McCain says it's "fine" with him for American troops to stay in Iraq for one hundred years, assuming that there's no violence. But if Iraq becomes peaceful, and there is no violence, why would U.S. military forces even be needed in Iraq? There is no logic to explain McCain's position. If there is violence in Iraq, we have to stay. If there's no violence in Iraq, we will still stay. Why?
This is pure authoritarian, right-wing, illogical, monkey-brained pandering. McCain has taken on the indefensible Bush mindset that Americans have to show the world who's boss. He claims to hate war, but never ceases in his singular effort to remain in two of them, and makes threats to start another one.
Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says that any proposed agreement should be put to a public referendum, allowing Iraqis to vote on whether to accept it. That sounds like the best idea anybody has had about Iraq since 2003. Is al-Sadr a bigger supporter of democracy than George Bush and John McCain? If Sadr wants to allow the citizens to decide for themselves how they will be governed, and our president and Republican nominee want to prevent them from deciding for themselves, who is the more ardent defender of freedom and democracy?
George Bush and John McCain say they want a democracy in Iraq. If they mean what they say, they should give them a chance to have one. They should actively encourage a public referendum.
Because that's what is important to Iraqis. And that's what should be important to Americans.
By JC Garrett
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
