Remember when public figures were impressive? It's a dim, distant memory, but not a nostalgic hallucination: once there were good men, and we'd occasionally elect them.
This desiccated memory crawled back to mind a few days ago, when John McCain rammed an anti-torture bill through the Senate. Now, there are those who would dismiss McCain as a foaming imperialist: James Wolcott in particular, whose reliable judgment seems to lose its compass whenever a pol or pundit refuses to insist upon an immediate retreat from Iraq. Wolcott has denounced McCain as a "choleric hawk," borrowing his words from his good friend Camille Paglia. And Paglia derives her opinion from McCain's face, believe it or not:
The TV camera does not lie: Just as it showed from the get-go that ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a nervous, shifty, sweaty, petulant mental adolescent, so has it exposed McCain over time as a seething nest of proto-fascist impulses. Despite his recent flurry of radiant, P.R.-coached grins, McCain has the weirdly wary and over-intense eyes of Howard Hughes and the clenched, humorless jaw line of Nurse Diesel.
Well, the television does lie. It's what it does best. The television has, for instance, on occasion portrayed Camille Paglia as sane.
Yes, McCain's a warrior. But that's not quite the same as a bloodthirsty chickenhawk. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite. Yes, he supports the current war in Iraq, but I'd be interested in knowing what that really means. He's also on record as supporting George Bush, a man he patently despises. My sense is that McCain is triangulating (even the greatest men do that, when thrown into the cesspool of Realpolitik): he needs to stand elbow to shoulder with Bush, in order to have any chance at the Republican candidacy in 2008; and I suspect he has very complex reasons for supporting the war.
Those reasons? Well, let's face it: have you heard any coherent plans for dealing with the Iraqi toxic waste dump? Those who loathe the war (and I'm one) are inclined to say "cut and run" — but that is probably not the most intelligent strategy. The current poisonous mess could grow even more lethal: imagine a former Iraq, split into a democratic Kurdistan (nice, but the ensuing war with Turkey could prove ugly); a rogue Sunni state, constituting little more than a base and spawning ground for terrorists; and a Shiite theocracy, now tight with Iranians fellow travelers, and sitting on at least 112.5 billion barrels of oil — the second largest pool in the world, after Saudi Arabia.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Sounds like you've read the press about the 'bill' - which is an amendment to the military appropriateions bill, btw - rather than reading the text of it.
If you read the text, you'll find that it's basically just a reiteration of established military policy and says exactly the same things which Bush himself has previously stated are the policies of his administration. It's not some radical stand on principle, it's more like a mild reminder of what's already supposed to be policy.
Dave
2 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Yes, and Bush is threatening to *veto* it.
3 - The Searcher
Bush is vetoing his own policies now? What a confusing fellow.
4 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
It would be the first time George has ever vetoed a spending bill. A *military* spending bill, no less. And why? Because it has the temerity to "remind" him that his quaint habit of extenuating torture is loathsome (and illegal).
Dave, your knee-jerk defense of this scumbag is getting really distressing -- you might want to think about getting professional help.
5 - mike valdman
Very interesting post. But is Paglia really that off base by using McCain's jaw line to peer into his soul? The problem is that McCain's real views are virtually impenetrable except on issues like pork barrel spending and campaign finance reform. Some on the left ignore his solidly conservative voting record and think he's really one of them. I thought that his hatred of Bush would emerge in the 2004 election, but he brushed Kerry aside and campaigned for Bush enthusiastically (or at least with feigned enthusiasm). So what does he really believe? Is he as pro-life as his voting record suggests, or does he vote that way as a matter of politics? Is he pro-war primarily for political reasons? I haven't a clue. But the "genuine article" gets less and less genuine as we approach 2008.
6 - Les Slater
> Dave, your knee-jerk defense of this scumbag is getting really distressing -- you might want to think about getting professional help.
Did I miss something?
7 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
I agree that McCain, despite being the liberals' favorite right-winger, is probably not much of a liberal. What he is, however, is *virtuous*. All of the ancient virtues -- courage, magnanimity, practical wisdom -- are notoriously lacking in this administration; McCain is very much an anomaly. For the most part he acts in accordance with what he believes -- rare on either side of the aisle, frankly. As for what he believes: I'd judge him a moderate, by Republican standards. Right of center, certainly, but not far to the right of, say, Joe Lieberman.
I am not saying that I would support him for president. I mean, I *would*, if he were a Democrat or an independent. But the men he would drag into office with him, as a Republican, would probably more than offset whatever good he would bring to the nation.
I'd love to see a McCain-Kerry ticket. Or, best of all, a McCain-Hackett ticket (unlikely).
8 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
(Oh, and Les: you missed that David couldn't wait to counter any post remotely critical of the current administration. It's an illness with him -- given that whenever you ask him what he truly believes, you tend to get a sensible reponse.)
9 - Nancy
McCain & anybody not a Republican is an unlikely combination. For reasons of his own, he stays loyal to the party that stabbed him in the back, altho he's certainly entitled to kick them in the teeth & tell them where to go after the dirty tricks they pulled in 2000. I was very surprised when he ante'd up and kissed Bush's butt for the 2004 elections. The GOP must have made him some stiff promises.
10 - Les Slater
> David couldn't wait to counter any post remotely critical of the current administration
I agree with his post 100% and I do not in any way support the Bush administration.
