I was sorry to see your retraction of your McCain post.. Certainly, the issues involved, torture and a prolonged stay in Iraq, should be discussed in a more nuanced manner than what is customary in political debates.. but adding nuance and context should not devolve into making excuses for whatever a candidate does or says just because he appears to be a nice guy.It's perfectly okay to criticize one aspect of a candidate, while not rejecting him entirely.

In re torture, I think Mccan was dead wrong in his public stance, regardless of the degree pf soundness underlying his reasoning (or C. Stanley's). Although I agree that we should not broadcast our interrogation techniques, it is equally important, if not more so, to not broadcast how conflicted we are about moral principles. THE WORLD IS WATCHING, and every time public evidence arises about out conflicted ethics in this matter, we diminish our standing in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes.
The purpose of the law is to banish torture. That does not banish administrative and Congressional consideration of the specifics. The president, for example, always retains the power to issue extraordinary orders in a crisis (the ticking bomb scenario) The law would simply banish torture from becoming normalized routine In short, in the process of avoiding broadcasting our interrogation techniques, we are broadcasting our moral and ethical uncertainties. That leads to further and continuing harm to our standing.

The administration seems much concerned with legal protection for the personnel involved (or companies that collaborate with them)., IMO, that is the wrong way to go. The lesson from the Nurenmerg trials was one about personal responsibility. If those who took orders from their Nazi superiors were (and are) held personally responsible, why should the bar be ;lowered for today's practitioners of torture? Because they're OUR torturers? This question of legal protection looms large in the torture debates, and it disturbs me no end.

About the 100 years in Iraq: yes, it was taken out of context. Looking at the context, however, does not reassure me. For one thing, none of our current deployments of many years standing ever involved policing a country in the middle of civil turmoil. Germany and Japan were beaten into stupefied submission before we undertook nation building. For the sake of the argument, would we stay in Germany if that country erupted into civil war or engaged in war with a neighbor? Unlikely as those scenarios are, they are necessary in order to draw a valid comparison.Our soldiers are not dying in Korea!

Again, the most troublesome part of his words was their effect. What does this say to the Arabs who bristle at the very idea of Western boots on their soil? If it turns out that we have to stay for a while,, it's not something we should be broadcasting abroad! We should be emphasizing how eager we are to leave!
No matter who is elected president, there will be no headlong flight home. It can't be done. So, what we say about it in the interim matters. It matters a whole lot, and MCCain said the absolutely wrong thing

I'm not out to crucify McCain because he does or says what I see as the wrong thing. I like some things about him and dislike others. That would hold true for most human beings, including politicians. The rush to excuse , though, is as bad as the rush to condemn.

I think McCain's bark is worse than his bite on the subject of judges. For instance, despite what he says, I think there's a good chance he could follow in Reagan's footsteps and appoint another centrist like Sandra Day O'Connor — in which case, all should remain well with the world.

Then again, I know there are others who disagree, who feel strongly that a Republican overhaul of the court will be nothing but disastrous, and thus — even if they like McCain for other reasons — won't vote for him for this reason (i.e., stacking the Court).

I don't know. It certainly deserves further discussion and review.

I can respect that someone has these beliefs but I can't accept characterizing them as in favor of individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and enlightened foreign policy.

This is a much longer conversation.