Dear Senator McCain

Dear Senator McCain:

I caught your appearance on "Meet The Press" yesterday.

You indicated that you thought Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) should apologize for recent comments he made regarding prison torture.

To that, I have only this to say:

I wish you were half as interested in George W. Bush's lies as you are in Dick Durbin's truths.

While you're on your "I demand an apology" kick, would you be interested in demanding one from the President of the United States for lying the nation into war?

Where, sir, is your sense of proportion?

Sincerely,

The Reality-Based Community

•  McCain is a COWARD

  When he "CUT AND RAN" during the Senate hearings on torture he proved that.

  by ctkeith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:56:15 AM PDT

•  I hope that you really sent that letter!!

  
  Excellant work!!

  "I wish you were half as interested in George W. Bush's lies as you are in Dick Durbin's truths."

  Unfortunately, McCain has no credibility as a truth-teller anymore.

  He went around all throughout 2002,2003,2004 defending Bush's fraud and corruption and even making the statement:   "President Bush has led this nation with great moral clarity".

  As far as I'm concerned, McCain is a total laughingstock and is not in any way presidential material.

  He has zero judgment and, clearly, the wrong "friends".

  by NewAmerica on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:56:37 AM PDT

•  McCain

  is wily, frustrating, and a survivor. He is not a coward in the colloquail sense of the word. You're not going to get too many Repubs who dislike Bush as much, and who play the long game for keeps, as McCain. I'd much, much, rather have McCain calling the shots in the WH than Bush.

  by DarkSyde on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:04:17 AM PDT

•  nice line

  "I wish you were half as interested in George W. Bush's lies as you are in Dick Durbin's truths."

  We should also copy/paste that line whenever people start bitching about what Howard Dean says.

  by AggieDemocrat on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:08:38 AM PDT

•  McAin't

  Ain't nothin.

  He is scum.  

  Nice, concise diary.  

  by daveriegel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:16:23 AM PDT

  •  Cut McCain some slack...

    JM is somebody not driven by harsh ideology... He's a rational thinker who always sees two sides to an issue -- in truth, we should all admit that there ARE two sides... He's works it through, and decides on balance which argument wins out...You could see it yesterday on the MTP... He readily acknowledged the GOP's use of judicial filibusters, and explained how he took a stand for minority rights in the deal... even though -- as Russert mentioned -- he's being blasted by windbags like Rush Limbaugh, etc...

    If you ask me, that's not a sign of weakness; it's a sign of intellect, of true critical thinking...

    As a Democrat, I'm not supporting him for President or anything; I'm just recognizing more and more how blogs on both sides are filled with heated rhetoric to the extreme... with little cool-headed consideration of the facts...

    Hank

    by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:37:07 AM PDT

    •  The facts are ....

      
       He said that:  "President Bush has led this country with great moral clarity."

       Now, I can't think of anything more Orwellian that to describe this agenda of:  publiclie after public lie, the whole 911 FAA stand-down and aborting the investigations into Bin Laden, cutting funding for Terrorism itself, the illegal U.S Invasion, Occupation, Torture, the dismantling of Civil Liberties, Obstructtion of the 9-11 Commission, rigging of Elections, starting a new Nuclear Arms race, etc., and, a track record that so fat involved killing well over 100,000 totally innocent people as "leading with moral clarity".

      The facts are anyone who defends this madness simply should not be listened to, much less, be reagrded as "presidential material".

      by NewAmerica on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:07:04 AM PDT

      •  So that rules out a bunch of Dems, no?

        >>The facts are anyone who defends this madness simply should not be listened to, much less, be reagrded as "presidential material".

        Do you automatically rule out any Dem in '08 who voted for the war resolution?

        by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:14:24 AM PDT

        •  Yes

          
          If they have failed to confront the fact that it was the wrong choice, based on false information, and fail to acknowledge that the war has been a disaster.

          Examples like Republican Congressman Walter Jones are an illustration of how you can be "for the war" and then come to an awakening on the issue and publically acknowledge that the war is and was a horrible mistake.

          So, if we have a Democrat who voted for the war, but now regrets their vote and acknowledges it was based on false information and that the war is a mistake -- then, in this case, I would not disqualify them.

          But you will never defeat Jeb Bush or Dick Cheney by agreeing with their global militarization plans.

          We need a candidate that offers an alternative world view and a much safer and smarter foreign policy.

          55% of the public disagree with the Iraq War today.

          By the year 2008, that number will be more like 75%

          So, Yes!

