Kristof on McCain: Whaaa??

cross-posted on Docudharma

Nicholas Kristof may be the most maddening of all the New York Times columnists.  His last two columns illustrate this perfectly. Last Thursday, he wrote a great column on the torture and incarceration of Sami al-Hajj.  It was a rare traditional media expose and attack on this underreported story.  I wrote a comment to the piece suggesting that he do a follow-up column noting that Congress had just passed an anti-torture bill, but candidate McCain had voted no.

Today, his column is an inexplicable Valentine to McCain that excuses all of his pandering on numerous issues, and mentions merely in passing that he just voted for torture!

You would think that someone who wrote:

Suppose the Iranian government arrested and beat Katie Couric, held her virtually incommunicado for six years and promised to release her only if she would spy for Iran. In such circumstances, Iranian investments in public diplomacy toward the United States wouldn’t get very far, either.

After Mr. Hajj was arrested in Afghanistan in December 2001, he was beaten, starved, frozen and subjected to anal searches in public to humiliate him, his lawyers say. The U.S. government initially seems to have confused him with another cameraman, and then offered vague accusations that he had been a financial courier and otherwise assisted extremist groups.

would be incensed that McCain cravenly enabled more of it through his vote.  But no, Nick says that's just ole, "lousy panderer" John.  In fact, Kristof misleadingly writes that McCain "led the battle against Dick Cheney on torture," without acknowledging his cave on the military commissions act, and his failure to say a word about the signing statements that eviscerated the torture bill.

According to Kristof, it's OK that McCain breaks his principles, because he does so "with distaste."

I don't think I've ever read a more idiotic statement in a major newspaper.