Senator Doublespeak

The Straight Talk Express made a stop on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday. On the program, Senator McCain--who appeared by himself as always--was asked a number of questions about the war in Iraq and his new compromise military tribunal legislation. His answers, which were rambling and often incoherent, could more accurately be described as "doublespeak" than "straight talk."

When asked to comment on the leaked National Intelligence Estimate concluding that the Iraq war has greatly exacerbated the threat of global terrorism, McCain first disclaimed any knowledge of it, and then gave the standard GOP line:

But I would also argue that these people didn't need any motivation to attack us on September 11th. According to their history--and there's some validity to it--this begins with the bombing of the--and the killing of marines in Beirut, and then Somalia, and now other "quote" successes of theirs. But I would--I think I would argue that we need to prevail in Iraq, and that if we fail, then our problems would be much more complicated. But if it wasn't Iraq, it'd be Afghanistan; if it wasn't Afghanistan, it's be others that they would use as method of continuing their recruitment.

Now let's unpack that a little bit. McCain begins with the standard GOP response to this sort of question, a response Vice President Cheney is particularly fond of. He asserts that "these people didn't need any motivation to attack us on September 11th." The implication is, apparently, that because 9/11 happened before we invaded Iraq, this somehow proves that invading Iraq couldn't have made anything worse. This "argument" is so insulting to the intelligence of the American people that it stuns me every time I hear it. It is a counterpoint to an imaginary bonehead argument that no one is making, i.e., that there was no terrorism threat prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Imagine someone came across a fire and decided to douse it with gasoline. Another person then comes along and criticizes the first for causing the flames to spread. McCain's response would apparently be that the fire was already burning before the gasoline was poured on top of it, and therefore, the gasoline couldn't have made it worse.

McCain goes on to suggest that had we not invaded Iraq, al Qaeda would have highlighted other U.S. actions--like the invasion of Afghanistan--in their recruitment efforts. But this too is a profoundly unserious argument. While it's certainly true that al Qaeda would have tried to recruit new members regardless of what we did, what really matters is how successful those recruitment efforts are. There is every reason to believe (and the NIE apparently bears this out) that our invasion of Iraq made al Qaeda's job much easier. Our unprovoked invasion of a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 9/11 fed right into Bin Laden's message. It handed him an enormously powerful propaganda tool that he would not otherwise have had.

Schieffer then asked McCain why the President keeps saying the war in Iraq has made us safer when the NIE says the exact opposite. Here's Senator straight-talk's response:

I can't speak for the president, but I haven't seen him say it's--that it's safer. I think he has laid out recently a pretty cogent argument that we must, quote--I hate to use the phrase--"stay the course" . . .

Apparently McCain missed Bush's address to the nation a few weeks ago ("Since that day, America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before. Today, we are safer"). For that matter, he must have missed every single Bush speech since 2003. And apparently he didn't get the memo that "stay the course" is no longer the preferred talking point. Putting all that aside, though, is it even possible to give a less responsive answer? The question had nothing to do with whether we should stay the course in Iraq; it was about whether we are safer for having gone in there in the first place.

But McCain saved his best doublespeak for the main topic of the day, the military tribunal legislation he had negotiated with the White House. When asked what the prohibitions in the bill mean "in concrete terms," McCain replied:

In concrete terms, it could mean that waterboarding and other extreme measures such as extreme deprivation--sleep deprivation, hypothermia and others would be not allowed.

I kid you not. That's what he said. It could mean that. He's not sure, though.

That bizarre answer led to this exchange:

JOHN HARRIS: That's what you say. What if the administration interprets it differently, as it is allowed to do under the provisions of this law? What if you disagree with the interpretation?

McCAIN: If we disagree with the interpretation, the fact is that those interpretations have to be published in the Federal Register. That's a document that's available to all Americans, including the press. And we in Congress, and the judiciary, if challenged, have the ability then to examine that interpretation and act legislatively. These are regulations the president would issue, we would be passing laws which trump regulations.

HARRIS: If you have confidence that those were--tactics were disallowed, why didn't you get it in the--in the actual law?

McCAIN: What we did, John, was we called--outlawed certain procedures, including some of those that you might think would be natural--murder, rape, etc.--but also cruel and inhuman--we included cruel and inhuman treatments, not as severe as torture but could still be considered a crime.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, we look at...

Sen. McCAIN: I'm confident that some of the abuses that were reportedly committed in the past will be prohibited in the future.

SCHIEFFER: Well, for example, will this prohibit making people stand up for long periods of time? Because I know in your captivity--what?--you were once made to stand up for two days, or something?

McCAIN: Yeah. It's hard for me to get into these techniques. First of all, I'm not privy to them, but I only know what I've seen in public reporting. But some of these, such as an extreme stress position and extreme application of that I think would be--would be certainly important. But we also put in that if they're employed to the extent they cause serious physical or mental pain and suffering, but even if that is not prolonged. In other words you could do something almost instantaneously and that would still be prohibited under the, quote...

SCHIEFFER: What does "prolonged" mean?

McCAIN: Well, like the sleep thing you just mentioned, like standing, like--exposed to cold temperature to the danger that serious injury could, mental or serious--or physical injury could result. Look, we couldn't outline everything that should be done. We tried to outline what couldn't be done under the War Crimes Act, leaving the Geneva Conventions alone, which was our first and utmost priority.

It's pretty clear that McCain doesn't really have a good sense of what this compromise bill prohibits and what it does not. Nor does he know what techniques the Bush administration has been using or what techniques it plans to use going forward. Yet he's willing to put his name on this bill and declare the problem solved.

This is how the legislative process works now in this country. New legislation is negotiated between the White House and certain "independent" Republican Senators like John McCain and Arlen Specter who--while not being granted access to any of the relevant information--somehow feel qualified to endorse sweeping new grants of power to the executive branch (along with retroactive immunity for violations of existing law).

McCain is allowing his reputation as a maverick and as an opponent (and victim) of torture to be used to push through legislation that would unquestionably encourage the continued mistreatment of detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions. This after weeks of speaking out about the importance of living up to our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. And on top of that, he is willing to go on national television and dissemble and obfuscate about the bill, refusing to provide clear answers to very simple questions.

McCain has clearly bowed under pressure; he is unwilling to do any further damage to his presidential ambitions by holding out for better legislation. The press must realize this. They also must realize that McCain is doing anything but engaging in "straight talk" at the moment. The question is whether this latest capitulation will do anything to harm McCain's saintly reputation with the media. Will the press corps continue to lionize the man and pretend that he can do no wrong? Probably. At some point, though, that particular narrative has to give way to reality. I just hope it happens before 2008.