light. McCain’s supporters could hope their candidate’s positions reflect reality. Sadly for them, many of his statements including the 100 year comment about the war don’t reflect any reality that a rational person might perceive.

McCain’s statements to Charlie Rose are indeed conflicted but his comment before the NH primary is consistent with the August 2007 comment. However, comparing Korea, Japan, and or Germany with Iraq sets up false comparisons for the reasons McCain gave in November 2007: America cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely unless we are prepared to fight a 100 insurgency. I don’t think however, McCain’s 100 year comment in February 2008 has much to do with fighting insurgency: It reflects back to his August 2007 thinking that America might have to “occupy” Iraq in a manner comparable to Korea for 100 years but he “forgot” that he changed his thinking in between thetwo statements. As McCain said in November 2007, Iraq is not Korea and thus an American occupation of the former could never be like the latter. Inasmuch as McCain has married himself so closely with the Iraq war, he has painted himself into a corner and it is fun watching him, and, his advisers and consultants squirm trying to “explain’ what he means. Quite honestly, I doubt McCain can offer an explanation because I don’t believe he knows what he means. McCain should learn to keep his mouth shut and read from a script like his hero George Bush but I doubt he will ever learn to do this and so we can expect these sorts of gaffs to continue.

Somewhere along the way, McCain’s position changed. Perhaps twice. As Think Progress reported, in August 2007, as the troops surge was underway, McCain told the Charlie Rose Show that the Korea model was “exactly” the right template for U.S. forces in Iraq. Only three months later, and on the same show, he completely reversed himself

Do you think that this – Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be,” Rose asked in November 2008.

“I don’t think so,” replied McCain.

“Even if there are no casualties?” Rose chimed in.

“No,” said McCain. “But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.”

Then, in the lead up to the New Hampshire primary, the senator famously said that he wouldn’t mind seeing the U.S. in Iraq for a hundred years, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” And when his political opponents used that statement against him, McCain responded by saying he was drawing an analogy to the current military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

And yet, when he was asked by Matthews in 2005, if he “would you be happy with [Iraq] being the home of a U.S. garrison” like Germany, McCain again said no.

The McCain campaign did not return a request for comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..99082.html

FWIW, we were checking out factcheck.org cuz that’s what Cindy Lookalike referenced.

Rev. Wright makes some really valid points. And I don’t think he’s going to line up with anyone from the federal government because it’s his job to challenge the government to do better. I don’t think he wants to be viewed as “in the pocket” of anyone. In addition, I don’t think that damages any body. sheesh.

dry, bloody, costly facts.