So in other words, if you actually READ this article, McCain did not specifically vote against a ban on waterboarding. He said it was technically already illegal, and voted against this bill because of military/intelligence disagreement. Shameful,politically one-sided, irresponsible title
for this article.

Is it possible for the Tribune to employ journalists who do not distort and spin? Clearly, if Sam Zell wants to turn the Tribune's fortunes around, he has much work ahead of him. Finding reporters who report and not put forth moveon.org spin must be the first priority.

Twist in the wind however you want, HarleyRider.

The fact is that the Straight Talk Express' driver has made so many U-turns, wrong turns and back ups to try to catch off ramps he missed, he is in sore need of a new moral and ethical GPS.

Miles "Who's The Flip-Flopper Now?" Long

"McCain said the measure goes too far in applying military standards to intelligence agencies and maintained that existing law already forbids waterboarding. "Staging a mock execution by including the misperception of drowining is a clear violation,'' he said."

So Aamer, decided to write a misleading article. Aamer Madhani - this is the Chicago Tribuen - The Sun Times is the paper cork-screwing into the soil over on Orleans.

If McCain wanted to reiterate his position on this procedure and also send a very clear message about it, he could have. If he capitulated on this issue, what else is he going to capitulate on?

So, McCain did a "John Kerry," he voted for it before he voted against it. Really folks, the only question most of us should be focused on now is, who will President Obama choose as our next VP. I am also anxious who President Obama will name as his Sec.of State. McCain is yesterdays news along with that Hillary person.

McCain will say and do ANYTHING to get this nomination. Not that it will do Mr. Let's Stay in Iraq for 100 years any good.

Straight Talk my eye.

Even as a liberal Democrat who will be strongly opposing McMain's run at the White House, I was annoyed and angered by this "news article." If the author is going to write their own opinions and try to pass it off as legitimate journalism, then stop doing it with by beloved Tribune.

It isn't that journalists are dumb that offends me. I think everyone assumes their general lack of intelligence. What offends me is how stupid they think I must be to not be able to see through their dimwitted opinions they try to pass off as news!

Flip-flop McCain folds like a lawn chair again. This guy talks tough, but when it comes down to it, in the end he his Senate record will forever show he supports torture. And he is the so-called "most principled" Republican. Hah!

So in other words, if you actually READ this article, McCain did not specifically vote against a ban on waterboarding. He said it was technically already illegal, and voted against this bill because of military/intelligence disagreement. Shameful,politically one-sided, irresponsible title
for this article.

Posted by: HarleyRider | February 14, 2008 8:45 AM

Gosh HarleyRider. What would this poor, defenseless world be without brilliant analysts like you? No one else had the capacity to read the article and decide for themselves what it says (and perhaps not agree with your assessment).

Perhaps you haven't been reading the news reports that we have in fact been waterboarding people. That it was "illegal" doesn't seem to have mattered to Murderer Boy Bush, so a further law would seem to be a necessary step toward potentially stopping this lawless thug from doing it again. McCain obviously disagrees.

McCain once again proves he's a shallow, guileless hack, just like his idol, GWB. How 'bout a hug?

As far as twisting is concerned Miles, Aamer is in fact twisting better than Chubby Checkers ever did. HarleyRider, John and Pat have hit the nail on the head.

Let's see. . .McCain either changed his mind or is a flip-flopper. You decide.

Looks like he's a true flip-flopper. Trying to appeal to the far-right of his party instead of centrists. He has flip-flopped so much the last year, it's amazing he's going to be the Republican nominee.

McCain voting FOR torture? McCain wanting to fight and win in Iraq, even if it takes 100 years? The Hanoi Hilton should have been McCain's information base concerning issues of terrorism and war. Unfortunately, politics is.

The bill isn't any more a ban on waterboarding, than not funding all types of stem cell research is a "ban" on it. Journalists need to go back to school to learn how to read and write.

Waterboarding is illegeal EXCEPT to those who claim it isn't, i.e. the Bush administration.

"it's not torture if we say it isn't torture. something isn't illegal if we say it's not illegal."

McCain sponsored the bill barring torture and has said waterboarding is torture.

Of course President Bush vowed in a "signing statement" that he is above the law and doesn't think he has to follow it.

