Failing to ask how McCain can accept Bush's endorsement after Bush defended his administration's use of waterboarding
McCain said he wanted to discuss torture because "it's important" and "because I think it's what America is all about and what kind of country we are." He later added that "for the future of this country, we have to make sure that we remain a nation that does not do things that our enemies do," and reiterated, "[T]hat's a very important question about what kind of a country we are, and what kind of country we've been and what kind of country we'll be in the 21st century." Matthews did not follow up by asking how, based on what McCain had just said, he could campaign with President Bush, who, in an April 11with ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz, said that he approved of senior White House officials authorizing the use of waterboarding — an interrogation tactic that has "very exquisite torture." Nor did Matthews ask McCain how he could Bush and his endorsement in March, after the president appeared to the use of waterboarding during a February 10 on Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday.
BUSH: First of all, whatever we have done was legal, and whatever decision I will make will be reviewed by the Justice Department to determine whether or not the legality is there. And the reason why — there's a difference between what happened in the past and today is there's new law. And so, to answer your question, whatever we will do will be legal.
RLCC Comment: Now, that's an important point by Media Matters concerning McCain. How can he accept the endorsement, with literal, physical hugs no less, from George W. Bush when Bush has been torturing people?
How can people support McCain when that's what McCain is like? It isn't as if it doesn't matter and it's "just politics" so to speak. It totally matters that McCain doesn't severely rebuke Bush and has never called for his impeachment for all the illegal things Bush and Bush's neocons have done. That brings us to the Bush comment above.
When the Democrats were making deals with Bush for Michael Mukasey's appointment as attorney general, there was discussion about restating what was already law against torture. At that time, I said that the neocons would turn around to claim that by virtue of restating the law by new, redundant legislation, the Bush people would claim that it's now law and that there was no law before outlawing torture tactics illegally authorized by Bush and the top members of his team.
Above, you will take notice that exactly what I said would happen has happened. Bush is saying that there is now "new law." He's trying to squeeze that in to say that there was no law before. Of course though, there was law before and no amount of Bush's twisting can alter that fact. Even after he leaves office, he'll need to be held to full account.
I say that because the Democrats are obviously planning to let the clock run out without having stepped up to the task. They are so morally weak, it would be sickening were it not for the Holy Spirit holding me together even while exposing Bush's great, unrepented (so far) wickedness.