McCain votes against ban on waterboarding: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted February 14, 2008 8:08 AM
The Swamp

by Aamer Madhani

As a former resident of the Hanoi Hilton, Sen. John McCain had a certain gravitas when he spoke about torture—particularly when he spoke out against the widely condemned interrogation technique called waterboarding.

You can go back just a few months to when then presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani seemed to equivocate before a forum of potential voters in Iowa on whether waterboarding is, in fact, torture.

“It depends on how it’s done,” Giuliani said. “It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.”

McCain pounced on his friend and former opponent for the Republican nomination. As someone who spent five years as a prisoner of war in a North Vietnamese prison camp where he said he was the subject of beatings and harsh interrogations, McCain has long spoke passionately on the issue.

“All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,” McCain said in interview with the New York Times in response to Giuliani comments. “They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”

But on Wednesday, when 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 voted against the bill.

The bill passed 51-45, but President Bush has promised to veto it.

In a statement, 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 drowning is a clear violation,'' he said.

But the U-turn in Wednesday's vote by the captain of the Straight Talk Express comes in the wake of the Bush administration suggesting that waterboarding remains a "legal" tactic that they reserve the right to use if circumstances warrant it.

By the way, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama didn't vote, as they were on the campaign trail.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

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.


"McCain votes against ban on waterboarding." Hmmm, the bill included a ban on waterboarding. McCain voted against it. Spin however you wish, he voted against a ban on waterboarding. Bills almost always contain other provisions. There are few single subject bills. Waterboarding is obviously not illegal in the sense that anybody in the Bush administration understands. If he felt strong enough about this, he would have swallowed other reservations about the other provisions. The way nearly every Senator has to do on nearly every vote, there are always comromises. He is a resorting to weak political backtracking and spin. Another 4 years of the same doublespeak (followed by 96 years of war). Vote McCain.


It has started already. The media that bashed Hillary at every turn to get Obama the nom now is setting its sights on McCain. Hopefully this time people are not stupid enough to confuse reporter bais with facts. Bottom line is tortuer is alredy illegal and this was just a ploy by Dems to get to say they made torture illegal. mcCain even said Waterboarding is torture and it is already illegal. He gave his reason or not voting for it. Either you agree with his reason or not but you can not insert your own set of false facts into the story.


How is the title incorrect? He voted against it!

Posted by: Whaaa!? | February 14, 2008 12:07 PM


Do you even know what the "it" is or contained? Obviously not or you would not asked some a clearly uninformed question.


McCain is a shallow, gutless, flip flopping hack. He has all the backbone of a 3 minute egg.


This is demagoguery at its finest. McCain slammed for voting against legislation that there is no need to enact, because the law banning the practice already exists within our own statutes and the Geneva Convention, of which the U.S. is a signatory.

I have an idea. How about writing fewer new laws and start enforcing those already on the books?


Joe @ 11:56 a.m.
The 75% American American-Haters may be a little high, but would agree, it is an amazing percentage. The good news, if there were any, is that it would never exceed 88% because there will always be the 12% that just don't know anything.

Alice @ 12:04
You leftists HAVE called President Bush all kinds of names from the Florida re-count up to now, and I'm sure, to be continued. It's the political landscape I would guess the president would say. Instead of looneys, I may have referred to the No-Interrogation leftists with a more refined term, like lunatics. Socialists is much better though, because it also captures your vapid economic agenda which is always in play. It is painful to have to be so graphic.


The person who wrotes this lacks journalistic integrity. This should be a National Enquirer article. McCain has spoken out against all forms of torture for years and has very clearly asserted the US ought always adhere to the Geneva Convention. This was not a bill to ban waterboarding- this was an intelligence bill; one of the things addressed in it was waterboarding. Most of the people leaving negative comments on this board do not appear to have the intelligence to understand or appreciate all of the factors that go into voting for or against a bill with many aspects to it. Clearly there is something else in the bill that was clearly worth voting against that overruled voting for a ban on something that is already banned.


I don't think there are quite enough trolls on here.

Example: "I'm an Obama supporter and even I think McCain is right.."

These are not Obama supporters. As a former staffer, the first thing that a Senator does after a potentially damaging vote is damage control. This is a damaging vote for McCain. Read between the lines.

The journalistic integrity of the article is poor, but the fact remains that Senator McCain had the opportunity here to back a meaningful restriction on a torture tactic. The White House has no respect for current law and regards it as a matter of interpretation. It hinges upon Congress to legislate in a way that is completely unequivocal in order to remove the loopholes that are being used to escape accountability. Right now, torture is torture unless the President says it isn't. The Senate bill aimed to rectify that. McCain struck out. Also, Obama and Clinton struck out by not voting on such a CRUCIAL piece of legislation.


Indeed, why wasn't the headline: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fail to take a position on sensitive national security bill?


Boy - McCain was hot back in 1927!


Jeff:

The issue isn't what is done but what should be done. The two are not the same. Do we hold ourselves, as a nation, to a high standard, or do we hold ourselves to the KGB standard?