That's why we need a law specifically barring its use.

It seems the "straight talk express" fell off tracks by veering too far to the right.

It is not surprising that the news media is distorting the story. Most of the Media is for Barack Obama and are going to do anything to get him elected. Chris Matthews on CNBC even said that when he hears Obama speak he gets a funning feeling running up his leg. To the author of this article I say get the story right and leave out your biases before you write another story about John McCain. The Tribune is looking like the horrible Sun Times and that is not good.

What a terrible distortion of facts! Clearly the Tribune is sharpening it's claws to attack McCain and support Obama in the general election.

I'm an Obama supporter, but even I think this article is ridiculous.

Yea for waterboarding! Surf's up! Let's go surfing now, everybody's learning how, McCain come waterboarding with me!

"Insane McCain" is in a bad place. Needs to pander to the Right Wing crazies.

The younger generation has seen enough of the Angry Old Man Party,time for a change.

You got right yet the !gnorant among us (the people who can or won't bother to read) will not see it that way.

00000000
So in other words, if you actually READ this article, McCain did not specifically vote against a ban on waterboarding. He said it was technically already illegal, and voted against this bill because of military/intelligence disagreement. Shameful,politically one-sided, irresponsible title
for this article

It will be interesting in the coming months to observe just how far McCain is willing to lean toward the extreme conservatives. In doing so, he risks cutting off the modertes -- who may then break for the Dems. Maybe the GOP also likes flip-floppers?

McCain needs to appeal to his conservative base here. He may believe its illegal, but unfortunately we've a president who says otherwise so we need to write it into law (like instructions on canned soup) in order to keep this guy in check.

From the substance of the article, it sure seems like a misleading headline, to me.

The title of this article is dreadfully misleading, and goes on for several paragraphs before reporting on what the Senator actually said about his vote and the reasons for it. Clearly, journalistic standards simply do not exist at the Chicago Tribune. "The Swamp" really is the best place for this article.

Where is the bias?? If waterboarding is currently illegal as McCain states and he knows the current administration ignores this, common sense would dictate that congress needs to re-establish the illegality of waterboarding and McCain, of all people, should have voted for this bill.

So, Senator McCain, you're saying you're for TORTURE? How could you have been a POW for five years and be FOR torture??? Perhaps if you're elected president you'll be for allowing our police to beat up suspects?

at least McCain has a backbone

McCain is fully aware that the Bush Administration has ignored the existing law. This is not about what is right or what laws already exist.

This is about trying to look conservative and get elected.

So the tortured is willing to become the torturer if that is what it takes to be elected.

so much for integrity.

What a nice present McCain has just given Obama. However you want to disect this - it looks terrible. Kudos also to our illustrious "We do not torture" president who is set to veto the measure.

Have no fear people. Doens't matter what McCain says or does. Obama is here. He will ensure that waterboarding is not used on a single Terrorist, it will be reserved for use only Americans who work, pay taxs and believe in the Constitution.

Good. These guys are CIA, this isn't military policy, period. If we knew half the things intelligence agents do we'd blanch at them. But we all say how glad we are whenever they stop terrorist plots or get us information on the bad guys. You're all hypocrites.

Flip flop or not, I'm glad he didn't vote against it and I'm glad Bush will veto it. This will be considered torture until the extremists plant a bomb in Congress and kill a few people. Than we'll see how terrible it is to waterboard someone.

Did Clinton and favored son Obama vote against waterboarding? Oh... wait a minute... they never showed up to vote on this! Thanks for the objective reporting Tribune.

While the bill might have concerned the difference in military/intelligence standards, there can be little doubt that McCain will benefit from the subtle wink-and-nudge his vote sends to the hard-core Republicans who favor the use of torture by our intelligence agencies (or, in the alternative, a definition of 'torture' that is so narrow as to basically allow for torture).

This vote is just the opening salvo in what will be yet another episode of McCain's shamelees capitulation to the extreme wing of the Republican Party. From his days in the 'Keating 5' to his recent embrace of the Bush tax cuts (which in only 2003 he labelled as reckless spending - like a "drunken sailor on holiday"), the one thing we've come to learn is that when it comes to principled stances, John McCain evidences a troubling flexibility.

mccains decision on grounds that banning torture should not apply to intelligence agencies belies a short memory. anyone remember abu gharib? it was military police taking instruction from intelligence agents. that was a great public relations tool in the fight for "hearts and minds". is that not the point where we lost any moral high ground this country used to have in the world. is it just a coincidence that attacks on our troops ratcheted up after the abu gharib scandal broke. whatever you think of the tone the writer employed. look at what mc cain is saying about toture. it's ok as long as military people don't do it? it's hard to believe he would take that view given his experiences with torture. it's ok with him if our intelligence agents interrogate like the north vietnamese. say and do anything to get elected. where's the morals

McCain should step aside for this one fact. Mitt Romney would hands down be the nominee today if his strategy wasn't to move to the right of the Huckster. Romney should have maintained his centrist identity instead of pandering to the rabid right wing. Why John McCain thinks he should take on this losing strategy of moving to the right of the Huckster is beyond me, it's ignorant and will prove to be a failed strategy in the general election because it will turn off many centrist Republicans and Democrats who would have otherwise voted for McCain. Man he's dumb.

I would the Tribune to fully explain why Senator McCain voted against this bill. As we all know there is always more then one provision stuffed in a bill. So yes he technically voted against a ban on waterboarding, but most people with common sense know that there are other issues involved and that this clearly runs contrary to McCain's character, especially since he himself has been subject to these same horendous tactics and has publicly on many occasions spoken out against torture. Let's all think for a minute. Do you really think that on the eve of the Republican primary he would purposely shoot himself in the foot like this? There are clearly other issues with this bill that are not being addressed in the media and I would dare say that there are some of his fellow collegues both Democrate and Republican who would love to set him up like this because they know that he will vote based on his convictions and not on what will make him look good and help guarantee votes. Chicago Tribune, particularly Aamer Madhani I respectfully implore you to report the whole story.

He will ensure that waterboarding is not used on a single Terrorist, it will be reserved for use only Americans who work, pay taxs and believe in the Constitution.

Posted by: Vatsi | February 14, 2008 9:52 AM

It's nice to see someone who won't let the absence of facts get in the way of a maudlin argument.

---

Jeff: Quit embarrassing yourself. Is the CIA part of the U.S. Government? If so, it can't torture.

The title of the article is very misleading, but it is also the plain simple truth. Mccain did vote against the bill. Not only is it true, but it is also the most eycatching title you could apply to the article. Considering how badly the Trib is doing in this modern (read: worse) media world, how can you expect them to shoot for anything less? How can they keep up with Britney Spears news if they don't go for the eye catching titles?
Furthermore, if a Democratic canidate ever "flip-flopped" on a issue, even as incocently and respectably as Mccain did on this issue, they would be torn to pieces by the Republican spin machine. If Karl Rove is Barry Bonds, then this author is in the Rookie leagues.

This disgraceful report reminds me why I rarely read newspapers anymore. If Mr. Madhani had bothered to do any fact checking, he would have learned that the McCain Amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act precludes torture. McCain didn't vote against the banning of waterboarding, he voted against limiting the CIA interrogation program to the Army Field Manual rules. If the Tribune has any journalistic integrity, it will correct this egregiously misleading article immediately.

Now you can see why it is hard for a Senator to run for President. The bills they vote on are so complex and broad they can be for or against a bill for only a small portion of it but their vote will be used against them later. They even have a term for this, the "poison pill". It is something put in a bill making it unacceptable but when the person votes against it they are then lashed for voting aginst the other more acceptable portions of a bill. It is a very common tactic used by a majority to maintain their majority. Or in this case, used by a majority to use against a presidential candidate from the other party. We will see more of this.

If existing laws already forbid waterboarding and it has still beeen used by the President isn't that stating that those existing laws aren't clear enough? Though I think Bush is an idiot, he very much has gotten away with interpreting laws to suit his needs. That brings up a whole other issue of him talking about appointing judges that will uphold the constitution and not interpret to make new laws, but that's another debate.

The truth is there is obviously an issue with waterboarding being used. McCain knew that this tactic has been used, and still voted against a measure that clearly states it is illegal. Anytime a vote comes up making it illegal he should be voting in favor of stating it is illegal regardless of other laws on the books. The more times it is said it is illegal, the less likely the Bush can "interpret" law to suit his needs. Stating that is already illegal does not change the fact that it was voted against.

