People compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam and there are many similarities, especially in the rhetoric used to justify both wars. I believe there are more similarities to the Philippine-American War, where Americans were initially greeted as liberators from Spanish colonialism. The US acquired the Philippines at the close of the Spanish-American War, another war of aggression instigated by official lies and bad journalism. Just as in Iraq today, there were those who believed that Filipinos were incapable of self-government and needed the uninvited help of the United States to impose its own style of modern civilization and democracy.
Filipinos rose up against the U.S. occupation when it became clear that freedom and liberation were not on the menu. After several years, thousands of deaths, and reports of torture by American forces, the main insurrection was defeated. Control was gradually handed over to Filipinos but full independence wasn't granted until 1946, nearly 50 years after it was acquired by the U.S. We had military bases there for nearly 100 years.
When the Bush administration began building permanent military bases shortly after the invasion of Iraq it was an indication that the original intent was a long-term Philippine style occupation. The U.S. stayed in the Philippines because of its strategic economic and military importance. We'll stay in Iraq for the same reason. McCain is simply being more honest than Bush about what they had in mind from the start.
One hundred years ago there were Democratic leaders with the guts to call U.S. aggression what it was: imperialism. Anyone who says that today is shut out of the media.