[DoughtyOne]

Regardless whence came the decision to speak out, McCain is now on the record condemning this ruling in the strongest possible terms. To a point I agree.  The problem is, John has backed enough crapola policy, to have made this call a natural.  Now he objects.  What the hell?  To call it “one of the worst decisions” in the history of the Republic is very strong stuff. Sure it is, but it raises as many questions as it seems to address.  I doubt any “handler” would have advised him to use such impolitic, unvarnished language.

But I am glad he did.  Okay, so am I.  It will cause some folks to sit up and take notice.  What they won't be as likely to notice is John's support for closing Gitmo, granting terrorists Geneva Convention status, and making it against U.S. policy to use water-boarding.

John is the terrorist's best friend on three out of four issues.  Now, lets pat the guy on the back and reminisce about what a swell guy he is.

I don't believe this a.h. for a moment.

[firebrand]

How about just starting from where we are now, instead of rehearsing the past?

Not to mention the fact that if the prisoners had been under the Geneva Conventions, we wouldn't have this problem now. So McCain's being in favor of it has not brought us to where we are now.

In addition, closing Gitmo itself, the physical prison, would not change anything except get it out of the crosshairs of the rest of the world. Same rules would apply.

[AuntB]

See post #47. He’s having another John Kerry moment.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Which brings us to the main point: you could only like this suite of Presidential candidates that we currently have if you actively hate this country.

[karnage]

You make good points, and provide context for this very strong individual statement that appears to be inconsistent with McCain’s stance on other related issues.