A well-presented, very misleading article. In attempting to defend McCain, it leaves several things out. After his "100 years" declaration, McCain later said that as long as there are no casualties, he wouldn't mind staying in Iraq for "one hundred years, one thousand years, ten thousand years or until the earth collapses under global climate change." Last November, responding to Charlie Rose's question if South Korea is Iraq 25 years from now, McCain said he didn't think so. (Flip-flop.) The right-wing's whitewashing of McCain's "100 years" has been described as neocons "trying to put the paste back into the tube."

The article presents a trivial quibble over McCain's wording of his position on staying in Iraq, through sound bites promoted by mainstream media. For him to imply that we could occupy Iraq "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" is fantastical. McCain's foreign policy goal implicitly demands Imperial occupation of other lands for U.S. gain, while Obama's intent appears to be movement away from occupation, at least in the Middle East. Neither candidate has articulated clear policy statements, and this article does little to clarify them.