Republicans: "torture worked on McCain", "he's dying anyways"

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Trumpists just seem to have no empathy sometimes. Like McCain's political views or not (and I certainly don't always agree with them), but he is an American hero and by all accounts a good man. Attacking a dying cancer patient because he holds different political beliefs from yours is nothing short of heartless.

Trump has empathy, but he holds grudges.

Ted Cruz has no empathy.

Paul Ryan fakes it.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

First a Republican says we should re-legalize torture  "because it worked on John McCain"


Now one of Trump's WH assistants says:

Kelly Sadler was discussing McCain's opposition to President Donald Trump's nominee for CIA director, Gina Haspel, when she allegedly claimed, "It doesn't matter" because "he's dying anyway."


Don't let the door kick you on your way out, is what the GOP seems to be saying to him. Whether you like him or not, this seems a new low.

I'm not defending Kelly Sadler's comments, but these were comments made in a closed-door meeting with Administration staffers, only.  It's not as if she bellied up to the podium and made these comments.  The people inflicting the damage on the McCain family are the "sources" who violated confidences on a matter that was a statement on a political calculation.

The injury to the McCain family in Sadler's comments was delivered by folks who needed to keep their mouth shut.  "He who covereth a transgression soweth love."  This was a time for that Scripture to apply, but the leakers (who are the real pieces of crap in that aspect of the issue) decided that they just had to throw someone under the bus for whatever purposes.  (Certainly, not to bless the McCain family.)

Perhaps folks need to assume that they are ALWAYS in the fishbowl.  I have come to do so; it has added to my level of cautiousness and reduced some of my candor, but so be it.  I don't go around spreading gossip about folks' unbecoming statements in private settings, however, and Ms. Sadler's statement was made in a PRIVATE, HIGHLY POLITICAL MEETING where strategy over a key nomination was being discussed.

As for the Republican official making that public comment, that's on him, and him alone.  Let the voters cast their judgment on this guy.

As far as I can see, Donald Trump had nothing to do with either of these comments.  He should be taken to task for what he says.  Not for what he doesn't say.  And if I were Trump, I'd fire the leakers, and not Sadler (although I'd re-orient her to the full reality of her fishbowl existance that comes with an Executive Branch job).

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meghan McCain's issue on this matter should be with the leakers, and the leakers, alone.

That the McCain family hates Trump, I can understand.  Trump's not to blame for what just happened, but the revulsion toward him from the McCain family is something he's brought on himself over time.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I'm not joining this bandwagon because I remember McCain's being another servilistic foot soldier in Mitch McConnell's obstructionist campaign against Obama, as well as his enthusiastic support for GWB's disastrous wars, he even wanted to extend into other countries ("bomb, bomb Iran" anybody?)

Sorry, but it looks as McCain just wants to preserve his largely manufactured "maverick" image, knowing he's got little time left, rather than taking a real stand. And if he's really making a principled stand, he's way too late for his record to be redeemed.

Sad to say, I agree with this.  McCain lacked the kind of courage it took to dial down the partisanship of the Obama years, and he was never very conciliatory to Obama.  He could have opted to support Obamacare and bring bi-partisan gravitas to the deal, but he didn't, and his vote to block repeal was a shot at Trump (who, I suppose, had it coming).  I voted for McCain in 2008 and I don't regret it, but McCain was a maverick when he didn't like a Republican (Bush 43, Trump) and an obstructionist when he didn't like a Democrat (Obama).  I don't mind if my war heroes were captured or not, but John McCain was a Republican who COULD have stemmed the partisan tide somewhat during the Obama years, and he deliberately chose not to.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

First a Republican says we should re-legalize torture  "because it worked on John McCain"


Now one of Trump's WH assistants says:

Kelly Sadler was discussing McCain's opposition to President Donald Trump's nominee for CIA director, Gina Haspel, when she allegedly claimed, "It doesn't matter" because "he's dying anyway."


Don't let the door kick you on your way out, is what the GOP seems to be saying to him. Whether you like him or not, this seems a new low.

I'm not defending Kelly Sadler's comments, but these were comments made in a closed-door meeting with Administration staffers, only.  It's not as if she bellied up to the podium and made these comments.  The people inflicting the damage on the McCain family are the "sources" who violated confidences on a matter that was a statement on a political calculation.

