"He doesn't have to"? Tell that to movement conservatives in Republican Party. Does your remark mean he will appoint Justices like Samuel Alito or will he appoint Justices acceptable to Joe Lieberman? Does it mean he will support tax cuts for rich people or oppose them? Does it mean he will favour limits on campaign contributions or oppose them? Considering he will now be trying to appeal to both conservatives and independents, which appeals should we believe and which should we discard?

As for pretending not to know what Hillary Clinton stands for, I suppose you weren't alive during 1990s. Clinton has been promising return to good old days non-stop, but you have no idea what good old days looked like?

Meanwhile, movement conservatives have taken to calling Obama "most Liberal Senator". I suppose no one knows what that means either, especially after 2004 race in which Kerry qualified as "most Liberal". But then this phrase seems to apply to any Senator who receives Democratic nomination for President.

Still, if you think McCain ethical and Bush unethical, I suppose I shouldn't give you hard time. McCain probably has ethical standards, as for example on unacceptability of torture, while Bush plainly didn't.

You ask several questions about his positions.  The beauty of McCain is that with five minutes of Googling, you can find the answers for yourself.  Does he approve of Alito?  Check whether he voted to confirm him.  What does he think about campaign contribution limits?  There's a few books on that subject.

What is impressive is that McCain has for the most part refused to change his views on the issues in order to placate conservatives.  You saw this last year when his campaign nearly died entirely because he supported the immigration bill.  The other candidates savaged him over it and donors stopped giving, but he stuck to his position because that's what he believes in.

So I don't really care what "movement conservatives" are now demanding of McCain.  They certainly hold less sway over him now then they did last year when his campaign only died.  Movement conservatives can buck up and vote for him, or maybe throw their vote away.  Who cares?  McCain will not change.  Can you say that about Clinton?

A day of googling later and I discover that John McCain opposes torture except when he supports it.

By "torture," do you mean "any technique not listed in the Army Field Manual?"  

Are you willing to admit that there are other ways to define "torture," and that reasonable people can believe that there are some techniques not in the Army Field Manual that are also not torture?

By "torture" I mean torture. You know, physical threats against detainee and his family, use of stress positions, hypothermia, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation, and who knows what other things they've managed to keep secret. You know, sorts of things you executed Germans and Japanese for at end of World War II. (Which ones do you endorse? Which ones wouldn't be torture if you were held captive in Iran?) But folks like you figure if US does it, it can't be torture, because US doesn't torture people. How do you think interrogation "techniques" come to be omitted from Army Field Manual? They were considered torture by people who know what torture actually consists of.

McCain now sucks up to movement conservatives who long to torture people. He has to win election, doesn't he? So much for his record and his integrity. So much for integrity of movement conservatives.

Can you understand that for a person whose job it is to write laws, a cute phrase like "by 'torture' I mean torture" just doesn't pay the bills?  The Senate wants to outlaw "torture," so it has to define what torture is.  After all, they're drafting a bill here that could send people who "torture" (however defined) to prison.  (And, by prison, I mean prison).

You have a situation here where McCain wants to outlaw torture, but he thinks the bill did a bad job of defining it.  Now, you could, if you wanted to, argue to me that the bill's definition of torture is perfect and unassailable, and that therefore McCain is being disingenuous by quibbling over definitions and he really secretly supports torture after all.  You'd have a lot of work to do.  The Senate seems to have reached for the Army Field Manual as a cop-out.

How do you think interrogation "techniques" come to be omitted from Army Field Manual? They were considered torture by people who know what torture actually consists of.

Or they omitted a few non-torture techniques because they thought them too obscure for inclusion in a practical document like a field manual.  No one ever said that the Army Field Manual is a complete list of non-torture techniques.  It is called a "field manual," after all, not an "encyclopedia."  
But folks like you figure if US does it, it can't be torture, because US doesn't torture people.

For future reference, I don't respond to baiting.

