I'm feeling sorry for some of my journalistic colleagues who are freely letting themselves get slapped around by John McCain and his press hounds on his '100 years' in Iraq promise.
In this morning's episode of TPMtv, we noted how McCain didn't just say this once in an off-the-cuff exchange, as he's claimed. He actually said it numerous times during the primary season. And he was so into it that 100 years was actually the shortest period of time he boasted about.
Now McCain and his handlers are trying to say he wasn't talking about 'war' in Iraq or even an 'occupation' but only a 'presence' in which no US military personnel are killed and seemingly one which doesn't cost anything either.
If reporters who've bought into McCain's explanation actually think this is true, then the logical follow-up is to ask: if he is only happy continuing the 'presence' in Iraq for a century under his fantasy conditions, how long is he willing to continue it with a price tage of $100 billion and hundreds of US military fatalities a year? Or how about $50 billion and only 500 fatalities a year. If he really wants to run away from the bold commitments he made as a primary season candidate, reporters really need to do some due diligence gaming out just what he means.