The injury to the McCain family in Sadler's comments was delivered by folks who needed to keep their mouth shut.  "He who covereth a transgression soweth love."  This was a time for that Scripture to apply, but the leakers (who are the real pieces of crap in that aspect of the issue) decided that they just had to throw someone under the bus for whatever purposes.  (Certainly, not to bless the McCain family.)

Perhaps folks need to assume that they are ALWAYS in the fishbowl.  I have come to do so; it has added to my level of cautiousness and reduced some of my candor, but so be it.  I don't go around spreading gossip about folks' unbecoming statements in private settings, however, and Ms. Sadler's statement was made in a PRIVATE, HIGHLY POLITICAL MEETING where strategy over a key nomination was being discussed.

As for the Republican official making that public comment, that's on him, and him alone.  Let the voters cast their judgment on this guy.

As far as I can see, Donald Trump had nothing to do with either of these comments.  He should be taken to task for what he says.  Not for what he doesn't say.  And if I were Trump, I'd fire the leakers, and not Sadler (although I'd re-orient her to the full reality of her fishbowl existance that comes with an Executive Branch job).

What?? What kind of person would say this even in private? It doesn’t make it right that she “didn’t mean for it to get out”

It's a tacky comment, but unless I'm missing something, it was made (A) in a private meeting (B) where the subject was strategic considerations surrounding the nomination of a potential CIA Director (C) in which McCain's health and status is a key role.  Here's a dying man with a grudge (granted, a justified grudge) in a position to torpedo a critical nomination for the Administration.

In such a meeting, I would expect that folks weren't at their Sunday Best.  But this was a STRATEGY meeting (from what I can tell), and not a POLICY meeting.  It's about POLITICS, and McCain's health and availability is, sadly, a POLITICAL factor in this particular nomination.

And the comment was not meant for public consumption.  We only know about it because of unauthorized leakers, who leaked the information for their own selfish reasons.

I've been in management, and I've been done dirty by disloyal employees that I didn't have the power to fire.  The confidences of the office were breached, and I ended up going back to my old job once I saw how that particular game was played.  This was nothing illegal; it was about a written reprimand that was to be given to two (2) staff members who behaved in a totally unprofessional manner during a staff meeting.  This secretary let these employees know of my decision (approved by my superiors), and the "unofficial organization chart" kicked in.  Not OK.  If I were Trump, I'd fire the leakers with no notice and take the fallout.  I'd give Ms. Sadler a lecture on the lack of "private" in private White House meetings, but I'd fire the leakers, and make examples of them, lest someone else be foolish enough to trust them in the future.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meghan McCain's issue on this matter should be with the leakers, and the leakers, alone.

Who the hell are you to say what Meghan McCain should or should not do? No, the “leak” is not that main issue here and you know that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, he is. Meghan’s argument is that Trump allows this type of toxic environment to exist within his administration. And this is a fact - from foreign agent Flynn to wife-beater Porter to the incredibly corrupt Cabinet officials from Pruitt to Prince, it most certainly is Trump’s fault for letting a band of grifters, racists, wife-beaters and other bottom-feeders into his administration. And, it’s also an indictment on many of his supporters for being ok with this and for not having the moral courage to admit the truth that most Americans can see.

Since you seem to be crowing about the “leakers”, let’s take a another creature from Trump’s swamp - Rob Porter. As you know, he was a wife-beater and that information was leaked to the public. However, Trump was aware of this and had no intention of removing him before it leaked. Thanks to the leak, he was removed. Exact same situation with Mike Flynn. If not for the leak, we’d still have a foreign agent as NSA.

I realize this is the low-intellect argument pushed by Trump/Fox News (“It’s not the criminal - it’s the leaker!”) but this type of argument won’t persuade any reasonable person. And deep down, you know that

Meghan McCain has legit issues with Trump, but not on this particular matter.  What she does about it is her business, but she has no issue with Trump on this particular incident.

Mr. Porter is a separate issue.

This leak was wrong.  Period.  The leakers are the problem, not Ms. Sadler.  This isn't an issue of leaking misconduct; it's justifying disloyal conduct to get a juicy tidbit of uncomplimentary news to beat Trump (who didn't make the comment) over the head with.

I stand by everything I've posted on this topic.  If I'm the only one in all of Atlas, so be it.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The level of idiocy at the White House is beyond anything normal on our planet.
Regular folk don't go around talking in "private" meetings about how other's dying relatives is funny. If I was in such a meeting, I would be gasped in horror by such a comment. (I have been in many management level meetings my entire life.)
But I guess if the private meeting room is filled with nothing but grotesque monsters, then it is to be expected (Birds of the same feather ...).

