OK, Dems! If You Won't Hit John McCain, Then I Will!

Yesterday I listened to the Rachel Maddow show, and Rachel made a point we should ALL keep in mind: If Clinton and Obama compete on who can hit McCain the most, they can win. If not, in all previous years where the Dems had a divided convention ('68, '72, '80), the Dems lost in November.

You hearing that Hillary? Barack? If you guys spend the next several weeks and months calling one another "weak on national security," you are digging your own political graves.

My personal preference is for Hillary to pack it in and call it a day, but she won't. So if that's how it's gonna be, why not take Rachel's advice and compete on who can hit "Bomb-Bomb" McCain (as Rachel calls him) the hardest.
(The nickname comes from singing 'Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran' to the tune of The Beach Boys "Barbara Ann")

How do we hit McCain? Well, it ain't that hard. And I think I can hit him on his (formerly) strongest point.

Remember when McCain was against torture? Remember when he really "stood for something"?

We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists. We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are," McCain said. "I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror. - Dec 15, 2005

Source

This year, he proposed an amendment to a defense bill that would ban cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees.

"We should do it ... because we're American and because we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment no matter how evil or terrible they may be," McCain said on the Senate floor last month.

Vice President Dick Cheney lobbied against McCain's measure, arguing that CIA agents should be exempt from such a ban.

The Senate passed McCain's amendment 90 to 9. The House resisted. Republican leaders claimed the measure was legally unnecessary. - Dec 9, 2005

Source

In fact, here is an entire anti-torture op-ed by McCain on Truthout. Wow! What could be more admirable? A true American hero, who underwent torture for his country and came back to serve the public and prevent our country from torturing its prisoners.

Except that he flip-flops. John McCain is only anti-torture when it's convenient.

For example, here:

McCain made a . . . statement to reporters, in which he called for President Bush to veto the Senate's anti-torture bill. He talked in support of "additional techniques" for interrogation, sounding ever more in line with the White House's official stance. McCain, the "war hero" who has been an outspoken opponent of torture, voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to some 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual. - Feb 22, 2008

Source

And here:

To placate the White House, McCain eventually softened his prohibition by adding a legal defense for accused CIA and military interrogators that mimes the extreme exculpatory logic of the Justice Department's notorious August 2002 Bybee memo. Drafted to protect CIA interrogators after 9/11, this now-disavowed document argued that torture, as defined under U.S. law, required that the suffering inflicted "be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." In a section of McCain's amendment called "Protection of United States Government Personnel," the final legislation opened a little noticed but similarly cavernous legal loophole for future torturers. It allowed U.S. officials "engaging in specific operational practices that involve interrogation of aliens" to claim, if charged, that they "did not know that the practices [they used] were unlawful." - Feb 8, 2006

Source

Back in late 2005, when McCain was "standing his ground" for his anti-torture amendment, he did a Dec. 15 photo op with Bush as they supposedly made a deal. It allowed McCain to save face as a straight-talking guy who opposed torture and it allowed Bush to keep torturing.

That White House photo-op was, however, a complete media mirage. Within hours, the administration began moving deftly to pull any teeth left in this legislation. Speaking to CNN, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales quickly dismissed McCain's reform as insignificant, insisting that existing legislation only banned the infliction of "severe" physical or psychological pain in interrogations -- the same linguistic legerdemain that had allowed the administration to start torturing back in 2002. The attorney general seemed to be echoing the opinions of his subordinates who, according to the Washington Post, were already arguing that the McCain amendment would, "under certain circumstances," still allow "waterboarding" <snip>

On December 30, right after signing a defense bill that included the McCain amendment at his Crawford ranch, President Bush issued a "signing statement" -- carefully released at the extremely unnewsworthy hour of 8:00 pm that Friday night -- insisting that his powers as commander-in-chief and head of the "unitary executive branch" still allowed him to do whatever was necessary to defend America. So much for McCain's efforts as the year ended.

Just four days into 2006, Senator McCain, though claiming confidence that the "President understands Congress's intent" in passing the torture ban, promised "strict oversight to monitor the Administration's implementation of the new law."

Source

Last fall, I noticed that McCain's statements on torture changed depending on who he was commenting on. When talking about Giuliani, McCain made himself out to be 100% anti-torture in comparison. When talking about Mukasey, McCain changed his tune.

During his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Mukasey was asked if he believed waterboarding constituted a form of torture. The nominee hedged: "I don't know what is involved in the technique." He said that if waterboarding is torture, he would consider it unconstitutional, but refused to give Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) a yes or no answer.

Giuliani later defended Mukasey's formulation, suggesting that the liberal media was "misreporting" how waterboarding was done. McCain then laid into the former New York mayor today, saying, "They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture."

Source

"Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak," said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here.

"People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that."

Source

Hmm, based on those statements, perhaps McCain oughta've voted against Mukasey! But - gasp! - that would mean he's siding with the Democrats!

But will McCain join Senate Democrats in possibly holding up Mukasey's confirmation until he clears up his stance on waterboarding, as ThinkProgress proposed today? McCain's campaign suggests no.

"The Judiciary Committee process is ongoing and Sen. McCain believes that Judge Mukasey deserves an up-or-down vote based on his qualifications for the office of Attorney General," a McCain aide said in a Friday e-mail.

Source

So what did McCain do? Well, he didn't vote. How courageous. No wonder my conservative friends are telling me that they are going to back McCain because he "got the message that he needs to be more conservative." Looks like he did indeed!