In other words, McCain (and you) stand on pure legality: as with Bill Clinton, it depends on what the word "is" is. If Congress has passed no law defining particular forms of inducement of extreme pain as "torture", then those forms do not constitute "torture". Causing physical pain to prisoners through use of stress positions, hypothermia, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation, or threating life of prisoner or his family members haven't been outlawed, and so they don't count as torture in your book. If Iron Lady gets used by intelligence services, but Iron Lady doesn't get listed as form of torture by Congress, then you support use of Iron Lady? If man gets placed on rack and pulled until just before his bones pop out by intelligence services, but rack doesn't get listed as form of torture by Congress, then you support use of rack? If intelligence services pour scalding liquids down throats of prisoners (Catholics used to use this method to cleanse souls of witches), but this "technique" hasn't been defined by Congress as torture, you have no problem with that either?

And so it goes with movement conservatives in your new America. You support "techniques" intended to cause intense physical pain (almost anything short of death, really, and only stopping there because you can't even pretend to be trying to get information from dead man) but then quibble about your moral depravity in supporting torture. No, ordinary people can't use word "torture" as meaning what it means in dictionary, or as meaning what everyone but movement conservatives know it means, only Congress can use word "torture". I never thought I would say that Ann Coulter was more honest than people like you, but at least she knows she supports torture and doesn't mince words about it.

Can you understand that for a person whose job it is to write laws, a cute phrase like "by 'torture' I mean torture" just doesn't pay the bills?  The Senate wants to outlaw "torture," so it has to define what torture is.  After all, they're drafting a bill here that could send people who "torture" (however defined) to prison.  (And, by prison, I mean prison).

Flipping it around, can you understand that for a person to receive credit for opposing torture, saying "mmmm... no, that's not the right way to stop torture" just doesn't cut it?

McCain can't have it both ways, as far as I'm concerned (nor can Clinton, or Obama, or anybody for that matter..)  He doesn't get Anti-Torture Crusader Credit (tm) credit for opposing methods that everyone except the fringe already agree are wrong (i.e. saying "we must not torture" in the pseudo-tautological sense where torture is in practice defined as "those things which we clearly shouldn't do..") and he doesn't get credit for standing back picking apart the proposals that are presented unless he's got a better formulation he's willing to back.

If he wants to receive recognition for a credible anti-torture position (and it's by no means clear to me that he really cares about that after the cop-out compromise he brokered last year) then he needs to do more than split hairs while he waits on the sidelines.

Why should we believe he opposes torture until he makes a substantive effort to end it?

McCain's position is quite clear if you read his words. Your claim that he supports torture means you are either stupid or lying.

Your position is also quite clear: causing physical pain to prisoners through use of stress positions, hypothermia, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation, or threating life of prisoner or his family members, doesn't qualify as "torture" in your book. My claim that both you and McCain support "torture" stands, and your position that neither he nor you supports torture means you are either stupid or lying to yourself.

My claim that both you and McCain support "torture" stands...

Since it stands on no evidence it will never be more than an idle claim.

All right, I'll ask both you and profwhat directly: do you believe that causing physical pain to prisoners through use of stress positions, hypothermia, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation, or threating life of prisoner or his family members, does not constitute torture? McCain says these things work for him, so do they work for you?

Can you link to a credible source that quotes McCain as saying that he supports CIA use of "stress positions, hypothermia, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation"?

You have already read McCain's position. You supported it so completely that when I characterised it as permitting various forms of torture you said I was either "stupid or lying", even as most comments on Marshall's site read it just as I did. This Administration has consistently used all ambiguity about meanings of statutes to justify torture. McCain knows that, as he admitted it in his statement. His vote against holding CIA interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques will certainly permit CIA interrogators to continue torturing detainees by using stress positions, hypothermia, severe sleep deprivation and severe sensory deprivation, no matter what McCain says about how he interprets existing Congressional statutes or how he excuses his vote. He voted as he did so as not to alienate movement conservatives who openly want those detainees tortured. He knows what CIA "techniques" include, just as you do or should, and he refused to stop them from using those "techniques". So you end up resorting to legalism, as profwhat does: he doesn't "support" torture, he merely votes to permit it to continue. Huge difference.

