bascule Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 While the ban passed the Senate (despite an anticipated veto), it received a rather odd nay, from John McCain: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon. McCain was tortured as a POW has been an outspoken critic of torture in the past. He also has a pretty resolute opinion on the matter of whether waterboarding is torture: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/politics/26giuliani.html?ref=politics They should know what [waterboarding'] is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture. What does this make him? A hypocrite? A coward bending to the will of the White House? Or maybe just a flip-flopper... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 He's trying to bring back the conservative vote... it's much too late for that now. I expect the neocons to be all over this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Wow. He took away one of the few things I respected him for. Check out his voting record over the past year. He has been a NV on way too much in my opinion. http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270 And then he shows up to vote nay on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 What does this make him? A hypocrite? A coward bending to the will of the White House? Or maybe just a flip-flopper... Actually, just bending to the will of the Republican base. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 They're stupid, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 They're stupid, huh? No need to act like a troll and flame-bait me. It's a common expression, Pangloss. There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Bubbas for Boarding? (shrug) You could well be right. I'm surprised by this vote and cannot explain it, so your answer is as good as any other I've heard, as far as political analysis is concerned -- I'll be happy to give you that credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 He should have had to the sense to not even poke this one with a long pole. And how the heck did torture and other sick ways and means to circumvent or destroy an individual's "God given rights" guaranteed by the constitution and ammendments become a "conservative" point in the first place? It doesn't make any sense at all. That's absolutely not "conservative". If he continues to try and drape himself in what is percieved to be "conservative" clothing, November for Mr Maverick is going to be mighty sad and mighty ugly. He won't have ANY clothes and he won't be emperor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDarwin Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 This is something I've been noticing McCain doing throughout this campaign; trying to get the votes of people who won't vote for him anyway by alienating those who might. It's unfortunate really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 The bill went to far in McCain's view. The bill does a lot more than banning waterboarding, against which he remains steadfast. From www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302888.html?hpid=moreheadlines: But McCain sided with the Bush administration yesterday on the waterboarding ban passed by the Senate, saying in a statement that the measure goes too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said current laws already forbid waterboarding, and he urged the administration to declare it illegal. "Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation" of laws and treaties, McCain said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 That makes a little bit more sense than the declarations of hypocrisy and flip-flopping. What does this make him? A hypocrite? A coward bending to the will of the White House? Or maybe just a flip-flopper... And I note for the record that the vote was 51-45. NOT a 60% majority. And yet nobody's filibustering........................ ........................... .... and (....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 14, 2008 Author Share Posted February 14, 2008 The bill went to far in McCain's view. The bill does a lot more than banning waterboarding, against which he remains steadfast. That's odd, considering he pushed through the changes forbidding torture to the Army Field Manual in the first place... changes that I guess he doesn't want to see applied to intelligence agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 You can read his own words explaining his vote here. McCain remains steadfast that waterboarding is torture. He voted no because "it is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion [ that waterboarding is illegal ] has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 So what does that mean in English? He voted against a new law banning torture practices because in his opinion torture is already illegal, anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 He voted against a new law that did other things than banned torture techniques. If it is already illegal, why a new law? Enforce the laws that already exist. If it is so important to emphasize that it is illegal, why all the extra cr@p that makes people who largely support the main gist of the bill vote against it? Congresscritters seem to love to tack extra stuff on to their bills. Note well: I'm not picking on any one party here; they all do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I like seeing the depth in his reasoning though. Kind of nice to see something in the way of principle creep into a politician. So what does that mean in English? He voted against a new law banning torture practices because in his opinion torture is already illegal, anyways? Yep. Weird huh? Duplicate laws and explicit constitutional intents certainly never stopped anybody before. Hell, maybe I'm wrong about this McCain guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 BTW, if McCain flip-flopped on Waterboarding, then one would have to say that Obama and Clinton copped out yesterday on surveillance, electing not to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 BTW, if McCain flip-flopped on Waterboarding, then one would have to say that Obama and Clinton copped out yesterday on surveillance, electing not to vote. Yeah, but technically McCain didn't flip flop, so that's a non-sequitur (and it's not exactly like he's ever skipped a vote for political reasons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 The really interesting question is whether you can believe they would have voted against the surveillance bill, as they claim. I think there is plenty of reason to doubt those statements, both on historical (voting record) reasons AND on political grounds (appeal to centrists/moderate-rights). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 The really interesting question is whether you can believe they would have voted against the surveillance bill, as they claim. I think there is plenty of reason to doubt those statements, both on historical (voting record) reasons AND on political grounds (appeal to centrists/moderate-rights). Which statements again? Do you have a link? I find it funny that a candidate would argue "Yeah! Had I actually voted, I WOULD have voted blah blah blah..." instead of actually voting and saying vehemently, "See, I voted against blah blah blah, check the record!" Anyway, I haven't read the comments to which you refer, and I imagine you are referring to specific statements somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Link to McCain's statement is in post #13. Click on the word here. EDIT: Never mind. I now see that iNow wasn't talking about McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I find it funny that a candidate would argue "Yeah! Had I actually voted, I WOULD have voted blah blah blah..." instead of actually voting and saying vehemently, "See, I voted against blah blah blah, check the record!" Yes, it's pretty weak, I agree. Anyway, I haven't read the comments to which you refer, and I imagine you are referring to specific statements somewhere? Sure, but just to clarify, I think both candidates have been relatively consistent (so far as I can tell) on the subject of warrentless wiretapping specifically. My comment was intended to be of a more general nature based on the politics of needing to be "strong on national security" in order to appeal to moderate/right voters. (Or really anybody since 9/11 who doesn't live in Berkeley or San Francisco.) To be specific (and again this is just my opinion) Clinton supported Iraq at one time (authorizing the use of force, anyway), and Obama expressed willingness to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan whether Pakinstan wanted us to or not. These are completely different subjects, I readily admit, but the point I'm making here is that both have expressed willingness to extend administrative power into areas where it is not currently the accepted norm. Asking whether either would reconsider their position on warrantless wiretapping once they achieved the White House is a reasonable thing to do, in my view. I think this is something people will look at. Democrats will look at this issue as well as Republicans who are considering crossing the aisle, and some will question whether one candidate or the other is more likely to stick to their word on this issue. I suspect that this works more in Obama's favor than Hillary's, for what it's worth. But again, I'm trying to be fair here, and I believe both Obama and Clinton did vote against the currently-expiring FISA overhaul act which passed the Senate late last summer (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). If anything both candidates have to be said to have been specific on this issue, and specifically they say "no". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 If anything both candidates have to be said to have been specific on this issue, and specifically they say "no". That's more than fair. Thank you for your clarifying post, Pangloss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now