"Winning is everything!" - John McCain

This is not a "Dear John" letter. I'm not leaving John McCain. I didn't plan to vote for him in the first place.

His latest misstatements, however, would have certainly unsealed the deal if I had planned to cast a ballot his way!


A couple of days ago:

In Amman, Jordan, Joe Lieberman steps up close to McCain and whispers in his ear, "'Extremists,' dummy, not al-Qaeda!"

Joe had to do something as McCain had blundered badly! Trying to promote his faux foreign policy expertise, McCain several times said that Iran (which is a Shiite country) was assisting al-Qaeda in Iraq. That statement was incorrect every time he made it.

Al-Qaeda, you see, is of the Sunni persuasion. The Shiites and the Sunnis don't sit down at the same table. They like to kill each other, though. A Shiite would never assist a Sunni. Thus, a major problem in Iraq is that the government is run by Shiites, supported by a Shiite military. The Sunnis are unhappy about that and they tend to blow things up when they're unhappy. Boom! And then the Shiites, mightily pissed, blow up some Sunnis. Boom!

[Someone might mention to our prezident that is called a "civil war!"]

McCain said he was "concerned" about the fact that Iranian "operatives" were "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

The press pressed him to expand on that. He did, much to his embarrassment: It was "common knowledge," insisted John, "and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."

Lieberman corrected him. John was all wrong, again!

Unfortunately, McCain doesn't know what he's talking about. He should have realized that the reason Iran and Iraq have been making "nicey-nice" of late is because they are both of the Shiite persuasion, and believe that together they may be able to shut out the Sunnis [and the Kurds] altogether.

McCain doesn't have a clue. So much for foreign policy experience!


Let's return, momentarily, to the days of 2000 when McCain was fighting Bush for the Republican nomination. Way back then, McCain didn't have much use for the paragons of the Christian Right.

You may recall that Bush, utilizing below-the-belt politics, crushed McCain in the South Carolina and Virginia primaries. Bush had all the fanatics below the Mason-Dixon line in his pocket: Bob Jones III, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. To ensure that they stayed there, Bush even went so far as to hold a rally with the extremist, Bob Jones, in Greenville, South Carolina.

McCain was so angry at Bush and at these Christian Rightists that he attacked both Robertson and Falwell, calling them "agents of intolerance." Bush, said McCain, was nothing more than a "Pat Robertson Republican."

Ouch! McCain's anger grew and his temper flared. In fact, in 2001, he was approached by Democrats who tried to persuade him to switch parties. In 2004, there were feelers out wondering if he'd consider becoming Kerry's vice presidential running mate. McCain declined both times.

In 2008, however, McCain has, in Christian religious terminology, backslid bigtime!

Being the ultimate opportunist, essentially amoral when it comes to politics, McCain has been all over the map, and on his knees begging for the support of crackpot Christian Rightists who have shown little enthusiasm for his presidential bid.

He has pandered to Dobson, to Hagee, to Parsley, to Robertson...some of which he called "agents of intolerance" not so long ago. Now their intolerance has been forgiven and forgotten. "Please give me your support," McCain pleaded. And most did.


An even more telling and appalling situation has been McCain's flip-flop with regard to the way the U.S. treats its prisoners, and the use of torture.

About two and a half years ago, Nat Hentoff wrote an article called "A definition of patriotism," in which he praises McCain for his stand against the mistreatment of terrorist suspects, and specifically his stand against torture.

On July 20, 2005, McCain introduced several amendments to the $42 billion Pentagon bill for 2006. His amendments were designed to halt the abuse of detainees held by the U.S. government.

Hentoff writes, "Affirming American values, McCain's first amendment would have established 'the Army Field manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in the Department of Defense (DOD) custody.'"

McCain directly addressed the issue of prisoner abuse in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan.

McCain also offered an amendment that would require every foreign national, detained in a DOD facility, be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross. "This will help us," said McCain, "eliminate the problem of ghost detainees we faced in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, in which other government agencies held unregistered detainees in a facility operated by our military."

McCain went on, eloquently: "I believe this provision to be just basic common sense, and I can hardly see how anyone could object ..."

Alas, the White House did object! Frist was ordered to pull the entire Pentagon spending bill off the floor immediately in case the Senate go crazy and pass the bill with the amendments.

But McCain had a third amendment up his sleeve. This would have banned the "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of anyone in American custody." As Hentoff points out, this is "the very language of the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which this country has ratified."

Then John, again eloquently, spoke to his amendment on the floor of the Senate:

"We are Americans and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be ... President Bush understands that the war on terror is ultimately a battle of ideas, a battle we will win by spreading and standing firmly for the values of decency, democracy and the rule of law. I stand with him in this commitment."


Well, that comment was very calculating! John knew full well that Bush understood no such thing, that for Bush the so-called war on terror was nothing more than an excuse to try to grab Iraq's oil, and that Bush knew from nothing about "a battle of ideas."

Nor did Bush intend on "standing firmly for the values of decency, democracy and the rule of law." He intended, right along, to do just the opposite.

Why, then, would McCain offer those amendments, knowing the Bush administration did whatever the hell it wanted to when it came to detainees and torture?

Was he trying to embarrass Bush, knowing that Bush would never sign a bill with those amendments included? Was this "pay-back time?"


But the really big question, the ultimate question, the question that raises questions about McCain's fundamental character is why did he change his mind and become an advocate of torture?

How could McCain make such grand and moving statements about how the United States lives by certain humane values and then turn around two and a half years later and urge President Bush to veto a law that forces the government to use the Army field manual (as per his first amendment in 2005) and forbids the use of torture such as waterboarding on detainees held by the government?

The answer is predictably simple. McCain is running for president. As I've said before, McCain will do almost anything to become president. If it means to support George Bush, a man he despises, in Bush's campaign to allow the torture of prisoners in American custody, so be it.

That's very, very sad. Unfortunately, it is also consistent, historically, with how McCain has climbed the political ladder.

To put it another way, for John, winning is everything!