11 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Do you really agree? David implies that the amendment isn't really important -- "mild," in his words. Which is absolute garbage: it's a *radical* critique of this administration, which is why Bush is contemplating a veto.
What Bush has "stated are the policies of his administration" is not quite the clear statement Dave would like: the Gonzales memo, for instance -- endorsed by Bush -- goes very much counter to this amendment.
12 - Dave Nalle
Douglas, it's only a critique of the administration if you choose to take it that way. If you look at the words and compare them with the stated policies of the administration they are not in conflict. The amendment does NOT extend the protection of the Constitution to detainees who are under military law and it doesn't counter extraordinary rendition, so it's compatible with the Gonzales position.
>>Dave, your knee-jerk defense of this scumbag is getting really distressing -- you might want to think about getting professional help.<<
Which scumbag are you referring to here? My observations on this subject are hardly a defense of Bush. If anything they're the exact opposite. Bush threatening to veto this amendment is insanely stupid, because it gives the amendment the aura of controversy which attracted your attention. Bush could have welcomed it and said, "yes it's a clear statement of what we believe, thanks" and totally defused the situation, because the wording supports that response. By threatening to veto it he makes it look like the critique which people would like it to be but which it really isn't. Dumb.
Dave
13 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Hm. Okay, if that's your intent, then I take it back. But I do believe that the amendment is a very serious critique, in that it is *open-ended*, just as the Gonzales memo is open-ended. Gonzales opened a gaping hole in the Geneva conventions, through which Bush could drive anything he pleased. The amendment is an attempt -- equally non-specific -- to close that hole. Bush sees it that way, as do McCain and all of those who voted with him.
14 - Les Slater
> David implies that the amendment isn't really important
The Boland Amendment was to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983. It prohibited the federal government from providing military support "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua."
I visited Nicaragua in 1985. It was quite clear, regarless of what the bill said, or was advertised to be, it did no such thing.
It was interpreted by the Reagan administration to only apply to US intelligence agencies.
They always will interpret whatever they wish however they wish, they’ll find loopholes. McCain knows this.
15 - Dave Nalle
Bush himself has condemned torture on more than one occasion, and the people who voted for the amendment include some of his most ardent supporters. I still fail to see how - just on the wording of the amendment - it criticizes the administration. The president didn't authorize the instances of torture which have taken place, and those involved have been condemned and punished. Torturing prisoners has never been official policy and this amendment merely affirms that, which is why people can support it and support Bush at the same time - whether he gets it or not.
Dave
16 - Les Slater
> Torturing prisoners has never been official policy
No, but it is, and will continue to be, the real policy, McCain nothwithsstanding.
17 - Dave Nalle
You make McCain's effort sound even more meaningless, Les.
I do think that if we were using torture on a more systematic basis it would be impossible to cover up. It seems like the isolated incedents which have come to light are just aberations.
Dave
18 - Les Slater
> I do think that if we were using torture
We? It’s not my government. Your's?
> on a more systematic basis it would be impossible to cover up.
That’s what extraordinary rendition is all about.
> seems like the isolated incidents which have come to light are just aberrations.
Now you ARE covering up for that scumbag.
19 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Yes, I retract my retraction. For Christ's sake, Dave -- what do you think Fishback's testimony is all about? Torture on a *systematic basis*. And the administration is doing their best to cover it up (to shut him up, that is). Rumsfeld has been credibly quoted as saying, "Either break him, or destroy him."
20 - RogerMDillion
is this the same McCain who denounced Gov. Gray Davis for raising money $26 mil, but has no probelm with Gov Arnold raising $76 mil.
21 - Anthony Grande
That is because Arnold is taking California to greater and better things.
Do you think Davis would have vetoed the driver's liscenses for ILLEGAL immigrants???
Oh yeah, I have an anouncement to make and this is the most appropriate thread to do it on too:
John McCain is Pro-Life!!!
If Condy doesn't run, McCain for President!!!
22 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Anthony, you really are a one-issue pony, aren't you.
Wake up. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Ever. Not gonna happen. This most recent Supreme Court opening was Bush's last chance, and he blew it. (I suspect even Roberts won't vote to overturn that precedent; Harriet won't go near it, as her friend Hecht so nicely pointed out.) But keep dreaming.
Actually, there's a fairly credible theory that Bush and Co. don't *want* to overturn Roe v. Wade -- because it gives them a nice issue to get high and mighty about in order to keep people like you frothing and on their side. (Otherwise you might notice other significant flaws in their governance.)
Let's face it: you'd vote for a slobbering leper if he pretended loudly to be anti-choice. Which is what they're counting on.
23 - The Fifth Dentist
McCain kicks ass. I wish he were free to share his true feelings about our glorious leader. It pains me to think that he could be our president right now if not for the reprehensible tactics that Bush used against him in South Carolina in 2000. These consisted of spreading rumors through push-polls that McCain was mentally ill and had fathered a black child out of wedlock. (The McCains adopted daughter from India.) How you can pull that kind of shit and still consider yourself a Christian is beyond me. Sorry for rambling.
24 - Anthony Grande
Wrong, it will be overturned in a matter of a few years. First it will be reduced to before 6 months after conception only, then 4 months, then 3 months , then 2 months, then 2 weeks.
It will remain at 2 weeks for a long time, but then one day: Boom!!! Boom!!! to the Moon!!! It's Gone!!!!
-----
Can you imagine how good McCain would be for the War on Terror???
25 - Alienboy
dream on, AG...