You have already read McCain's position

Yes. Here's what it said:

...The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror...I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane...

I cannot see how you think that statement supports your claim that McCain "supports" torture.

...most comments on Marshall's site read it just as I did

Many of those comments use terms such as "Johnny Boy," "McBush," and "repuglitards." It seems reasonable to characterize the people who wrote those things as stupid.

He talks good game, but his actions speak louder than his words. His vote has assured that CIA interrogators will continue to torture detainees, and his speech indicates that he understands that full well:

"The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned - laws that were extensively debated and considered - by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step... I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.... This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact. In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a 'shocks the conscience' analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding 'shocks the conscience.' It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict 'serious and non-transitory mental harm,' which the MCA states 'need not be prolonged.' Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding. It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion 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."

In other words, he knows that Bush Administration claims that it has right to waterboard and to use other torture techniques, even as he says that it should be "incontestable" that, e.g., waterboarding should be deemed torture and illegal under various statutes. He knows that in absence of legislation he voted against, Bush Administration will continue to use torture against detainees, accounting for "frustration" of his colleagues. He says he opposes torture, yet he votes in such manner as to permit it to continue. He does this for political reasons, so as to avoid alienating his new ally in White House (Bush recently endorsed his presidential run) and movement conservatives around US who openly endorse torture.

His words may sound sweet, but his vote and his actions tell true story. He doesn't SAY he supports torture, he just VOTES to support it.

Five minutes of googling later, I find McCain voted to confirm Alito and also said he wouldn't appoint someone like Alito because he worse his conservatism on his sleeve.

"McCain has for the most part refused to change his views" except for those he has already changed in order to win over movement conservatives.

"McCain will not change. Can you say that about Clinton?" Nonsense as to former, I wish as to latter.

Meanwhile, you voted against Bush with your passport years ago, even as you cheer him, and his hoped-for successor, from sidelines.

My record critiquing the current administration both here and on Plastic speaks for itself. The fact that I've left the USA based on my perspective of America's decline and fall means that I've taken far more "action" than the overwhelming majority of people participating on 'net forums who jawbone about the same thing.

I've been fiscally conservative and a socially liberal atheist since as far back as the Reagan administration - as such I cheer/fit in with neither Republican or Democratic party platforms. Certain issues, specific people I've come out for/against, but you overstate yourself by saying I've cheered the current president.

You ceaselessly argue that social-democratic Europe will whip Anglo-capitalist US's arse, but still you insist that Bush and his cabal know best for America.

This is a bit of hyperbole and I suspect you'd admit as much-- however it is true I do believe that the republican approach to foreign policy in principle is better than the ill defined alternative offered by democrats.

Why not come home and work for kind of US you dream of, where rich people piss on poor people and poor people thank them for rain, instead of siding with Europe's welfare-staters?  

The answer to that is I'm not a patriot. American Citizenship for me is an individual flag of convenience.  I have no attachment/great interest in "making the USA" anything. My interests are limited to myself, my family and friends. If those can be harnessed to coincide with the success of a particular nation/company, then so much the better but I have zero interest in "building a better society/pissing on poor people/hanging out with rich people". I consider myself a citizen of the world.

I will come back to the USA if/when it offers me greater civil liberties and economic opportunities than any other country. Right now that is not the case, nor is it likely to be the case in the near future. At the end of the day, I have little interest in "pissing on poor people" - I seek to create the best life possible for myself and my family.

The idea that people can only be happy so long as they can tell others what to do/believe is not something I agree with/follow.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

I have no substantive reply to your question, so here is a drink recipe for the "Wolverine."

I have not tried it. Drink at your own risk. Although, the disclaimer in the link says it is good for chicks at the party, so they can drink it at their own risk.

(And this is coming from somebody who once got really desperate and created an amalgamation of plastic bottle rum and Strawberry Quick).

I'm a friend of Bill's, so I doubt I'll be trying that recipe, but I'll keep it in the box for the next time I throw a party.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform