The New York Times Reports That Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment. “But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3…” (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100’; Opponents Latch On,” The New York Times, 3/27/08)

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder: “[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)

The Associated Press: “[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,” The Associated Press, 2/29/08)

Fox News’ Carl Cameron: “[M]cCain has never said he wants war and never advocated 100 more years of war-making in Iraq. In January, he indicated at a New Hampshire town hall meeting that maintaining a postwar presence in Iraq would be fine…” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)

National Review: “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse...” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

Lancaster Intelligencer Journal’s Joe Hainthaler: “Yes, Senator Obama, you can misunderstand your opponent’s point on purpose to score a cheap political point with your party’s anti-war crowd, and you can do so over and over and over again. But, in doing so, you expose yourself as not quite the fair-minded, non-partisan leader you say you hope to be.” (Joe Hainthaler, “Obama’s Hundred-Year War On Mccain,” Lancaster [PA] Intelligencer Journal’s “Always Right” Blog, www.lancasteronline.com, 4/1/08)

USA Today: “[Sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren't getting killed or wounded)…” (Editorial, “5 Years After 'Shock And Awe,' A Shallow Debate On Iraq,” USA Today, 3/18/08)

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: “Haven't we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years' Sideshow,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke: “Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. … What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren't being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer: “But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)

Richmond Times-Dispatch: “Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)

Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org Calls DNC Attacks On “100 Years” Comment A “Serious Distortion” And “A Rank Falsehood.” “The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. …There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)

Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On “100 Years” Comment “False.” “Obama twisted McCain's words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama's statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)

Slate’s Christopher Beam: “In context, McCain’s statements seem clear: He doesn’t want the war to continue for 100 years. But he’s willing to keep a few brigades there as long as they’re not getting killed. … [F]or Obama and others to paint McCain’s stance as a war without end doesn’t quite hold up.” (Christopher Beam, “The ‘100 Years’ War,” The Slate’s “Trail Head” Blog, www.slate.com, 4/1/08)

Columbia Journalism Review’s Zachary Roth: “[L]ately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s ‘100 years’ notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,” Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)

The Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs: “The charge that John McCain wants to wage a ‘100-year war’ in Iraq has become a recurring theme of the Obama campaign. The candidate has made the claim several times on the campaign trail, as has Susan Rice, one of his top foreign policy advisers. McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq.” (Michael Dobbs, “McCain's ‘100-year war,’” The Washington Post, 4/2/08)