December 15, 2014


When are we going to stop elevating the poisonous dunce that is John McCain? I just saw him referred to by the democratic-leaning pundit on CNN as someone who would know a few things about torture since the AZ senator himself was once tortured. So yes, it stands to reason that since he was subjected to torture, he may have some personal insights into being on the receiving end--just like his closeted pal Lindsey Graham is quite familiar with being on the receiving end of a penis. But that doesn't qualify McCain to give him any insight into what degree of torture is appropriate for the US government decades after his captivity with an array of new torture techniques developed since then.

Furthermore, while McCain is "going maverick" and disagreeing with his own party, his party is the most hawkish and he always recommends a stronger position on defense--attack everyone at every opportunity. And besides Miley Cyrus concerts, war is what leads to most of the situations in which the US would resort to torture, right? So Democrats may agree with him on torture, but they are polluting the democratic party by lauding him as an expert. If torture is wrong, don't side with a fool because he's agreeing with you today. I get it--it's a democratic talking point which is supposed to make it look like politicians on both sides have issues with enhanced interrogation. But McCain isn't an ally anyone should want. Please remember that he was the presidential candidate whose platform was so pitiful that he claimed during the height of the recession that he'd need to read a book on the economy to get us out of our hard times. Which led to such little confidence in McCain's ability to lead that Sarah Palin was added to his ticket as VP. Sarah, who is now widely regarded as an extremist nut job, was needed to add appeal to McCain's floundering platform. What does needing her help say about McCain's abilities and vision on anything?

Sadly, CNN's right-leaning candidate made a point it's tough to disagree with. He asked why Bush/Cheney's torture worse than Obama's many drone killings which include the murder of many innocents? Of course, the GOP would also order as many if not more drone strikes if they were in power, but since they aren't they can effectively criticize Obama on this. Obama seems to hit more innocents than terrorists with his "precision" drone attacks--one recent report by human rights organization Reprieve claimed 28 civilians were killed by our drones for every terrorist. The Guardian on this: “Even when operators target specific individuals — the most focused effort of what U.S. President Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” — they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times.” Some precision. But you don't hear much about Obama's secret drone war on MSNBC because they are too busy licking his butt to actually function as liberal media and blast Obama as a hawk. Infuriatingly, you're likely to hear more about this from Fox News. When Fox News is right and has a legitimate beef with Obama on his messy and often secret drone campaigns, something is very wrong.

Both parties want war so this is all a shell game, and yet further proof of how both parties ignore the Americans they supposedly represent: the majority of us don't want war as made clear in the last presidential election. For anyone who green lights war or drone attacks to debate the morality of torture is a off. What's a little torture compared to active murder of innocents under both Bush and Obama? At least torture victims don't die.