Then again we wouldn't want to make a law that may result in the need to bring up an impeachment would we?

In regards to stopping terrorist plots with torture: McCain himself has stated that when he was tortured to give up names of people he gave out the names of Sports figures. What makes anyone think that information obtained by torture is accurate? McCain has obviously shared this story to highlight the point of why torture is not effective.

Oh boy,so Johnie is joining the Swiftboarders for Security finally! Well if this is not a member of the GOP that deserves the Sen. Kerry treatment for Flipity Flopping. How about a campain song? Here comes Johnie. Here comes Johnie. Flip flopping down the campaing trail.

Enough about McCain and his Hanoi Hilton experience. As a former victim of torture myself, I can say with assurance and conviction that the experience proves nothing, and rarely yields substantive info. In fact, it either increases resistence to interrogation or produces quite persuasive and deceptive lies. In most cases, the interrogators already know or suspect the answers they want to hear, and the torturing, or extreme rendition, only echoes that. It is an excuse for bigotry and violence.

The job of a responsible reporter and paper is to fairly report on complicated issues. The sensational and misleading headline "McCain votes against ban on waterboarding" clearly failed this test.

True enough, McCain voted against a bill that included a provision that would make waterboarding illegal. But in doing so, he explained that waterboarding is already illegal and the bill contained other provisions that would harm intelligence gathering.

This headline, and the reporter's decision to bury the more complete explanation in his blog is definitely NOT whet I expect from the Tribune.

Certainly, neither the Trib., nor the public should just accept McCain's explanation at face value. It is worth pointing out that he is trying hard to assuage conservatives in his Party and that the current administration clearly views waterboarding as legal. McCain has some explaining to do.

But when the front page of chicagotribune.com posts a headline like this one (leading to an article like this), it loses a lot of credibility and leaves me looking for a new news source.

McCain's a whore. On waterboarding, he was for it before he was against it. It's the same with his attitude on the religious leaders. He was against them before he was for them, and now I don't know where he stands. This is how his campaign got in trouble last summer. As a Democrat who has considered voting for him in a contest with Hillary, his lack of integrity is disappointing.

The Tribune reporter (or EDITOR) on this story was clearly trying to get us to click on the link. I knew McCain would have a good reason why he voted against the ban and I was correct.

Yes, this article is very slanted. To imply that John McCain has somehow changed his position on waterboarding due to this vote is incompetent journalism.

WOW! If this isnt a perfect example of how McCain will pander to get promised votes, I don't know what is. This should be an eye-opener on how he would run the country - flip-flop on his beliefs to benefit the right, or better I say wrong side of the isle.

I have not read all comments but, I hope before anyone jumps to conclusions they read this line, "Senate voted on the intelligence bill, which includes a provision that effectively bans waterboarding." This means there was more to this bill. It also appears this bill included measures that applied to civilian and military intelligence agencies. One cannot run a civilian agency as they run a military agency. Therefore McCain may have been right in not voting for it, for we DON'T know what the other provisions were. Which on it's face shows poor judgment by the journalist in reporting on this. At least McCain had the courage to vote, and I am sure he is well aware he will be judged on his vote. I cannot say that for Obama or Clinton. Put your flip flops in storage and save them for Romney in 8 years.

I have to agree with many who have commented above, this is a very disingenuous title. McCain is a very principled individual and has been consistent in his opposition to torture. Voting against a bill that restricts our intelligence agencies to the Army field manual is not the same as voting to authorize torture.

By the logic applied in this article, I think you could say that Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama refuse to call water-boarding torture because they didn't vote for the bill at all.

Sen. Obama could be further implicated because he has never called for any accountability of our elected officials for the torture that occurred under Burge.

This is a pretty lame political attack by a news organization. Shame on the Trib.

As many other posters have said alluded to, the headline to this story is misleading. McCain voted against a bill that included a provision against waterboarding but was loaded up with other things he disagreed with. He did not vote against the bill because of the waterboarding provision. Is Mr. Aamer Madhani a journalist or a PR person for the Democratic Party?