====

John D:

9/11 happened. So I'm not sure how waterboarding KSM did us any good.


Here it is - the real version of this topic not the biased version of some crazed uninformed writer/poster/reader

WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior Justice Department official says laws and other limits enacted since three terrorism suspects were waterboarded have eliminated the technique from what is now legally allowed.

"The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding," Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says in remarks prepared for his appearance Thursday before the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee.

"There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law," he said.

It is the first time the department has expressed such an opinion publicly. CIA Director Michael Hayden stopped short of making a similar statement in testimony about waterboarding before Congress last week.

Bradbury in 2005 signed two secret legal memos that authorized the CIA to use head slaps, freezing temperatures and waterboarding when questioning terror detainees. Because of that, Senate Democrats have opposed his nomination by President Bush to formally head the legal counsel's office.

Bradbury's testimony comes as majority Democrats in Congress try to clamp down on interrogation methods that can be used on terrorism suspects.

Congress on Wednesday moved to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh tactics, despite Bush's threat to veto any measure that limits the agency's interrogation techniques. The White House on Thursday renewed the veto threat.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said the standoff poses a basic question for Americans: "They'll have to ask themselves, 'Do you trust the intelligence community more than you trust Democrats who are beholden to their left wing?' And that's the debate that this country is going to have."

The prohibition was contained in a bill authorizing intelligence activities for the current year, which the Senate approved on a 51-45 vote. It would restrict the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual. That manual prohibits waterboarding, a method that makes an interrogation subject feel he is drowning.

The House had approved the measure in December. Wednesday's Senate vote set up a confrontation with the White House.

The legislation bars the CIA from using waterboarding, sensory deprivation or other harsh coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions. Those practices were banned by the military in 2006.

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, CIA Director Hayden acknowledged for the first time publicly that the CIA has used waterboarding against three prisoners.

Hayden said current law and court decisions, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, cast doubt on whether waterboarding would be legal now. Hayden prohibited its use in CIA interrogations in 2006; it has not been used since 2003, he said.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners.

Waterboarding is still officially in the CIA tool kit but it requires the consent of the attorney general and president on a case-by-case basis.


Jeff, You want the CIA to follow the standard set by the KGB and Al-Queda? Funny, I had the impression you right-wingers disliked how the terrorists and the commies operate.

Sure, the CIA undoubtedly has broken the law in the past at the direction of the president. That doesn't mean we should change the law to make torture legal. If the president decides it is necessary for the CIA to break the law and torture people, he can authorize it and then present his arguments to justify his actions if and when he is tried or impeached for his crime. We certainly do not need another president who lacks the courage to take responsibility for his actions.


Jeff,
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You are changing your argument with your reply. Your first post said and can be summed up as, the CIA can do whatever they want because protecting our country is a dirty job and somebody has to do it without fear of arrest. So again I ask and maybe you'll reply. If intelligence officers for North Vietnam broke John McCain's shoulders and stabbed his foot with a bayonnet, was he tortured and are they war criminals? We would like to know what you think. Or do you have a double standard?


Remember the quote from General William Tecumseh Sherman at the end of the civil war?

"War is Hell". That is what he told his troops who were celebrating their victory. He said that to convey the reality of what waging war meant.

He believed that War was to be fought so violently and with so much destruction that it would never be waged again due to the fear of it. It was at least part of reason for burning so much Georgia as he marched on.

If saving American Lives means hurting some bad guys, then so be it. If they didnt wage their Jihad against us, they wouldnt be wondering if they were drowning or not.


"MCCAIN SPEAKS"

ARE MY SONS SAFE AT HOME? ARE THEY ON U.S. SOIL.

OKAY, I'M FOR WATERBOARDING, ANYTHING TO GET ME ELECTED AND THE "BOEHNER" ON MY SIDE.

I'M OKAY WITH "TORTURE" 24 STYLE. I'M FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY I'M FOR.

I AM YOUR MAN, I'M YOUR TAP, TAP MAN IN THE BATHROOM, I'M YOUR TAP TAP MAN AT CRAWFORD RANCH.

TORTURE ANYONE, HECK YOU CAN TORTURE AN AMERICAN AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

JUST GET ME IN THAT OVAL OFFICE AND YOU ALL MIGHT STAY OUT OF JAIL.

CONTEMPT OF WHAT!


"It has started already. The media that bashed Hillary at every turn to get Obama the nom now is setting its sights on McCain. Hopefully this time people are not stupid enough to confuse reporter bais with facts."

Vinny

Don't count on it buddy. Judging from his recent surge, I'd say the stupid-o-meter is in the red zone with no sign of falling back soon...


Ridiculous right, (John D, and others),

Waterboarding was ALREADY illegal by U.S. laws and international treaty. Our own military has court-martialed people for using it and Japanese prisoners were executed for using it during World War II (of course, that was a long time ago, back when the law mattered).

