« Website of the Day: Instapundit | Main | Blair Still Blabbers About Global Warming – Tony, Tony, Where Did We Go Wrong? »

June 30, 2008


"So? Every man is capable of breaking under torture."

So what you're saying is that information gained under torture, and a tortured person's behavior is not to be believed, or regarded as sincere. Because they broke under torture. Why then, did McCain change his position and back the U.S. use of torture on detainees? What other hard earned lessons is he willing to sweep under the rug to win an election? He didn't learn from his imprisonment, but he's learned well in his Washington years since.

Of course Obama wants to put an end to Patriotism as an issue, because Obama is the one who's patriotism is in question! He conveniently condems questioning patiotism, but where was he when his hatchet men came up with General Betray Us??? Also, why isn't Iraq, or Afganistan on Obama's upcoming itinery? Obama knows he can't compete with McCain on the issue of patriotism, so he's trying to make it a non issue. Obama has no experience, except to listen to God Damn America for 20 years!

bc... When did McCain change his position and back torture? Can you site references? Here's one for you to check out from MSNBC 12/15/2005:

***** President Bush reversed course on Thursday and accepted Sen. John McCain’s call for a law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror.

Bush said the agreement will “make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad.”

“It’s a done deal,” said McCain, talking to reporters outside the White House. *****

He is not only against torture, he is even against waterboarding which some call torture even though we use it in training our own forces.

And how do you get from "Every man is capable of breaking under torture" to "So what you are saying is that information gained under torture ... is not to be believed"? That's quite a leap. In actuality, coercive techniques, such as waterboarding, have already saved lives in this war because terrorists have broken in 5 minutes and sung like birds.

John McCain, on the other hand, gave up nothing beyond an anti-American propaganda statement most anti-war Americans in the 60's would have been more than happy to give voluntarily. From wiki:

***** In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain. McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession". He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine." His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements. *****

Wow.. what a wimp, breaking down after only 4 days of beatings, rope bindings, torture and permanent injuries. Good thing the Geneva Conventions were in effect.

My goodness...do you folks actually read the statements that these people make and make up your own minds, or do you take the word of politically-charged bloogers, charlatans and operatives?

I saw and then read the transcript of General Clark's statements. It could not be more obvious what he is saying: he's very direct. Like it or not.

1) He does not dispute Senator McCain's war record or service. If you find something that proves he does I want to see it. I've scanned all the far right blogs that usually print bold-faced lies and can't find a trace of it.

2) General Clark does say that the Senator's war record does not, in his opinion, qualify him to be president. This is something that our dear Ann Coulter has said "Should we make all war heroes president?"

So show me how McCain's war record qualifies him to be President. It's that simple. I was in the military and served under several officers. I can tell you that they would be horrible presidents.

And please don't point fingers at Senator Obama, that's a waste of time and effort. If you can't substantiate your own arguments without discrediting something about the other guy you're intellectually lazy.

I'm waiting, and I'd like FACTS, not screaming little-girl matches.

As for General Clark --- he is a certified war hero as well and a General to boot. I find it interesting how bigots can pick and choose their military heroes. Apparently it's all political: agree with my biased, half-baked rubbish and you're my walking God; disagree or challenge me and you are Satanic.

Thanks. For the record, I'm voting for Barr.

RightWin08... I agree General Clark was not attacking Senator McCain's war record (in my opinion). My problem was he was painting McCain's experiences as not being significant to his qulifications as a leader, or executive as Clark phrased it. Yet he went on to try to convince us that Obama, who has significantly less leadership experience, would be a better choice for president. Here is the transcript I am referring to (from my "far right blog"... which, from my vantage point, is actually quite sanely in the mainstream :-)

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” Clark said. “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded - that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

You can check my transcribing ability by viewing the full video on my blog too.

BTW, I admire your intestinal fortitude. I do not have the nerve to vote for Barr since the end result will be four years of Obama. Takes guts to stand on principle even if it results in a major shift to the left.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog."



  • Before posting a comment, ask yourself whether it is polite, fair, and truthful. Comments are auto-deleted if they contain profanity (even with ast*ri*ks). Comments may also be edited or deleted if they include anything false, misleading, insulting, unethical, illogical or spamlike. Rude comments or spam result in a permanent ban of future comments.