Could Packergate Remind People of McCain's Argument Against Torture?
 

John McCain is running for president. He has changed most of his political views from a more progressive Republican to a neoconservative Republican over the course of his 2008 campaign. One of those changes was on torture. Several years ago, John McCain recalled a particular instance when he was in a POW camp, where he was being tortured for information. Instead of giving correct and/or reliable information when asked the names of his fellow soldiers, he gave the name of the Green Bay Packers starting defensive line. This was used in his argument to demonstrate that torture does not provide reliable intelligence. Now, however, John McCain seems to support torture.

In a recent interview, John McCain mentioned incorrectly that it was the Pittsburgh Steelers and not the Green Bay Packers who he named, which has for some reason been very controversial over the past few days. While I consider this particular story to be quite inconsequential, could it prove to be ultimately important in that it brings to light his previous argument about his imprisonment and torture that makes the case that torture is wrong? Or will people allow the story to pass and continue to either be unaware of or forget what he once said about torture being wrong?

Could a seemingly unrelated story bring his previous argument back into the light?

I suppose that anything could be spun to bring light to anything...if you reach far enough.

Last Friday, Mrs O'Rights asked me stop off, on my way home from work, and pick up some Oreos. Oreos are cookies. So are chocolate chip. I really like chocolate chip cookies. I picked up chocolate chip cookies. Chocolate chip cookies were not suitable for the desert recipe that she had planned on making. She...ummm...fussed. I had to go back out, in my Ford Explorer mind you, and pick up a pack of Oreos. Did those Oreo cookies contribute directly, or indirectly to global warming?

Probably not.

America has always been OK with torture as long as it's done to others or for the benefit of anti-commie or anti-Arab regimes. That means torturing or killing brownish people is OK, especially if they're Muslims, because, you know, they make their women wear veils and don't let them drive and stuff.

Reporters like to bring things up all the time, and sometimes things gain traction and sometimes they don't.

I see this as a nonstory since the detail isn't that big of a detail, not like saying you ran for cover under sniper fire when clearly there is footage of you walking calmly out of the plane.

If any, the angle that the media will grab onto here is the question of his mental sharpness. It's a weak attack, but no less sensational than cookiegate or fistbumpgate.

If he can't remember the correct team name, how forgetful is he? What kind of man can't name the starting line-up for his favourite football team? What's his favourite football team? Do you think the Giant's can win the Superbowl again next season?

And so it goes.

The question of torture is too controversial to bring in on a story with Football in it.

Politicians back away from uncompromisable moral convictions all the time.

It's kind of like celebrity marriages. People love it when they happen, but they're never really surpised when they end.

One thing, however, is irrefutable.


Mixedmedia's new avatar is scorching hot.
Go ahead. Deny it. Ya can't!

Yes, but it is bringing up a direct reference to torture, albeit to simply prove that he's either lying or senile. I've already stated that the two stories really aren't related on the surface, but does that mean that one cannot lead into the other?

Rachel Maddow (hot lesbian progressive) made this connection very briefly on MSNBC's Countdown on Friday. It really caught my attention as I didn't expect the media, even the liberal media, to finally bring up the fact that McCain used a strong, personal argument against torture. It was something I might expect of fringe news like Democracy Now, but a cable news station?
I really hope you're wrong. :sad:
The Packers/Steelers thing is basically a non-story, yes. Anyone paying attention already knows McCain's probably senile, and which team he named couldn't be less important. I happen to think the issue of torture is very important, though, and I want it brought up regardless of the method by which it becomes an issue.
I'm sorry, I was staring at your avatar. :oogle:

Still, I do find that at least some people have the mental capacity to pay attention to ideals or polities that matter to them, and it's clear most progressives and even plenty of conservatives really aren't comfortable with torture. On top of that, senility in a presidential nominee was a big deal when Dole was running.

Well, I don't think a mix-up in the names of two football teams is necessarily indicative of the onset of senility. I mix up the names of my kids all the time. Hope this doesn't mean they're out looking at assissted living facilities behind my back, lol.

This flub didn't happen in a vacuum. It's one in a very, very long line of diametrically opposed viewpoints and facts presented by one man. The McCain of 2000 would have a rather alarming argument with the McCain of 2008.

Well, you are correct in that assumption. Therefore folks who want to make that point should stick with that angle and omit speculation about verbal flubs and allusions to senility which are much more difficult to interpret and authenticate than a person's recorded statements. And which can also come off as cheap shots. Ya know?

I very seriously think that he is losing his mental facilities due to a combination of age and other factors, therefore it's not a cheap shot but rather a genuine concern. Were I a bit older, I have no doubt I would have come to the same conclusions about Reagen once upon a time.

But that's for another thread.

If he knows the team well enough to know the names of the line, he knows which team it is. Or he should. He must be a fairweather fan.

This thread has hall of fame potential just for the fact that football fanness is supposed to prove McCain hearts the torure now. And all the referrences to MM's hot new avatar.

He knew the names like 40 years ago when he was being tortured. Now he's not even sure why Iran's supposed to be a threat and is completely uncertain as to whether he knows economics or not.
That would mean TWO of my threads would be in the HoF. And yeah, that's about the best avatar ever.

I believe my avatar was only mentioned once. We have proof. :p

A non issue. Mountain out of a molehill.

Carry on, nothing to see here folks.

Hey, thanks for making my point!

It's a molehill when brownish people are tortured or fried.

They are not fried, they have water poured on them to prevent them from catching fire, and in return they give the water pourers all the information they have out of gratitude.

http://www.wikio.com/video/321371 .... like this guy, this brownish fellow is living in hell on earth

This thread is just another "throw enough shit and something will stick". This is my problem with you "progressives".......

Will, if you can even entertain guy's suggestion that

"America has always been OK with torture as long as it's done to others or for the benefit of anti-commie or anti-Arab regimes. That means torturing or killing brownish people is OK, especially if they're Muslims, because, you know, they make their women wear veils and don't let them drive and stuff." with a meager..

"gee I hope your wrong[frown]"

your very occasional pro-america "oh yeah this is still the land of oppurtunity" is as fake as it sounded in the first place. You live in California, and California is fucked up. California thinks it's cool to name a sewage plant after a president. I just don't get it -at some point stand up for a country that gives you the oppurtunity to make over 6 figures a year at 20 something (is that still right-i just figured if it jumped to 7 we would have all known by now) when something like that is said, don't just throw your occasional bone out to make it seem like your something your not.

Anyway...in Will's world, when Will's out saving the world and intercepts an IED maker, how does Will interrogate him? Is making him cry out of the question?

So what's your response? My Lai was a hoax? That nothing happens in Guantanamo? That the "counter-insurgency" training done at Fort Benning was all about winning hearts and minds with really fun knitting projects? That guys like Pinochet, Batista, the Shah of Iran, or Trujillo were just misunderstood? Jim Crow was a quaint subset of Southern folkways?

Even if you're a Bush person -- and it's a safe assumption you are -- you have to realise that the Bushies themselves are/were worried about what they were doing. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the legal contortions which are now being called by their proper name: horseshit.

Well it's been 4 days and the media really hasn't made the connection. I guess Rachel Maddow was a fluke. A lovely, charming fluke.