Yet Bush and company assert that such inconveniences as the law don’t apply to them. They also claim waterboarding isn’t torture, even though our own military says otherwise.

It’s sad that we need a law to specifically ban its use, yet that’s what you have to do with an administration that has no regard for the law, you have to specifically state that this specific practice can’t be used.

So please, ridiculous right, explain in your distorted, weird surreal alternative reality views how the administration is not breaking laws that our own country has put people on trial for in the past?


If anybody would like to read for themselves what exactly Senator McCain vetoed, here's the link to the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:5:./temp/~c110DvMWcI::

There is clearly a lot more to the bill outside of a ban on waterboarding. (There are repeated references to the previous act, sponsored by Senator McCain, requesting that those provisions be adopted by the intelligence communities.) In fact, there is a great deal more than we should all know about from this bill, including the reporting of intelligence to the senate committees. When you see the entire context of the bill, you may see why Senator McCain thinks that we are trying to treat the intelligence communities like the military - - because the bill requires these agencies report to the Senate Armed Forces Committee.


Bingo!! Neither of them voted. Looking at their voting records the last 6 months you see almost all NV = No Votes next to their names. Now that is what you can expect from them "Nothing".


******

Indeed, why wasn't the headline: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fail to take a position on sensitive national security bill?


So what McCain really voted against was unifying our nations policies on torture.

The "I'm not going to vote for this because it's already illegal" defense is pretty weak,especially when we have an administration that has shown time and again a propensity for ignoring laws it doesn't like.

McCain had a chance to make a statement, that torture is wrong, in all cases, no matter what government agency does it.

Instead his statement is, "as long as its not the military doing the torturing, it just might be ok".

The fact is that he did end up voting against a ban of waterboarding - no matter how much he tries to explain it away, and no matter how many times it may have already been declared "illegal".

The writer of the article just takes a narrow piece of what the legislation waas about to report on - journalists do it all the time. Had he tried to give a comprehensive report on the entire bill and its potential ramifications, today's Tribune would have been the size of the Sunday paper - and would have consisted of just that one story.

Spin it any way you want, but the fact is that there was a provision within that bill that would have (once again) banned waterboarding, and McCain, in voting against the bill, voted not to ban waterboarding.


I never said that the CIA can do whatever it wants to POWs! Find where I said it. Show me. I never said anything of the sort.

John McCain was a POW covered by Geneva. Period. Therefore the North Vietnamese should have observed Geneva and not tortured. We know they didn't, but that's not the argument. Al Qaeda operatives, however, do not comply with Geneva and are not covered by it. That's the plain and simple difference you refuse to acknowledge. There is a protocol under Geneva for POW treatment. No protocol under it covers terrorist network ringleaders like KSM.

Therefore they are more like spies who also aren't protected by Geneva. Drawing a parallel between a recognized POW like John McCain and a terrorist shows how little of the situation you understand.

The fact of the matter is what was done to these terrorists was legal at the time and still exists in the CIA toolkit. The democrats will do anything to help the terrorists.


It's naive to say that we will never use nuclear weapons.

-- John McCain, August 5, 2007, Republican Presidential Debate


Sing it, old man!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/


If you vote for this guy you deserve what you get.


He voted against waterboarding before he voted for it. It's pretty simple.

It's just one more step in the Romneyization of McCain. Pander, pander, pander. Say whatever you can possibly say that you think will get you elected.


if it's already illegal then why not vote for the ban? after all, torture is wrong right?

or does it work and give you credible information? without torture they wouldn't have found out about all those witches in salem or in europe during the inquisition.


Giving those democrats some amunition huh? He is now caving to his party's demands and becoming a flip-flopper.


Insane McCain (that's what his fellow Republican Congress-critters call him) will say or do anything to get elected, even sell out his "war hero" status:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188858/posts


Senator John McCain presents himself as a maverick and a critic of the Iraq war. But a close read of his record indicates that his position on the Iraq war has consistently matched President George W. Bush’s.


Before The War:

McCain used many of the same arguments as Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and President Bush when advocating going to war with Iraq.

McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization that gave President George W. Bush the green light – and a blank check - for going to war with Iraq. [SJ Res 46, 10/3/02]

McCain argued Saddam was “a threat of the first order.” Senator McCain said that a policy of containing Iraq to blunt its weapons of mass destruction program is "unsustainable, ineffective, unworkable and dangerous." McCain: "I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom.” [Speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2/13/03]

McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s rationale for going to war. McCain: “It’s going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East.” [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 2/21/03]

McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time. McCain: “It’s clear that the end is very much in sight. … It won’t be long…it’ll be a fairly short period of time.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

McCain said winning the war would be “easy.” “I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]


During The War:

Senator McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld as late as May 12, 2004, after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Asked if Donald Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: “Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man.” [Hannity and Colmes, 5/12/04]


Senator McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War – voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.

McCain maintains the war was a good idea.

At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and “he would have acquired them again.” McCain said the mission in Iraq “gave hope to people long oppressed” and it was “necessary, achievable and noble.” McCain: “For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.” [Plain Dealer, 8/31/04]

Senator McCain: “The war, the invasion was not a mistake. [Meet the Press, 1/6/08]

Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: “It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them.” [Republican Debate, 1/24/08]

McCain defended Bush’s rationale for war. Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, “I don’t think so.” [Fox News, 7/31/03]

McCain has been President Bush’s most ardent Senate supporter on Iraq. According to Michael Shank of the Foreign Policy in Focus think tank, McCain was at times Bush’s “most solid support in the Senate” on Iraq. [Foreign Policy in Focus, 1/15/08]

McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. [S. Amdt. 1275 to H.R. 2658, Vote # 284, 7/16/03]

McCain praised Bush’s leadership on the war. McCain: “I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he’s done a great job leading the country…” [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/23/03]

Senator McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war – repeatedly saying it would be over soon.

January 2003: “But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

March 2003: “I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 3/30/03]

June 2004: “The terrorists know that this is a very critical time.” [CNN, 6/23/04]

December 2005: "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

November 2006: “We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/12/06]

Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.

McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. [S. Amdt.. 2909 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 341, 9/19/07; S Amdt. 2012 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote #241, 7/11/07]

McCain was one of only 13 senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [S Amdt. 3642 to HR 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06]

Senator McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq

Senator McCain repeatedly voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. [S. Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #438, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.. 3875 to S.Amdt.. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote # 437, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.3164 to H.R. 3222, Vote # 362, 10/3/07; S.Amdt. 2898 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #346, 9/21/07; S.Amdt. 2924 to S.Amdt.. 2011 to H.R.1585, Vote #345, 9/21/07; S.Amdt.2 087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #252, 7/18/07; S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 1591, Vote #116, 3/27/07; S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766, Vote #182, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766, Vote #181, 6/22/06; S.Amdt.. 2519 to S.1042, Vote # 322, 11/15/05]


Senator McCain has consistently demonized Americans who want to find a responsible way to remove troops from Iraq so that we can take the fight to al Qaeda.

McCain: "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender.” [Charlotte Observer, 9/16/07]

McCain called proponents of a congressional resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq intellectually dishonest. [Associated Press. 2/4/07]


The Future:

Senator McCain now says he sees no end to the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

McCain: "[M]ake it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." [Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08]

McCain on how long troops may remain in Iraq: “A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government.” [Associated Press, 1/04/08]


Syj, it has been said that intelligence that prevented terrorist attacks on Americans were obtained when waterboarding those three terrorists (specifically Khalid Sheik Mohammed) and the Swamp actually reported as such by a CIA operative who witnessed one of the waterboarding sessions. So, I ask: WHICH TERRORIST ATTACK AND HOW MANY AMERICAN LIVES LOST WOULD HAVE BEEN OK WITH YOU AND YOUR ILK TO MAKE NICE-NICE WITH KHALID SHEIK MOHAMMED? (with apologies here to ROGER MORRIS.)

And Gharbuck, the Tribune's endorsement history has nothing to do with the alleged reporting done by Tribune reporters in the news pages and on the Website. In fact, most Tribune reporters love it that the newspaper endorses Republicans for president because it provides them more cover to be as liberally biased as they want in the "news" pages.


Jeff,
What about US law? If they are not covered by any laws, why are we keeping them alive? You should give up. You are disgracing your tortured hero.


So if something is already illegal (and the president igores the law) why tighten it?

I would point out that lawmakers continue to tighten our laws against drugs and drunk driving, even though they've already been illegal for decades.


To those of you who don't understand what's wrong with the Trib's headline, I'll try to simplify it for you.

Say there's a Senate vote on the following health care bill:

I. Children with cancer must be given free medicine.

II. Eldery people with cancer can be euthanized (killed).

If a Senator votes against the bill, is it responsible to post a headline that says: "Senator Votes Against Giving Medicine to Children with Cancer."

The headline is accurate, strictly speaking, but it is also misleading. It is misleading because it implies that the Senator does not support healthcare for children, when it is equally possible that the Senator is concerned about the well being of seniors. Papers like the Trib. have a responsibility to be fair and balanced on issues like this.


So John D, your arugment is "even though torture is illegal, it's ok as long as it produces results, and by 'results' I mean an administration with no credibility claims that it has prevented attacks, even though they can't offer one single example of an attack that was averted so let's all just stand and salute because the end justifies the means."

Hmmm. where have I heard that last part before?


Despite the slightly misleading headline for this article, the facts are clear: John (100 years in Iraq) McCain had a chance to reaffirm his opposition to the use of waterboarding as a form of interrogation. He could have voted to express this opposition to torture. Instead he pandered to the right wing of the GOP in a cowardly and calculated act of political flip-flopping.

I can't wait for the general election which will give the nation an in-depth look at McCain -- frail, pale, and stale!


So using the logic used in this article one could say that Obama and Clinton are for Waterboarding sense they failed to even show up to vote on this matter. However that will not stop Obama from attacking and the media will once again give him a pass on attacking someone for a vote that he didnt even bother to show up for like he did with Hillary on the Iran issue.


I simply cant understand why everyone is so up in arms about this and other "agressive interrogation" measures.

If it gets information we need to prevent another attack, or to prosecute and convict the persons that perpetrate such attacks,then so be it. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE PEOPLE! Do you not remember the beheading videos? How about those soldiers in somalia? Do you not remember the burned and crispy contractors dragged through the streets of IRAQ and hung from the bridge? do you not remember the people jumping 101 floors to escape the fire in the WTC?

When did americans turn into a bunch of lily livered wussies? stop wringing your hands about if its illegal or not and suck it up. This is a war whether we like it or not.


Little Johnny D,
You are so convincing! A Bush Administration loyalist in the CIA says he saw the KSM waterboarding and it led to the confession of a terrorist plot to kill Americans. And it was thwarted with not a second to spare. Wow! Just like an episode of 24. I'm all ears, did this same CIA agent claim we found WMD also?


Say what you will, he voted against the bill. He clearly viewed banning torture as less important than other items in the bill.

PS I heard that several Japanese officers were executed after WW2 for torture, specifically waterboarding. Seems that the US must be on the record that waterboarding is torture if we are executing people for it as war criminals.


Earth to "are you kidding me."

Illegally torturing people would not have prevented "blackhawk down" in Somalia, beheading videos or the contractors being killed in Iraq.

We already had the information we needed to prevent 9/11 but failed to connect the dots.

Remember the presidential memo "Bin laden dertermined to attack in U.S." that Bush ignored?


A comment on the homespun media critics (who seem to be from the same political vantage point):

Why do you presume that only you are capable of reading an article and determining what it says? Sorry to rain on your parade, but if you folks are capable of identifying perceived inaccuracies, so are others.

The "liberal media" meme is by far the most tedious one that trots out here everyday. If you can identify bias, so can others. If you don't like this "paper" don't read it.


I love it when the Republics can't get their talking points straight. Half of you retards maintain the Administration line that we do not torture and the other half says, "we torture. So what, the ends justify the means". You can't have it both ways and Americans aren't as dumb as you assume they are you elitist pigs.


So McCain is in favor waterboarding and maintianing an unjustified war in Iraq even if we have to stay there for 100 years. This will merely continue the idiocy of the Bush administratin which is waging an illegal war. Can this country survive another 4 years like this. We will certainly be alone in the world and isolated and Americans will be scorned everywhere because of our government's policies.


McCain has earned the right to have an opinion on torture that no other candidate has.

Glad to see Barak and "B"illary taking their Senate obligations seriously and not even voting. For those coming down on McCain for his stance, how do you defend those who don't even vote?


Julia...nothing helps make an argurment like calling a group of people "retards", which is wrong on so many levels. As a liberal, you must only use political correctness when it suits you.


Julia, er "retard," three people have been "tortured." Three. Anyway, I hope this does become a huge campaign issue cause I'm willing to bet a clear majority of Americans could care less if some head-chopping terrorist thought he was drowning for 20 seconds and the result was no terrorist attack and no lives lost.

And Dumb Dumb Janet, the CIA operative was not a "Bush loyalist." In fact, dear, the agent said he was uncomfortable about the waterboarding episode, but also said that the information obtained saved lives. Said he was not proud of the waterboarding but also said in the end it was worth it because American lives were SAVED.

Please, Loons, for once explain why you want millions of Americans killed. I know, you think dead Americans equates to thwarting global warming. Nice winter, we're having, huh???


Your editors in Chicago are funny - but so are all other left wing type newspapers. Spin, spin, spin. Not only is this unethical and unprofessional journalism; it's flawed reporting of information. I read the blogs because it amazes me that people in this country actually believe either the left winger and right winger-type journalist. Simply amazing. The two party system is aborent with spinning information - just to obtain power and authority to screw the middle class independents. Again, simply amazing.


Okay you morons, what is the purpose of creating a duplicate law (banning waterboarding) if it is the Administration that says it is not subject to the law? The could be passed with 100% of the vote, but the current Administration would simply ignore it as they have so many others). Perhaps you should really dig into these issues rather than believe the media (egotistcal ratings mongers). The current Administration often adds signing statements to legislation stating that it is not required to abide by the law they just signed! It is not the law that is needed, it is the removal of these traitors from our government offices! Impeachment is appropriate, but will not be pushed. The Democrats can't even get up enough support and courage to take on the most dispicable administration in modern times, if not US history, what makes you think they can really make any changes. It's all lost folks! Understand that much!


Waterboarding has only been used 3 times, all on the top 3 AL Qaida prisoners. We gained valuable information from that. If it saves lives or prevents another attack on us, I don't see what the problem is. It's not like it is a daily occurence.


Maybe you should all go back and read the headline. I think it is very accurate. There was a bill which would have banned waterboarding and Mc Cain voted against it. How is that statement not true? They don't claim that he didn't have a reason. They just stated a fact.

To all you "right wingers"... Mc Cain sold his vote for yours. Pretty simple.


Posted by: John D | February 14, 2008 2:57 PM

Being that GW has turned the CIA into a rogue organization, I wouldn't put any weight to anything an operative says. It has also been reported that a terrorist will lie just to stop the torture. It is not effective as you claim.

And yes, I would be willing to suffer losses and even death to hold on to principles. If you and your like had any principles, you might understand. We should use reason, intelligence and any non-violent means at our disposal to track and capture those who are discovered to be planning an "imminent" attack(and I fully realize we may need to use weapons in order to capture, but our soldiers should be trained to shoot only when absolutely necessary, as a defense, not as an attack). But beyond that, we have to take our chances.

And regarding your other post, you must think that CIA operative deserves the Death Penalty. I don't, nor do I think those Japanese sodliers from WWII should have been executed. But if the U.S. was "on board" with waterboarding being torture, than surely the CIA operatives should be charged with war crimes.

You have completely contradicted your statements. In your post at Posted by: John D | February 14, 2008 11:52 AM

You say it was not illegal when the three terrorists were waterboard. Then you say, we have known it was illegal since WWII. Your hypocrisy is mindboggling.


Hey Aamer, why don't you just report the news like an ethical journalist should, instead of twisting the truth for your own agenda?


I thought the most interesting part of the article was that there were two senators who could not vote because they were on the campaign trail. Didn't the people elect ALL senators to vote on issues affecting this country? I think that some senators have forgotten why they are in Washington!!!!! WHAT A DISCRACE!!!


Ty, that's like saying I only hit your wife one time so what's the big deal?


This guy has been talking out of both sides of his mouth for years. This is nothing new. He panders to his base and right now his base is extreme right wing nut jobs. Most of the moderates see inpiration in Obama. Where all the crickety old conservatives are looking at McCain.

This is no different than his stance on the tax cuts. 4 years ago it was amazing to him that we could cut taxes in time of war, now as we're still in the same war, he wants to make them permanent. Um ok.....

He may be a brave man and he deserves all the credit in the world for what he's been through. But he's full of crap now.


McCain is just a crazy old coot, nutty as a pecan pie.


Isn't it more shameful that Hillary and Obambam didn't even vote on the bill???


Based on his comments, does McCain think that we have violated International Law?
Did anyone ask him the next obvious question?


I am losing faith in the Trib. What kind of writing is this? And I'm not a 'right winger' so that's not why I am saying this. Just amazed at what passes for journalism nowadays.


Read your History Books, What do you think The Moslems will do ? Cut off Your Head, Communist China ? Korea ? Vietnam > Romans.If you tie the hands of the Us Military this Country will die ? War Is Hell, Ask any Soldier not a Political Liberal or Political Leader, Maybe Mc Cain Changed his mind, better then having OBama who is a Moslemn, Why not ask him ? What about Hillary ? If Her Hubsand the former President had killed the BinLambin we would not have had 911, Now Think Who Would Protect The USA Better ?


To all you liberals out there:
Do you honestly think that a "ban" on a simple technique will stop brave and wonderful men and women from waterboarding, and doing things much worse, to terrorist scum? These extremists would kill your family in an instant if they could. Thank God we are protected by people who do dirty nasty things to keep us safe! P.S. Obama is an empty suit, a creation of the media..tell me ONE of his stances..just one..


Liberalism really is a mental disorder; too many people are swallowing up the spin put on this by a biased "journalist", even though the article clearly states that he voted against the bill because it was over-reaching. Do you understand what an over-reaching bill means? If congress really wanted to pass a bill on banning waterboarding, then don't add any pork to the bill; just leave it as a ban on waterboarding. Why do they have to add a thousand other provisions that have nothing to do with waterboarding? That's why bills get rejected left and right and nothing gets done in Washington. Keep it simple, Congress.


I am flat out amazed at the absolute ignorance of all these "twerps" writing in to express their complaints on Senator McCain re. Waterboarding. For openers, a rough guestimate would be that 99% of them have never worn a steel helmet in the military. If they had, they would KNOW the Military Code follows the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention. These rules have been in place since before WW2. THEY DO NOT APPLY TO TERRORISTS OR NON UNIFORM WEARING SOLDIERS (aka spies). THEY DO NOT APPLY TO SPIES CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ESPIONAGE. All of this confusion is caused by dumb U.S. dimocrat civilians cry babies who don'tknow much about anything much less a history of the world or even their own country.


Who cares about water boarding, we should be focusing on destroying our enemies by any and all means necessary. Second place has no silver medal here. I want some spoils to this war. Land, resources, you get the idea. now lets get it done.
You people who are all the time just mixing words make me sick. I don't give a rats behind about "collateral damage".
I want to see a parking lot.


You are all sick in the head, liberalism is definetly a mental disorder. You are all worried about crazies that would not think twice about slitting your troats.Convert or die, they don't understand compassion
start to practice praying 5 times a day facing towards Mecca Infidels !!!!!!


I'm amused, sort of, by those who are more outraged about what they see as slanted journalism than about our government torturing people. Virtually everyone reading this is old enough to remember a time when torture would have been an unthinkable topic in a Presidential debate. Should we or shouldn't we? How much is too much? Can you imagine Kennedy and Nixon debating this? Stevenson and Eisenhower?

The answer to torture is always no, no, no. There is no "I think we already have a law" or "This is just politics." If they ask you to vote yea or nay on torture, you vote nay. Always, always, always. There is no other choice if you want this country to be considered civilized - or if you want your candidacy for President to be considered anything but shameful.


Reading these remarks for the most part explains how little Americans know about the seriousness of the radical Muslim threat. You people are such fools to believe that such acceptable techniques as waterboarding should not be used to protect your very own children from future attacks.
Maybe you believe that a Valentines day card given to a terrorist would change his mind about giving up information regarding his intentions. For your information Chief Justice Scalia just two days ago gave rise himself to the question of torture and
expressed Americas right to self protect. Justice Scalia in an interview broadcast in Britain stated that interrogators can inflict pain to obtain critical information about an imminent terrorist threat.


Lets just use harsh language when trying to obtain information that might stop death and destruction of our U.S. citizens. And then lets print our harsh language strategy in every newspaper we can find so those we might use harsh language on will know what to expect and come totally prepared for it.


You are all sick in the head, liberalism is definetly a mental disorder. You are all worried about crazies that would not think twice about slitting your troats.Convert or die, they don't understand compassion
start to practice praying 5 times a day facing towards Mecca Infidels !!!!!!


Maybe one day, the opposition to torture will find themselves in a circumstance where life,death security or even survival to themselves or their family will confront them face to face.
Untill, liberals realize the world is a harsh reality for survival and self preservation, they can live in their fantasy world and be thankful that there are methods that have to be used to protect or country and even their gutless lives.
God bless America and the military!!


Let's remember that those two great Swamp heroes and "agents of change," Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, didn't even have the guts or decency to show up to work today and DO THE JOB THE VOTERS ELECTED THEM TO DO!

Say what you want about McCain and his stance, but just know that he did his job today and didn't shirk an important vote for political expediency like those two cowards.


I believe the reason that Obama and Clinton are not the focus of the story is because the senate leaders must have been sure of having enough votes(yes, Virginia, they count votes.) for the bill to carry. I'm sure the Democratic leadership would rather they stay out rallying the troops rather than waste time to come back for an already sure thing. That makes McCain's vote, not a deciding vote, but an interesting political statement.


Maybe one day, the ADVOCATES of torture will find themselves or their sons in a circumstance of being tortured by the enemy because 'if America does it, why can't we?' Having said that, McCain is not the flip flopper here - it is George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who incite this kind of ILLEGAL and IMMORAL behavior in the name of good old American values. Believe me, Liberals understand this is a world of harsh reality for survival and self-preservation . . . we're the ones having to deal with conservatives & neocons who support this failed administration.


Whining about the media bias or quibbling about the specifics of the bill is missing the really important point. McCain has a problem. To unify the Republican party and mobilize the conservative base, he has to become Un-McCain. When he becomes Un-McCain, he loses his Mojo in the general election among the Independents. He'd better pray - as hard as he did in Hanoi Hilton - that Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee.


I agree, absolutely embarrassing reporting here - the title of this article is all that is bad about journalism - and is an example of of what Jon Stewart will be mocking tonight


Aamer Madhani should be fired for writing this and the editor should be fired for allowing it to be published. Scum.


The title of the article is incorrect.

Waterboarding was already illegal. McCain said the measure goes too far in applying military standards to intelligence agencies and maintained that existing law already forbids waterboarding. He also said that staging a mock execution by including the misperception of drowning is a clear violation.

McCain knows better than any of us what interrigation methods are appropriate, having spent five year in a North Vietnamese prison where interrigators broke both of his arms trying to make him criticise his country.

I am disgusted with all the arm chair interrigator authorities who have never been in the military much less been tortured. What right does Rush Limbaugh, who has never known anything but civilian comfort, have criticising John McCain on this issue?


I LOVE IT!

All of the rightwing lunitic fringe has crawled out of their holes to announce what we've all already known, THEY SUPPORT TORTURE IN OUR COUNTRIES NAME because they saw it work on their favorite TV show "24" plus their Prez Chimpy said it works...but they forgot to think about the fact that it also exposes our military members to torture and if it happens to our troops we wouldn't be able to say a thing about it because every other country would just point the finger back at us and say "the Republican Party in America tortures so their troops deserve it too"

They don't call Republicans "mouthbreathingknuckledraggers" for nothing and the best part about this is that their GOPer candidate, Insane McCain, is going to have to spend the next 6-months kissing the butt of the far rightwing lunitc fringe and in turn losing all the other voters.


