McCain gets support… from his ‘Nam jailer?

To quote my partna here Will, it’s like God himself is trying to swiftboat McCain. This is not a satirical article, it is dead serious: John McCain is getting endorsed by the guy who kept him prisoner in Vietnam. No, I’m not kidding. For realz.

Speaking to the BBC from Haiphong, Tran Trong Duyet also insisted that McCain’s assertions that he was tortured during his time at the prison were lies, and that no one held there was ever subjected to torture.

Describing McCain as his “friend”, Duyet told the broadcaster: “If I was American, I would vote for him.”

The 71-year-old Arizona senator was shot down over Hanoi in 1967 and jailed for five and a half years, mostly in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton”.

“I don’t know how he’d react if he met me again,” Duyet told the BBC.

“We used to argue about the war — about whether it was right or wrong … He is a very frank man — very conservative, and very loyal to his country and the American ideal.

I’m not even sure how to properly comment on this. Do I say this is hilariously worse than connecting Obama to the Weather Underground guy? Do I make the current parallel of an American worker at Guantanamo supporting a former captive in his bid for the Iraqi parliament? Or do I just shut my mouth and let this one speak for itself?

I’m trying to avoid questioning McCain’s story on what happened to him too much (feels a bit like what happened to Kerry), but I have to admit that first sentence is going to be interesting if it gets any media play. I’m sure 95% of the pundits will brush it off and call him a liar, but hey, if we’ll trust American claims that no one got tortured…

My promise if Obama wins

I got to thinking after my post about a prediction when Obama takes it. So I decided to come at things from the other side. I hope all of you come with me on this because it will be a lot of fun.

Okay, here goes. We’ve been spending somewhere around the last seven years bitching about conservatives acting as though Bush and “America” are the same thing. Criticize Bush for anything, they squeal, and it means you’re calling America that. Can’t say Bush is a war criminal ’cause it means America is ruthless and cruel. Repeat ad nauseum.

So what are we gonna do if Obama wins? Take the high road and keep our criticisms of Obama and the country separate? Objectively assess the president and honestly admit that he is a politician like any other, subject to faults that must be addressed? Well amongst ourselves, sure, but when debating with conservatives fuck no.

Every time, every single time, a pundit is railing Obama for this or that, saying he’s doing something terrible or calling him a bad president, my response is going to be the same: why do you hate America? End of story. I’m not going to engage them in anything aside from that.

They criticize his policy of diplomacy with our enemies? Why are you saying America is weak?

They criticize his desire to get national health care? Why are you calling America a socialist nation?

They rip into an effort to legalize gay marriage? Why are you calling America a land of heathens?

Honestly I think this could be a whole lot of fun. Seriously, imagine it. Imagine how pissed off Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity would be if every time they try and criticize Obama they got met with a wall of “why do you hate America so much?”

Granted, if we’re dealing with a principled conservative who debates honestly but simply has a different set of priorities and values (yes, they exist, and there are lots of them), then don’t use the strategy. That’s unfair and belligerent. But if we’re talking about some jerkoff neocon that employed the idea in defense of Bush, let’s do it. Cut off every asinine debate by questioning their patriotism. Every. Single. Time.

Anyone with me on this?