McCain is always voting against torture and waterboarding which is why conservatives can't trust McCain.
Rush Limbaugh summed up Obama by playing Sammy Davis Jr's hit Candy Man referring to the Senator who wants to sugarcoat everything. The Candy Man can!Jerry White, Springfield, IL

He was against torture before he was in favor of it?

Jeff, The idea that torture should be legal for any branch of our government is repugnant. If the CIA and the Decider guy chose to break the law and torture people as part of their courageous effort to defend our country, then they should be able to explain the purity of their motives to the jury at their trial. If McCain thinks torture is OK as long as the CIA does the job, he is not the guy I want running the country.

I think McCain made a big tactical mistake in this election....I agree with him on the water boarding issue, we are not fighting a conventional war, we unfortunately have to use this tactic in order to save many many lives.

So Obama and Hillary Clinton conveniently didn't vote on this--so they wouldn't have to defend their non-vote. McCain knows all about what torture is. He was tortured in Vietnam. Maybe he loses out to Mr. "Regular Guy" up here, but he has more authority on this subject than Obama or Hillary Clinton will ever have. What other non-decisions would Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton make to deal with difficult questions facing the country?

I'm sure this will not become an issue because McCain is a Republican.

Rest assured that the conservatives would pounce on a Democratic candidate (ala John Kerry) if it was one of them instead.

So much for the "liberal" bias in the press.

If it's already illegal what's the problem with confirming that it's illegal??? Sounds like a flip flop (or just another repugncan't) to me.

A clear legal violation. What bullcrap!

I can't make heads or tails out the article. It is poorly written and confusing, perhaps by design? Either way, as a longtime conservative backer of Senator McCain, I'd say that Senator McCain has some explaining to do, and fast. I trust that he will. His has long been a clear and consistent voice against torture. Just last month in Orlando, he said, "I would, as President of the United States, declare we will never torture another person who is in our custody. I would declare that we would close Guantanamo Bay and move those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas."

"A well regulated militia"

McCain voted. The others didn't. Thank goodness we have someone who acts on what he thinks. The others are the ones who are equivocating now.

Didn't the Attorney General just decline to say that waterboarding was blatantly illegal? I believe that he said that waterboarding is not legal simply because it hasn't been put on the list of what is allowed--yet. That's not good enough; that's why it's important that this bill passes, so that this country's position will be unequivocal. The Bush administration continues to shame the country by playing coy with this form of torture. McCain is abetting that scurrilous position. I expected better of him. I thought that he might be the one Republican candidate that would make an acceptable, honest president. I've changed my mind. Just because he became a "war hero" in his wild youth doesn't qualify him for the high office of President today.

There are existing laws against torture? Does that mean I could have had my ex-wife arrested instead of having to divorce her?

I love how the fact that the Obama and Hillary didn't show up to vote gets passed off like it's no big deal. Jesus Christ, I mean Obama, will be exposed as the snake oil salesman fraud he is if he wins the nomination. Seriously, when's the last time the chosen one has actually shown up for a vote?? Give me a break already.

Mccain is caving in to the base. He has and will continue to sell his soul to the right-wing conservatives. He will lose more moderates and indies.

I don't know why anyone is attacking the person who wrote the article. The article itself gave accurate information and relayed the message that McCain voted against the bill because of other issues it addressed that he opposes. The title isn't technically wrong either. Journalists can be creative with their titles, and if you don't like it, shut the hell up and move on, or write your own articles. But you're probably not qualified, so really shut up.

That being said, I have no idea how some people can still be for waterboarding. I think before anyone has a say in it, maybe they should be subjected to it then vote on it or include it in bills, etc.

This article is deceptive and I'm losing respect for the Tribune.

Last summer, I thought McCain had lost his mind.

He was talking up the surge, a path to citizenship for illegals, the whole nine yards. He looked like burnt toast.

But he bounced back big. As insane as this vote appears (and the Dems will rub it in his face), you have to wonder if he's onto something that the rest of us are missing.

Either he's going to win a close election in November, or he's going to get routed like McGovern did in the '72 landslide.

But if you count him out, you do so at your own peril.

Wow. I wouldn't usually comment on an article like this, but the headline is completely misleading. Frankly, I'm a bit embarrassed for the author of the article.

Way to go Trib! Got a deceiving article?...make it an even larger headline. I hope Zell gets rid of you all.

This is pandering to his base, the Dems do it too, so don't everyone act shocked at this vote.

McCain's bigger problem is if he keeps pandering to to Rush et al, he will lose independents.

Check out www.rasmussenreports.com. He's getting clobbered by Obama in Colorado, New Hampshire and Nevada, 3 states Bush won in 2000.

Hey all:

Whether you agree with McCain or not, please, let's refrain from insulting a man who spent 5 years as a POW fighting for this country. I am not sure if I will vote for him or not, but calling him a "shallow, guileless hack," along with other names, is a true disservice to him. You may not like his politics, but really, he has earned respect regardless of the party you choose to vote for.

There's nothing misleading about either the headline or the article. McCain voted against a bill that would make waterboarding illegal. Period. All you right-wingers posing as reasonable people above have no idea what you're talking about.

One of you wrote: "True enough, McCain voted against a bill that included a provision that would make waterboarding illegal. But in doing so, he explained that waterboarding is already illegal and the bill contained other provisions that would harm intelligence gathering."

If "waterboarding is already illegal," then why does the Attorney General refuse to say so? Why does the President reserve the right to waterboard prisoners now or in the future? The Army Field Manual bans waterboarding, but obviously that doesn't apply to the CIA. So this bill would close that loophole, and McCain voted against it, explaining on this specific point that he didn't think his vote was necessary.

All you people writing in that you "almost never read newspapers anymore," or you think "the liberal press is helping Obama," or whatever, need to climb back under whatever rocks you came from and leave the reasoned discourse to those of us who can actually think critically.

So McCain says its already illegal?

In that case, then the vote is a declaration that the Senate is against waterboarding.

So he doesn't want to shout from the rooftops that waterboarding is illegal?

Must be an election year. So much for the straight talk.

The Bill is so unecessary that Bush wants to veto it, so I'm not so sure I believe the Senator anyways. If its already illegal, why veto it? Isn't it just an extra waste of time and ink?

"McCain ... maintained that existing law already forbids waterboarding" Under what law? There is no law governing the activities of the CIA in foreign countries. That's why the military has the CIA do the waterboarding in the first place. His argument makes no sense. Either you're for it or against it. He's obviously for it.

Lefty Loons, Bush says they waterboarded three terrorists, one of them being 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The three terrorists who were waterboarded were done so BEFORE the law banning waterboarding, back in 2002-2003. We are in 2008 and no one has been waterboarded for several years, especially since the law was passed banning it. So, please, Loons, explain in your distorted, weird surreal alternative reality views how the Bush administration is breaking the law against waterboarding.

Jeff,
Are you suggesting that if the North Vietnamese used intelligence officers to stab John McCain in the foot with a bayonnet and broke his shoulders it was not torture? You need help sir.

If you actually read the BILL it DOES say that no foreign entity will be subjected to interrogation techniques that are not delineated in the Army Field Manual (which identifies water boarding as method of torture)! He will do anything to look Red. He disgusts me now.

To quote from the onion, 75 percent of americans now hate america.

Tom O, A Blinkin and the rest, quit embarassing yourselves. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that CIA - and every other intelligence agency in the world - doesn't regularly engage in activities that break national and international law.

Do you honestly think what's left of the KGB, ALL of Al Qaeda and, say, Mossad plays by your happy little rules? Nothing is illegal or legal for an intelligence agency! The question is, rather, what can you allow to happen and disavow?

If any CIA agent was ever discovered by a foreign government to be engaged in espionage our government would disavow any knowlege of his actions, to boot! This is espionage, folks, plain and simple. It gets ugly.

"McCain voted. The others didn't. Thank goodness we have someone who acts on what he thinks. The others are the ones who are equivocating now."

Hear, hear to that.

McCain is disgusting, a moral and ethical zero.

And now this same irresponsible headline is THE LEAD story for the Trib. Online. You get better journalism from USA Today.

For an insightful, nuanced and balanced reporting of this story, see the article from today's New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/washington/14cong.html?ref=us

In response to John D: It is not fair to critize Liberal individuals by calling them loons. Us liberals could call you crazy for supporting an idiot for 8 years, but we dont.

