What Osama bin Laden did to us on the day of 9/11/2001 is nothing compared to the havoc that has continued to ripple through our country every day since.

Every single law we pass and word we utter that cuts into our liberties is one more successful strike bin Laden lays into us.

Bush- and many of our cowardly countrymen- allow bin Laden to continue to whoop our ass on a daily basis.

One might even suggest Bush and bin Laden have similar interests regarding our country. I believe they do, with the only difference being their rationale and motives. Though the result is the same. Fear.

Not bad for a guy who has been dead for five years.

From the context of your post and of your sources, it seems clear that McCain had an instrumental, and even essential role in passing the MCA. But you overplayed your hand with this phrase:

"After parading around as the righteous opponent of torture, McCain nonetheless endorsed and voted for the MCA, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage."

You can't place all the blame on McCain.

So, the Hero Torturee fused survivor pity and fiat revenge.

That's a clarifier.

Anyone see Rev Wright with Rev Moyers?

McCain's looking like a chicken rooster now, isn't he?

Wright's a Vet, too, right?

Let them debate.

Would that mean that McCain is responsible for more United States aircraft losses in one day than any other person or state in the past 50 years?

I never thought about it like that! And isn't he a "reverse ace", too?

Bu, I gotta tell ya, rupert, that "Wet Start" story makes people very, very mad. They say it's all swiftboating, and promulgating it will hurt the Democrats. Don't expect a friendly reception for it. It'll get you persona-non-grata'ed in a hurry at even the most "liberal site.

I think it would be totally cool if McCain got Google-bombed with "wet Start". But that is an awful thing to think.

However, what Hillary said is, quote: '...we would be able to totally obliterate them' unquote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGKiixOwVhs

I agree that your original description of what she said was more accurate than mine was. As you point out, she said that we "would be able to totally obliterate them," not that we would do so. So technically speaking, you're right.

But the only reasonable understanding of her statement is not that we "could," but that we would. Everyone knows that we can obliterate any country. That's so well-known that nobody would ever point it out. The only reason to point out that we could is to say that we would.

That doesn't change your point -- her actual statement should be described accurately -- but I don't think anyone took what she said to be a mere observation about our technological abilities.

Glenn:

McCain has been accorded the status of Moral Arbiter regarding torture. Even the Democrats hid behind him and let him be their spokesman during negotiations with the White House. So when he endorses things like the MCA or the CIA exemption to the DTA or opposition to the waterboarding ban, it has far more of an impact than when some random, standard GOP Senator or even George Bush takes those positions.

Bullseye. McCain is so dangerous precisely because he is assumed to be a moderate maverick, which lends his most extreme positions a false air of reasonableness and restraint.

I also agree profoundly that the incessant back-and-forth about Clinton vs. Obama is largely redundant and irrelevant now. More blogger and partisan attention needs to be cast on McCain, who is getting away with "redefining" himself in the eyes of not only the public as a whole, but also the GOP activist base in particular, which he will need to be competitive in November.

McCain is a ripe, plump target on so many things - from his enabling of torture policies as described here today, to his hypocrisy/weakness on the North Carolina attack ad, to his unbelievably jingoistic foreign policy views, and on and on.

The media is not going to share these painful truths with the public on their own initiative. Progressives, Democrats, and other people of conscience need to advance those narratives aggressively.

Think like a Democrat. Fight like a Republican.

Yes. Actually Obama did object to Clinton's threat to "obliterate" Iran if that country's government attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.

Yes, he objected to the semantic expression of the policy, but not the policy itself.

Personally, I'd rather candidates say explicitly what they would intend to do. As you might recall, Obama made the same point when controversy arose over his saying that he'd consider taking action inside Pakistan against Al-Qaeda if the Pakistani government wouldn't.

Lots of people said that his mistake wasn't the policy itself, but to say aloud that he'd do this. I didn't agree with that criticism. I think it's better to know in advance exactly what they're thinking. That applies to Obama's willingness to use military force inside Pakistan as well as to Clinton and Obama's response plans if Iran and Israel went to war.

If bin Laden IS dead, I imagine his tombstone says, "Mission Accomplished"

If "love" means never having to say you're sorry, then "victory" means never having to explain why there is a big fucking "Mission Accomplished" sign over your head when giving a speech about a war you're still fighting.

McCain is a big plump target. And, I'm 100% behind the argument that the sane element of the blogosphere ought to set the Clinton-Obama cage match aside and focus their energy on McCain. Those voters still on the fence with a primary ahead of them can do what they may with the horse-race reporting of the media and those blogs which have media associations. My sense is the selection of the Democratic Party's candidate is going all the way to the convention anyway.

Frank Rich makes an interesting point in the NYTimes today. I'm ambivalent about Rich but I think he's on target with this:

When the Pennsylvania returns rained down Tuesday night, the narrative became clear fast. The Democrats’ exit polls spelled disaster: Some 25 percent of the primary voters said they would defect to Mr. McCain or not vote at all if Barack Obama were the nominee. How could the party possibly survive this bitter, perhaps race-based civil war?

But as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin