I like this - too bad it couldn't be used in a political argument since suggesting that POWs lie, cheat, or distort their positions for financial gain is comparable to raping the Statue of Liberty.
Put me on TV. I'll say everything else too. You know, the stuff they tell you not to say.
That French whore was asking for it Ziggity.
@1: Tell that to Max Cleland.
Again, an even more relevant question: John McCain was in a better position than just about anybody to know whether or not such "enhanced interrogation" techniques are effective. So either they aren't, in which case his support for the use of such practices makes no sense, or they are, in which case his personal testimonials about how he never gave his captors any useful information are not truthful. He's either endorsing ineffective methods or he's lying about his own experiences.
My hope is that all this niceness ends on debate night. Obama can call him on it all on live TV. Now wouldn't THAT be something to see?
Contrast that with cry-baby-Bama who winces if anyone asks him a hard question or calls him a "mean name".
#7: Quotation marks are used to indicate that you are quoting somebody.
@8: Not necessarily. You can also use quotes to indicate that the phrase is used ironically. It seems correct here (except he should have put the period inside the quote, but who cares?).
For some reason I thought they broke his arm. Is that not true?
I can prove he was tortured.
Look, he already has delusions that he was Alexander S in the Gulag.
You should put on the uniform first, before you see yourself as qualified to comment on someone's experience as a prisoner of war and attempt to make a mockery of it. Regardless of political affiliation or belief.
The point here isn't commenting on his experience papillon, it's commenting on what the dude has or hasn't learned from his experience.
And the contradiction is worth highlighting.
@12: If McCain has the right to present his POW experience as some sort of unquestionable testament to his character and as an inviolable reason to vote for him, then we all have the right to comment on and discuss that experience, regardless of civilian status.
Hypocrisy knows no uniform.
Even if he was waterboarded he still wouldn't qualify as a torture survivor by Bush's definition.
@12: Asking a politician who was a POW 40 years ago how that has affected his position on torture today is a fair question. And it is not disrespectful to other torture survivors, soldier or civilian, to call John McCain on a difficult position to defend. How does he define torture? If (God forbid) McCain becomes president, will he continue the Bush administration's policy of denying that the US government has tortured anyone by raising the definition of torture so high that even crucifixion wouldn't qualify? This is a relevant issue in this election and we as voters have a right to hear both candidates' position.
Besides, our kind host legally can't put that uniform on anyway...something else McCain supports.
I'd say the beat down they gave him where they broke most his limbs qualifies. I agree the guy's coasting on the torture thing to duck questions, but I think what he went through was hell.
Everyone wants soundbites rather than actually studying the candidate's position on things. Sure, sure, yeah, yeah, MCCAIN SUPPORTS TORTURE OHMIGOD. Or you could actually read and consider McCain's explanation of why he voted for or against whatever bill you're talking about, not that you have any idea about what the fuck you're talking about.
Torture is probably the only platform where McCain is not totally full of shit-
I'd avoid the topic if I were hoping to get President O in office.
In 2004 John Kerry was promoted as a war hero, having been awarded 3 Purple Hearts during 4 months of combat in Vietnam. He suffered no serious injuries and spent no time recovering in any hospital. Bush's military record became an issue as it did not measure up to John Kerry's service to his country. John McCain was bayoneted, suffered broken bones, no medical treatment, and spent over 5 years in a prisoner of war camp. And yet he is the one being accused of exploiting his military service for political gain. Makes sense to me.
and, @12, unlike you, I served.
Your first post indicates otherwise.
Fly away, papillon.
@papillion - Your position that one must "wear the uniform" to criticize the military and those who carry out orders is bullshit.
Our military is made up of civilian volunteers, who ultimately answer to a civilian government. Anything less is Fascism. Are you advocating Fascism?
@25: Easy on the straw there. The idea that we can't put tough questions on policy to our own presidential candidates is total bullshit, which is why I don't want to see papillon worm out of this one by calling straw man argument.
Comments are closed on this post.