John McCain, in one of his mavericky moments, offered up some opposition to the Bush torture regime. Now, though, he's taken to urging Bush to keep a torture loophole open. Basically, Bush wants a ton of torture, McCain prefers a moderate level of torture. This is one of several reasons why I, unlike Hillary Clinton, don't think McCain passes the "commander in chief" threshold in a particularly impressive way. I'd like a commander-in-chief who's prepared to govern the country in a manner consistent with our laws and traditions, as well as sound interrogation practice, international law, and basic standards of human decency.
« A Legacy of Torture | Main | The Gospel of DeLong »
Speaking of Torture
08 Mar 2008 01:48 pm
Comments (17)
McCain was tortured himself, in his youth. Now he's in his second childhood and he's looking for payback. If he makes it to the White House he'll probably order a few bombing runs on Hanoi just to see if it makes his crotch tingle.
Wow, completely disgusting. This is a reverse of the Nixon-to-China moment for McCain: completely selling out his own personal experience for political expediency.
What could Hillary or Obama possibly do that would be on the same level? Voting to rescind women's suffrage or reinstate segregation?
Seriously, haven't the terrorists won? A dumb war that's killed more Americans than 9/11, that ruined our reputation around the world, that's helping to drive our economy into the ground, and that has destroyed many civil liberties? Isn't this what they wanted?
But would McCain be ready to allow a moderate level of torture at 3 a.m. on Day One?
MoeLarryAndJesus, only a dozen or so blue pills and a fine young lobbyist could make his crotch tingle.
Bush and Cheney belong at the defendants' table at The Hague.
Seriously, haven't the terrorists won?
Seriously, no, thanks in part to Bush's strong security policies.
That was McCain's moment to do the right thing.
I hope he enjoyed waving at it as it passed by.
What Monster said.
Shorter Angel: My country: Strong and Wrong!
Is it me, or is this (from NYT article that MY linked in last post) pure cognitive dissonance?:
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been an outspoken opponent of torture, often referring to his own experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In this case he supported the administration’s position, arguing as Mr. Bush did Saturday that the legislation would have limited the C.I.A.’s ability to gather intelligence.
Not even a "however" in the second sentence? So McCain is an "outspoken opponent" of torture when it cannot be justified by the executive's word that it needed for national security. Straight talk indeed.
Shorter NYT: McCain only opposed to torture when undertaken for the sheer fun of it.
MrM posts: "Shorter NYT: McCain only opposed to torture when undertaken for the sheer fun of it."
Perhaps he only opposes it when he - or members of his gang - are the victims.
Maybe his so-called "change of heart" came about when the Bushpigs added him to the short list of GOP insiders who are given copies of video recordings of the torture sessions. I understand the reason Dick Cheney is so seldom seen or heard from these days is that he spends most of his time now hiding in his bunker jerking off while watching these recordings.
And if anyone finds that hard to believe, please tell me what it is that's hard to believe about it. There is nothing in Dick Cheney's "character" or past history that makes it even a little hard to believe.
I'd like to see Obama channeling Matthew's language here -- it's very much in keeping with the kind of 'attack' that works best for him, i.e. a criticism of his opponents that has some depth of thought and truth to it.
Maybe Cheney is against letting the guy who race-baited his daughter and stole his chance in 2000 from torturing, but now that he has the nomination wrapped up, he thinks it's fine if he's the one to torture. Bush isn't going to be in power much longer, so if McCain wins, it's "I can do whatever I wanna just cuz I say so HULK SMASH!" time.
Didn't Hillary equivocate before coming out against torture? Wasn't this a point, if unpopular, that she was fully prepared to compromise on?
"Basically, Bush wants a ton of torture"
How many times exactly has "torture" been used? Three?
Liberals want "decency" showed to the animals who wish to destroy our way of lives.
But don't question their patriotism!
Mike NYC writes: ""Basically, Bush wants a ton of torture"
How many times exactly has "torture" been used? Three?
Liberals want "decency" showed to the animals who wish to destroy our way of lives."
You're an idiot, pal. You think it was used three times because that's what some Bushpig told you - meanwhile Bush denies we've used torture at all. How gullible can you be?
Keep your head in the sand. Your "decent" president is a damned war criminal who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for smearing the reputation of the US in front of the whole world.
Cowards use torture. Cowards approve of the use of torture. You're not just an idiot, you're a gutless one.
Comments closed March 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Osama wins again -- destroying this country's very fundamental strengths.
Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | March 8, 2008 2:01 PM