          Against the Iraq War

          by NewAmerica on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:23:56 PM PDT

    •  He's a corrupt, amoral, self-serving opportunist.

      by Feanor on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:07:30 AM PDT

•  Politicians

  are professional persuaders. Veterans of DC are among the most persuasive, gifted, salesmen in the country. They're also human and they will protect themselves and they will feather their nest and they will do it with any resources at their disposal. and that's why democracy works half-ass, and better than say, a Theocratic Monarchy, is because we can restrain them from going whole hog, more often than not, or at least often enough to make it a risky profile.

  Still, some are a better bet than others.

  I think McCain is interested in McCain, the moderate GOP, the GOP, and the nation, in that order. That's my guess and in a pinch he might even put the nation ahead of everything. Not beautiful but workable.

  Especially compared to BushCo whose list goes Us, Us, Us, Us, Us, and Us; and can't seem to operate under any other premise no matter what.

  A lot of you folks don't like McCain becuase he doesn't dow aht you want him to do. He's a Republican, he's not interested at all in doing what you want him to do. But he's also not interested in doing what BushCo wants him to do. In fact Bush put a shiv in him during the 00 primry so I wouldn' be surprised if dem interests and McCain's interest are closer than some of you may you think.

  by DarkSyde on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:35:38 AM PDT

  •  good points....

    what are these folks bitching about? ... What, they expect McCain to now tow the Democratic line? ... If these bloggers can't get Lieberman to run leftward, why should we expect MORE from McCain -- who's NOT a Democrat??...

    Hank

    by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:42:36 AM PDT

  •  Sadly, no

    This is not about McCain's broader interests or about how much better he is than Bush.

    This is specifically about the unprincipled stand he's taken on U.S.-conducted and/or -sanctioned torture.  On this, there is absolutely no reason to cut him slack.

    by The Bartender on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:52:45 AM PDT

    •  What stand?

      What's the unprincipled stand?? Again, I see him as one of the few on that side actually willing to speak out...

      hank

      by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:57:16 AM PDT

      •  When he had the chance to have

        the most impact he "cut and ran'.Maybe you didn't watch the Senate hearings where instead of standing up against torture he walked out of the room.I did.

        by ctkeith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:59:55 AM PDT

        •  Larger perspective...

          But on the bigger picture, McCain has been fairly outspoken. Consider this blurb from an AP story, where JM correctly (imo) points to the core problem post 9-11:

          "He had spent five years as a prisoner of war in communist North Vietnam, so when Senator John
          McCain spoke, his words carried the extra weight of personal experience.

          What angered him was the Bush administration's decision that Taliban fighters captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in 2001 were not eligible for international protections for prisoners of war. It was not the first time, McCain said, that a government had done that.

          "You know the North Vietnamese made the same determination about American prisoners?" McCain, a Republican from Arizona, asked.

          McCain gave voice to a concern shared by many, including some in the military: Regardless of who is blamed for the documented cases of prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and in Afghanistan, the origins of the problem may lie in the Geneva Conventions issue.

          "I worry, admiral," McCain said, "that if we decide that a certain country's military personnel are not eligible for treatment under a convention that we signed, then wouldn't it be logical to expect then they would declare, as the North Vietnamese did, that American prisoners are not eligible for protection under the Geneva Conventions?"

          by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:08:39 AM PDT

          •  Did you watch THAT hearing?

            And why doesn't JM get any credit for it? ... I'm just trying to be fair, guys...

            hank

            by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:09:35 AM PDT

          •  Just trying to stay on-topic

            We are not examining any "bigger picture" here, but his words and actions as they relate to the issue of U.S.-conducted torture.

            I'm sure when we examine the bigger picture, there's a lot to laud.  But DKOS is big -- that discussion can take place elsewhere, can't it?

            by The Bartender on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:13:43 AM PDT

            •  This IS on-topic

              I'm talking about the same issue here, albeit from a wider perspective...McCain saw the roots of these abuses forming (throwing out Geneva) before others did... He gets no points at all for that? ...

              hank

              by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:22:04 AM PDT

      •  He is as dishonest as Bush

        
         Anyone who covers-up and defends the scorched-earth, murder-happy policies of Dick Cheney and George Bush, clearly, is just as dishonest as they are...

        by NewAmerica on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:09:26 AM PDT

    •  it

      is for me.

      by DarkSyde on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:00:07 AM PDT

•  when

  when he backed bush for president, after what bush's team did and said about him and his family during the previous primaries, I lost all respect for the man.  He is a political sell out.  If anyone  should be upset about the country's torturing people, you would logically think it would be him.  Of course since, its against his suppose political interest  , he simply says nothing.  

   The man is not a man, he is simply the worst kind of spineless, selfish, sellouts that adorn the halls of washington.

  by threecents on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:41:14 AM PDT

  •  This is BS...

    Part of the reason prisoner mistreatment is a story at all is that JM DID speak out about it... when there was -- and is -- immense pressure from his own party to keep quiet... On MTP yesterday, he said it kept him up at night...

    Further, on the 2000 election, if supporting the party in the end means you're a "sellout", then I've got news for you: EVERY primary candidate in EVERY election is therefore a sellout... They all support the main candidate in the end... Should Kucinich, for instance, have turned on Kerry after losing the Dem primary??

    Why do you hold JM to a higher standard?... Instead of hacking away at him, we should be reaching out to people like McCain, who are willing to ask tough questions of his party leaders...

    Hank

    by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:49:35 AM PDT

  •  I

    think it's useful to operate on the premise that all politicians are sell outs and all of them will lie straight to your face, convincingly, with an infectious smile and supreme confidence.

    I just don't see it as relevent if McCain is a 'man' in some macho sense or has my 'respect'. I don't know any of these poeple. I have no idea what they're like in person. I'll never know that.
    But I care about getting Bush and the extremists out of power or at least balanced by the House or Senate. McCain is an ally in that fight. The enemy of my enemy. When he stops being an ally I'll stop using him as one or saying he is one. As long as he is an ally I'll work with him and people like him.

    Note the nation propsers the most when power is split between the WH and Congress.

    by DarkSyde on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:50:07 AM PDT

•  Consistently Appalled by McCain

  This guy was a POW held by the V.C.  He was a victim of torture, for fuck's sake!  And when he hears about rape and sodomy of detainees, including children, or of beatings so severe they lead to the deaths of detainees who haven't even yet been processed, or people being forced to wallow in their own filth, what does he do?  He throws his lot in with the scums hawking I <3 Gitmo thongs.

  WTF is wrong with this man?

  by The Bartender on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:48:14 AM PDT

  •  How?

    How has he "thrown his lot" with them? ... He's calling for action, just like Hagel... He's helping to keep it in the news, even though the WH wants the issue to go away...

    Let me put it another way: Rush Limbaugh and all the far right wingnuts hate McCain... shouldn't THAT in itself be enough for you to rethink your opinion? ... Anybody who ticks off Rush gets points with me... :)

    hank
    

    by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:55:14 AM PDT

    •  How?

      By criticizing Durbin the way he did, he's placed himself on that same right-wing transmission belt that, farther right, is connected to Michelle Malkin, and beyond that, John Carlson.

      Limbaugh and the other freaks are irrelevant.  We're examining McCain's words vis-a-vis torture.

      by The Bartender on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:10:07 AM PDT

      •  Durbin

        on MTP the press, JM said he should apologize, but stopped well short of all the hot air on the right about formal censure and all that...

        hank

        by Hkingsley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:25:59 AM PDT

        •  Stopped short -- not "well short"

          Via the Huffington Post (emph. mine):

          
          RUSSERT: Your Democratic colleague Dick Durbin of Illinois set off a firestorm when he compared the actions of Americans at Guantanamo to Nazis, Soviet Gulags and Pol Pot. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that Senator Durbin should be censured by the Senate for those comments.
          McCAIN: Well, I think that Senator Durbin owes not only the Senate an apology--I don't know if censure would be in order--but an apology because it does a great disservice to men and women who suffered in the gulag and in Pol Pot's killing fields. Dick Durbin should be required to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and I think that he would--may have a better understanding that there's no comparison whatsoever. And it does a great disservice to the majority of men and women who are serving in Guantanamo who are doing the job that they're told to do and they're doing it in a humane fashion. To tar the American servicemen and women with a brush that applies to the gulag or the killing fields is a great disservice to the men and women in the military who are serving honorably down there.

          RUSSERT: Should he formally apologize?

          McCAIN: Well, I don't know what a formal--but he should certainly apologize.

          RUSSERT: Will the Senate take any action against him?

          McCAIN: I predict to you that by the time this program is shown next Sunday that Mr. Durbin will have apologized.
          

          by The Bartender on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:43:54 AM PDT

  •  Yeah

    and before he was tortured he dropped bombs on little kids and old ladies. Why do so many feel that being tortured and pent up in a POW shithole is supposed to automatically turn him into some kind of anti-violence moral spokesman? It could just as easily have turned him into a metal head, redstate Vietnam Vet biker who thinks torturing the other guy is a swell idea.

    by DarkSyde on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:56:19 AM PDT

•  McCain from yesterday

  "[E]very time I've done something for what may have been influenced by political reasons, I've regretted it."

  That may be true, but he has a funny way of showing his "regret."  Remember this?

  My darling Dubya

  
  

  by Dr Van Nostrand on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:58:22 AM PDT