The John McCain campaign is pushing back hard against the Democrats' use of his "a hundred years" line. The McCain campaign does have a good point. The line has been taken way out of context and plays destructively into the politics of 30-second sound bites and gotcha moments. America faces great challenges and needs an election based on policy and overall vision. What is not needed is a fight over what party can best twist the words of the other.
While John McCain was not advocating a hundred years of war, he still has not answered the most important foreign policy question: If not 100 years, then how many? Rehashing the tired Republican taking point of "until the job is done" will not suffice. I'm not talking about a set-in-stone timetable which foolishly disregards facts on the ground, but an honest discussion with the American people about what level of commitment John McCain wants our nation to make.
Does he expect America to stop taking combat casualties during his first term, during his second term, or will America still be losing young men and women in Iraq even after he leaves the White House? After years of distortions and outright lies, it is time for a hard and honest debate. We need a measurement by which we can determine success. We need honesty about how many lives and how many billions he is prepared to commit. If McCain does not want to commit to a hundred years of war than how great a commitment is too great? Would 5 more years, 10 more years, or 20 more years be too great a sacrifice? It is time for the straight truth about Iraq from the Straight Talk Express.