9/21/2006

7 Responses to “Well, Yeah . . . We Did Say to Listen to McCain, But . . . Hey! Look Over There! [Runs Away]”

1. Shorter Patterico: Woo! Torture AND a pony.

   Kimmitt (80218d) — 9/21/2006 @ 10:10 pm

   
   

2. The short answer is that this is an election year and that McCain is running for President in 2008.

   Bush got what he wanted–McCain et al just flat out caved.

   Geek, Esq. (d2d5af) — 9/22/2006 @ 6:03 am

   
   

3. Geek: two problems with your theory. First, election year politics wouldn’t have caused the Gang of Four to cave, as none of them are up for re-election this year. In fact, by some odd coincidence, the four turncoats (until now) of this year just “happen” to be four of the seven Republican turncoats who fouled up the nuclear option last year – and by an even odder coincidence, the other three are up for re-election this year. Second, caving in ’06 does not make good presidential politics on ’08. Getting the sitting President to cave for you, does, but if that’s not an option, it still looks better to fight the “good” fight and lose.

   Xrlq (f52b4f) — 9/22/2006 @ 6:20 am

   
   

4. This intra-party spat was problematic for the Republicans in this upcoming election. The Bush administration wanted this to be a partisan debate, so they could immediately launch into “Democrats are soft on national defense and care more about protecting the rights of terrorists than the lives of American citizens.”

   One can be quite sure that enormous pressure was brought on those guys to roll over and get back to the business of retaining power in Washington.

   Regarding McCain in 2008, he likely concluded that further obstruction on the issue was likely to hurt him with the Republican base–because then we’d hear about how “John McCain is like the Democrats in that he cares more about protecting the rights of terrorists than he does about protecting American citizens.”

   McCain did what he always does–he got up and preened before the cameras as an ‘independent maverick’ and then rolled over once it became politically expedient to do so.

   Geek, Esq. (d2d5af) — 9/22/2006 @ 7:02 am

   
   

5. Where is it writ that being an ex-prisoner of war qualifies you for anything other than being an ex-prisoner of war? Similarly what does being in combat have to do with anything other than shooting a gun? I was in combat for a few minutes and let me assure you I knew nothing other than what took place ten feet in front of me; nothing about tactics or strategy. McCain has become his resume in the eyes of far too many of us, we think that makes him pure or something.

   I’m not supporting him for president because I think he is not qualified, and he has proven it to me. Period. His POW experience has clouded his judgement. He assumes that our guys would be as brutal as their guys. To solve a non problem he wants to cripple the CIA, no matter the cost.

   Howard Veit (28df94) — 9/22/2006 @ 9:03 am

   
   

6. The actions of Senators McCain, Warner, and especially Graham in this matter are interesting. Graham is considered an expert on such military matters due to his service in the JAG and as a military judge. I’m surprised Graham thinks he can serve concurrently as a Senator and a Judge.

   DRJ (ccb97e) — 9/22/2006 @ 11:29 pm

   
   

7. I had a long conversation with a friend about this while we were being bored by Massive Attack Friday night. My take on it is this: regardless of what I think about McCain with respect to any other issue, on the issue of torturing prisoners of war, I trust him absolutely; and if he agreed to the compromise, it must be acceptable. Her take was that she so completely distrusted Republicans when it came to abusing prisoners that she couldn’t believe it was acceptable if a prominent Republican had signed off on it.

   aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/25/2006 @ 4:14 pm