The truth is that McCain's wishful thinking doesn't change the fact that he's saying he's happy to have US troops stay in Iraq essentially forever (a century, in political terms, is essentially forever), something very few Americans think makes any sense. But the [DNC's first "100 years" ad] ad doesn't even get into this question of definitions or McCain's special pleading about whether it's 'war' or 'occupation' or 'presence' or whatever. The ad literally just has McCain speaking in his own voice.

The rub here is this: McCain does not want to leave Iraq. Period. He wants tens of thousands of troops to stay in Iraq permanently. He made a big point of this during the primaries when it was politically advantageous to do so. And he followed up with a qualifier explaining that it's okay because our occupation of Iraq will soon be like our presence in Germany and Japan where nobody gets killed. But there's little reason to believe our occupation of Iraq will ever be like that. We tried this in Lebanon; the French tried this in Algeria; the British even tried it in Iraq. Western countries have a very poor history garrisoning Muslim countries in the Middle East. Iraq isn't like Germany or Japan, not simply because of the history of the country but because both countries accepted decades-long US deployments as a counterweight to threatening neighbors. The relevant point is that McCain believes American troops should stay in Iraq permanently. His pipe dream about Iraq turning into Germany doesn't change that. It just shows his substitution of wishful thinking for sound strategic judgment.

If there is an unfair supposition at work here, there is a simple way to find out. Someone should ask McCain how long he's willing to have us stay in Iraq even if we are sustaining casualties. Since he believes it is in our strategic interests to stay there on a permanent basis I doubt very much he'll say that in that case he'd only be comfortable staying two or five or some other relatively short span of years. That is because he believe we should stay there on a permanent basis, ideally with no casualties but with casualties if that's what it takes. The New Yorker's Rick Hertzberg put it all quite elegantly back in January just after McCain started saying this. "McCain," he wrote, "wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal - that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

McCain's position is miles away from where the American people are on Iraq. It's no mystery why his campaign doesn't want the Democrats to be harping on this point. But the AP doesn't need to spin or fib on McCain's behalf. (my emphasis in bold)

The Democratic National Commitee ad that attacks Sen. John McCain for his 100-years-in-Iraq remark seemed to have the desired effect with some of the all-important voters who see it, making those voters look less favorably on the senator from Arizona.

That's one conclusion to draw from a study of how some voters reacted to the DNC ad that edited snippets of McCain with video of violence in Iraq.

HCD Reseach Inc., a market research company, found that independent voters went from 50 pecent who saw McCain in a "mostly favorable" light before they saw the ad, to 40 percent after they viewed the ad.