Just for the record. The Tribune has NEVER EVER in a hundred years endorsed a non Republican candidate for president of the US. Unless someone takes away the Kool Aid it will be a McCain endorsement in October. Col. McCormick still makes editorial policy from his crypt in the basement of the Tribune building. Remember; DEWY DEFEATS TRUMAN!

McCain is well aware that Mr. Bush will veto this legislation (and perhaps even add a signing statement) so by aligning himself with the great "decider" in advance he has effectively padded his position as a firm supporter of the Administration for political purposes only. To suggest he has not flip-flopped for partisan gain, one only has to view his radical departure regarding extension of the Bush tax cuts. Even more damning is his effort to separate the intelligence agencies from the military on the issue of inteerogation. Although we would undoubtedly be shocked if it would be disclosed what the CIA has done in the past, we should at the very least not by legislative default give them a green light. In addition, Mr. Bush is trying desperately to keep a lid on the "waterboarding" already committed, and which he authorized, following a very questionable (still secret) legal opinion. If the cover blows on this (which it will eventually when the operatives at the scene start to feel the heat) before the fall election, Mr. McCain will be toast.

Repubs are really trying to spin this as McCain standing on his principles, while it clearly is McCain pandering to the looney side of the party. Military or intelligence ... waterboarding should not be used. Not on terroist suspects, not on Americans, not on undocumented immigrants. Calling out the Tribune for not being objective journalists is a silly card to play, especially when this was written on one of its blogs, which are designed to be more opinion oriented. However, this piece could pass for a straight news story because it is reporting facts. Facts that many people are trying to spin, but it looks like we have another flip-flopping Vietnam vet running for president, but this time it appears he is from the GOP. Should we also expect stories to come out about how McCain really wasn't a war hero? Can he be swift-boated (my favorite new verb)? I think there is a lot we don't really know about McCain, and I would imagine that when it starts to come out centerists aren't going to give him the support that he needs to win the general election, especailly if the far right wing of his party continues to shun him. McCain the warmongerer needs to be stopped!

How is the title incorrect? He voted against it!

Why must all be a slant to Obama?

It's surprising exactly how many liberals do not know how to read (or think, for that matter).

The Tribune should be ashamed of this misleading headline even though they have now added 'because it's already illegal'

urbaneddie, you have got to pay closer attention. McCain has been fired-on and will continue to be fired-on by true conservative Republicans because of his position on this issue and others like it. We have our RINOs, but I am not aware of the yellow-dog Republican Equivalent that you could apply to our voters.

I do not profess to know the effectiveness of water-boarding or other similar interrogation techniques that may be used. As the two Socialists did not vote on this whatever-it-really-is bill, what would be THEIR prescribed method of getting information that would be vital to our national security? Would the Great Obama have more than a rousing speech on the audacity of hope and "change"? Other than just turning them loose, what is the Socialists' modus operandi? The Scottman needs to be "asssuaged" that they would even care.

THERE'S NOTHING MISLEADING AT ALL ABOUT THE HEADLINE.

McCain is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and is starting to sound more-and-more like George W. Bush every day.

Which is it, Mr. Straight Talk?

Does the law "go too far"?

Or is it "already illegal"?

Because it sure as heck can't be both over-reaching and redundant.

And, if it's already illegal, please explain why George W. Bush is threatening to veto it.

John "Maverick" McCain has become "Catfish" McCain, flip-flopping like a fish out of water.

He was against tax cuts for the rich before he was for them.

Against torture before he was for it.

Against the Great Wall of Mexico before he was for it.

Against a stem cell research ban before he was for it.

What will be next?

I am getting tired of headlines that say one thing but once reading the articles the opposite is true. Talk about yellow journalism. Shame on you journalists.

I'm also getting tired of bills that address more than 1 issue making almost impossible for our representatives to truly vote on how they/we feel any 1 issue.

How is the title incorrect? He voted against it!'

The Waterboarding Bill?

Do you drive an automobile or the lug nuts? Don't answer that - please.

Why does this story, and most others slant Obama?

This is a prime example of McCain's willingness to go along with the majority just to appease the GOP. He should listen to his conscience and look at his past experiences with torture and how it impacted him. His argument is phoney, and I hope he wins the GOP nod so the Dems can roll over him in November.

What is actually said in the article, but not emphasized, is that the bill was not only about waterboarding.