First of all people, waterboarding is not torture. Cutting some ones head off on video and playing it on a radical Muslim TV program I would rate as torture.


So nice to see all the Loons and Morons making comments about the interpretive reporting. I hope some of these folks will go to DC someday and help to craft better legislation.We need legislation without loopholes and ambiguity.The help wanted ad is out for legislators to have aides with better writing skills than the current aides. Perhaps those who craft legislation and those who claim to be reporters can change jobs every six months and provide us with even more entertainment.....or maybe the writers who recently were on strike could learn to draft legislation and spice it up even more. This is a real plea for clear rather than convoluted legislative language without entangled concepts.


Waterboarding to extract information to prevent future attacks against americans or american interest is a bad thing?

I picture the images of people free falling off the WTC's and force myself to imagine being on one the planes that hit the towers.

Oh Im sorry.. the same wackos that are against waterboarding are the same wackos who say 9/11 was a goerge bush conspiricy.

You all smoke too many drugs.


This title is clearly misleading (as redundantly stated) and should be changed ASAP.


That's right Arcadia. We should all be so terrified by the threat of radical muslim terrorist that we surrender our constitutional rights, disregard our own laws, and continue pre-emptive invasions of other countries to neutralize the terrorist threat, the Iranian threat, the Syrian threat, the Chinese threat, the Russian threat, the Polish threat, the French threat, the German threat, the Swiss threat, the Aruban threat, the Monaco threat, etc, etc, etc.

A hint for you wingers: If you want to win your "War on Terror", you probably shouldn't surrender to your fears.


Just checking in to see if my candidate Obama is following my doctrine as espoused in the Communist Manisfesto. Go to this site:http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

Looks like Democrat dogma to me!

love,

Che


Aamer Madhani is not a journalist, he is a left wing hack! This article is more proof that 9 out of 10 journalists are liberal. This isn't even journalism. Sounds like something I would find on the DailyKos or Huffington Post.

The New York Times presented the story exactly the same way on their website. The NY Times went a step further and didn't even bother to mention the Obama and Clinton non-votes but made sure to mention that Lieberman and Nelson were the only Democrats that voted with Republicans. Obviously they called the Democrats out to try and make them look bad to their constituents.

Pathetic! Way to show your liberal bias!


And he wants the moderate vote? This is like being pregnant, you are either against torture or you aren't. There's no middle ground.

How McCain of all people could equivicate on this issur is past my comprehension.


He believed that War was to be fought so violently and with so much destruction that it would never be waged again due to the fear of it. It was at least part of reason for burning so much Georgia as he marched on.

Posted by: Eric | February 14, 2008 1:57 PM

And, boy, it sure has worked. Because we have never been in any wars since the civil war. Oh, wait we have?

I guess this thinkng doesn't work, nor does torture.

WWI was supposed to be "the war that ends all wars". But WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. It never stops, and the reasons are almost always so superficial.

The U.S. has only been involved in "right" wars 3 times.

Revolutionary, Civil, and WWII.

Our participation in all the others was totally unecessary. And in the case of the current Iraq war, it is criminal.


The bill does not go far enough! Military standards should also apply to our murderous contractors in Iraq.


Hey Che, looks like you forgot about this. Sounds like the "Manifesto" was partly written based on these principles. Hmmmmm.

The gall of these people to hold such socialist views. What were they thinking?


"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and NO ONE CLAIMED THAT ANY OF HIS POSSESSIONS WAS HIS OWN, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. THERE WAS NO NEEDY PERSON AMONG THEM, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the PROCEEDS of the sale,
and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were DISTRIBUTED TO EACH ACCORDING TO NEED."

Acts of the Apostels: 4, 32-35


While it is appropriate to debate whether or not to drip water down the noses of rabid killers in extreme circumstances, the important issue is how to respond to Jihad for the next fifty to one hundred years. As long as we can be perceived as an evil society by moslems it gives impetus to Jihad. Waterboarding could not be perceived as wicked by those who cut off heads with dull knives. Hollywood propaganda is wicked. It gives a false impression of who and what Americans are which in turn feeds fanaticism.


Jeff,
When McCain failed to show up for votes you used to argue that the bill would pass with or without his vote so it did not matter. Why the double standard?


Mcain needs to part ways with his American hating control freak friends and start doing things right.Who realy cares if you artificialy drown a terrorist to get information?It is muslims like Barack Obama,the weirdo who's running for president.


These Jihadees could simply be shot on the battlefield which would save us the trouble of having to deal with the legal controversy created by their friends in this country, those that see our enemies comfort as more important than our ability to get intelligence that could save a city from being destroyed. Since these Jihadees don't wear any military uniforms or represent any nation state they are not protected by international treaties.


Was this article misleading? , the reporter did what many of you obviously are incapable of doing , READING BETWEEN THE LINES!!!! . Wake up people!, the reason MCcain used for voting against the bill was(while seeming legit to slow minded individuals or hardline Republicans) a rather convenient lie. Mccain is a liar and a scumbag plain and simple....


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "k" in the field below: