Can we afford to have a President McCain?

While a committee in the U.S. Senate works on oversight of the Iraq War and the contractors employed there, John McCain talks about a minister's statements. Which is more of threat?

Muckraked has some very interesting information about how some contractors have behaved while they were in Iraq. Here are some excerpts from the Senate hearings as published by Muckraked:

....A contractor died when a DynCorp manager used an employee’s armored car to transport prostitutes, according to Barry Halley, a Worldwide Network Services employee working under a DynCorp subcontract.

Kellogg Brown & Root contractors used to destroy countless quantities of still-usable equipment that was difficult to transport in “massive burn pits” that were “burning 24 hours a day.”

KBR’s ice foreman “was cheating the troops out of ice at the same time that he was trading the ice for DVDs, CDs, food and other items at the Iraqi shops across the street.”

While our young men and women are in harm's way, the contractors who have been protected by the Bush administration, misuse our tax money and create dangerous situations for all. Now you see why the Bush administration and the former Republican majority in the House and the Senate did not want to have oversight on the Iraq War. The Republicans and Bush did not want the American public to see the truth. While friends of Bush and Cheney make money as contractors in Iraq, our troops and our tax money have not been protected.

Meanwhile, John McCain
>doesn't want to discuss why he feels the need to keep our armed forces in Iraq for 100 years.
>has been described as possibly creating an economic "gridlock" if he were elected, according to economist, Jared Bernstein (see Huffington Post).
>would rather talk about a minister's sermon.

Can we really afford to have our armed services, state dept. employees, and tax money remain in Iraq for 100 years as supported by John McCain?