TPMtv: 100 Years of Quietude?

Dear all @ Veracifier, I am an englishman, living in Denmark, who is wanting to get some reasonably useful impression of US debate of US politics; and one of my most frequently checked resources is your video-blog site. Well aware that each resource may have its bias, eg the clear (Obama) Democrat slant of your reporting, I try to find something like a representative selection of political leanings. Values not being facts, I do not consider, even overt, political bias to be troubling. What I do listen closely for, however, is the blindness of prejudice; whether or not the quality of judgment, of argument, of perception, is degraded in favour of a prejudicially preferred account. The presence of such blindness essentially degrades the worth of the resource. Your recent coverage of Senator McCain's remarks, regarding his willingness to see a long-term presence of the US military in Iraq, is most surely an example of the degrading effect of prejudicial blindness. The ability of Veracifier staff to penetrate and elucidate complexities is evident in your back catalogue, and the succeses in targeting decisive subtleties is laudable. However, as this coverage of McCain's remarks continues it is becoming clear that it is only this story that is being reported well below what is otherwise Veracifier's high standard, and so any lack in clarity of perception should not be prima facie considered to be any inherent myopia, but rather a willfully prejudicial deception. When McCain said that his early remark was made as part of a 'town-hall exchange' or 'back-and-forth' remarks, it was clear that he was not contrasting this with 'on-message' prepared remarks, as you suggest. Rather, he clearly meant to contrast it with his usual clarity of presentation (and one could only wish it were matched by an equal clarity of consideration), such that it is evidential to the attentive that his aim was to unpick the question he was answering - by means of attempting polemically to show the unclarity of the asked question. How long should the US stay in Iraq? Well, we have been in Japan for sixty years.. (are you the questioner also concerned about that?). McCain was, albeit inelegantly, separating as distinct two issues: a) US military presence, b) US military engagement. So then, 100 years, one 1000, 10,000 of US presence - without casualties - then, well, fine.. Entirely regardless of whether one agrees that the distinction made is valid in thought, or achievable in practice (given an assessment of the medium to long-term prospects in Iraq, or of absence or presence of threat from neighbours), it is nevertheless the distiction he sought to make. Therefore, to present his remarks as not only without the distinguishing, but as actually expressing both (McCain accepts casualities of US presence in 10,000-year Iraq war) is downright disengenuous. Pause for a moment to consider. 'X is willing to see the US engage in a 10,000 year war'. Conclusion: X lacks judgment to a degree which straightforwardly call into question his grip on reality. Again. 'Y is willing to assert that a politically astute, highly successful, presidential nominee is so willing'. Conclusion: Y lacks judgment. Such lack of judgment betrays the otherwise fine work done by Veracifier; and even if this is meant to serve the Veracifier-says-Vote-Obama-for-President-(no-not-Hillary-she's-got-fat-ankles-and-Bill-betrayed-us-and-we-need-the-race-over-now-so-we-can-fight-McCain-already-'cause-otherwise-he's-got-a-clear-run)-Campaign, it is not decent journalism, but only mud-throwing. As a 'cheese-eating surrender-monkey' european social-democrat, I do not in the above ask for special protection to republican McCain; he can keep his Freedom-Fries. What I do ask is that Veracifier return to form, and hold. Best regards, Enkelt.

If, from 1946-1950, Catholic Bavarians had been incessantly blowing up Lutheran Hessians and inflicting thousands of U.S. casualties in the process, we would never have stayed in Germany for 50 years. McCain's obliviousness to the fact that Iraq is not now nor can soon be "Germany, Korea or Kuwait" shows that he's the one who is woefully ignorant on foreign policy and not qualified to be commander-in-chief.

Isn't this unfair though? He just means we can have a situation like S.Korea? Or Kuwait or Bahrain. That seems to make sense to me? If THAT is a bad idea, that is different, but it doesn't seem odd to have bases in other countries.