I will emphasize it here to see if people understand how the journalist used the headline to distort McCain's position:

"The Senate voted on the intelligence bill, WHICH INCLUDES A PROVISION that effectively bans waterboarding from being used as an interrogation technique by all 16 intelligence agencies."

"McCain said the measure (i.e. THE INTELLIGENCE BILL) goes too far in applying military standards to intelligence agencies and maintained that existing law already forbids waterboarding."

Now do you get it? HE WAS SAYING THAT THE CONTENT OF THE INTELLIGENCE BILL RESTRICTED THE OPERATIONS OF INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

He NEVER SAID he was in favor of waterboarding.

So, yeah, keep trying to distort things...but don't think that will invalidate McCain's position in favor of his equivocating opponents.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for putting a headline like this on this article. It's just another example of when there's not enough news to report, let's embelish it or slant it. I have almost given up on objective reporting. Too bad. It's not what our founding fathers meant when they fought for a free press. FOR SHAME!!!

Dan said:

"What a terrible distortion of facts! Clearly the Tribune is sharpening it's claws to attack McCain and support Obama in the general election.

I'm an Obama supporter, but even I think this article is ridiculous."

Obviously, Dan, you do not know how many times the Chicago Tribune has supported the Democratic nominee in the general election. Hint: you can count to that number even if ALL of your fingers have been removed during an enhanced interrogation technique.

I wish reporters would report and not interject their own bias.

"particularly when he spoke out against the widely condemned interrogation technique called waterboarding."

Should be:

"particularly when he spoke out against the interrogation technique called waterboarding."

What if it was:

"particularly when he spoke out against the interrogation technique called waterboarding that has saved thousands of American lives."

Posted by: John D | February 14, 2008 11:52 AM

3 is 3 too many. It is irrelevant whether there was a law or not. We are supposed to rise above the terrorists. Bush and his cronies just play along, giving into fear and hatred with cruelty of their own. They are the true "defeatests", because they allowed the terrorists to bully them into abondoning the principles America should stand for.

But note, perhaps more importantly, that both the Democratic hopefuls failed to vote on such a measure! Should I then take it to mean that neither one of them finds it an important enough of an issue to bother showing up? And to all you Obama kidergartenrs, your favored son hasn't been around enough to cast any votes on most issues! Let's talk about wishy-washy!Perhaps you all should go to Congress one day and watch how the system fails. There isn't a bill that comes up for vote that doesn't have add-ons. Sometimes you have to vote against a bill that has some good things to keep a really bad one out. The article doesn't go into that much detail and of course you morons jump on that which you can barely make sense of. Get a life!

Well, I hoped to avoid this, but it looks like this is McCain's convention 'theme song'.

By jack bruce and pete brown

Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
I want to just show you what my politics are.

Im a political man and I practice what I preach.
Im a political man and I practice what I preach.
So dont deny me baby, not while youre in my reach.

(Here's McSleepy's part)
I support the left, though Im leaning, leaning to the right.
I support the left, though Im leaning to the right.
But Im just not there when its coming to a fight.

Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
I want to just show you what my politics are.

"McCain is disgusting, a moral and ethical zero." John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

That's why he's my man! Besides, Chuckman, you're from Toronto. You have no vote! Hey waterboarders, Surf's up!

It is starkly apparent that Bush doesn't think waterboarding it illegal, hence this move by the senate to make it crystal clear that it is illegal so Bush can't "parse" the language of the existing law. So McCain has basically sided with the administration who wants to do whatever they want whenever they feel like it.

Jackson, that's incorrect. Never said a thing like it. Now go try to put words in someone else's mouth.

McCain was covered by the Geneva conventions as a POW. Khalid Sheik-Muhammad, however, claims allegiance to no government other, no ENTITY other than Al Qaeda and jihad, wears no uniform, and is no party to the Geneva Convention, period.

These guys can't have it both ways. They can't throw away all the rules of Geneva (not purposely targeting innocent people, using women with down syndrome as human bombs) and then just say "POW" once they get caught. Everyone with half a brain knows it's not the same thing.

Consider this: If waterboarding is already illegal, why did it happen?

John McCain is another war-monger. The last person who should have his hand on the button (so to speak) is a former POW/MIA with an axe to grind.

DNM,

Most of us are NOT terrorists.