Mulvaney is right.  He's 100 percent right.  And if the shoe were on Obama's foot, where an aide to Eric Holder made an untoward comment toward police officers (for eample), would "anonymous sources have come forward?

I'm sure Jesus doesn't like Kelly Sadler's comments about Trump, any more than he would like ProundModerate2's comments about me (the ones he says to others about me that don't get posted on Atlas).  But they were at a private, and highly political, meeting of uber-partisans in, what for them, was a high-stakes situation.  Those folks have jobs that are not stable, and results are demanded.  I don't feel sorry for Kelly Sadler, but people react to stress in different ways.  And John McCain was a source of that stress; he was withholding his vote for a nominee for DCA whose nomination was being steered by the folks in that room.  That doesn't justify a cruel comment, but I'm not going to pretend I've never said something cruel under pressure that I couldn't take back, but people deal with high stress in different ways.

Someone asked what Jesus would think about all of this.  I'll revert to Proverbs 26:20-22:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The talebearers, in this case, are the "anonymous sources" that didn't have to say anything, but chose to.  Proverbs 26:22 points out that it was THEIR words that did the wounding.  They provided the wood for the fire.  This was not the sort of "public's right to know" tidbit that needed to be disclosed, and if it was something that really needed to be disclosed, I'm sure Robert Mueller is all ears and would have handled the matter with more discretion than the Washington Press Corps.

That Kelly Sadler apologized is right, in that her comments were made public.  But the hurt would not have been delivered were it not for the anonymous sources.  The anonymous sources turned a "no harm, no foul" situation into a hurtful situation.  The justification for this, of course, is that if it moves us one step closer to driving Trump from office, it must be OK.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Most folks here would have been livid if an uncomplimentary comment in an Obama staff meeting was leaked.  Trump is different, however; folks really believe that anything that brings America closer to driving Trump from office is morally OK.

I guess that's the prevailing morality around #TheResistance.  I suppose I'll have something to tell my great grandchildren when all is said and done.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Fuzzy, I really don't get how you can get upset at comments like "guns and religion" for being pejorative to people like you, and not be upset about comments like this because they were said behind closed doors. That seems really warped to me. The main reason people are upset at this isn't because someone said something mean, it's because it reveals an incredibly callous, inhumane view of a colleague that trivializes suffering they experienced, and a generally cruel and dismissive attitude towards people they are supposed to be working together with to enact policy. The setting and the manner through which it became available are inconsequential.

And yes, leaking to the press has always been around in politics. It's incredibly naive and absurd to assume that this leak is unique in the history of White House coverage. Giuliani, Kushner, Kelly, and even Trump likely leak things to the press all the time. Your hypothetical about leaks in the Obama administration is moot because those leaks certainly did happen.

And we never gave Obama a free pass when they occurred. The G&R comment, though understandable, made me and a whole bunch of people very concerned.

Obama's "guns and religion" comment was made by Obama, at an open mic.  As are Trump's insulting comments.  

This comment was made by a staffer, in a private meeting.  Is nothing private?  

Political hacks are human.  This was a meeting of political hacks, talking strategy in regard to a key nomination for DCA that was in danger of going down by the vote of a guy who is dying, is a Republican, and has been ongoing in his criticism of his own party's President.  Yes, Trump invited all of that, but these people are focused on getting to 50 votes, and McCain's making it hard, essentially because he can.

Kelly Sadler's comment was ill-mannered, but it was not meant for public consumption.  That, to me, IS a huge difference.  The ruckus came about because of tattle-tale leakers stirring crap for selfish ends.  These weren't patriots exposing Watergate; they were cowardly snot-bags who, to this day, are hidden behind anonymity.

I would ask everyone this:  Why should the leakers have leaked what they did?  What specific constructive purpose did it serve, besides giving Trump a ding in his news coverage?  How did the leaking help the Nation?  How did the leaking help the McCain family?  Yes, it was euphoric to Trump's enemies; another negative press story.  How was it beneficial to the Nation that the confidentiality of that private meeting was violated over this matter?  More importantly, how would the Nation have been worse off if these cowards that leaked this had just shut up and the Nation never known about this?  

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Fuzzy has a perverted way of explaining right from wrong.
In the same sentence, he will tell you how wrong something/someone is, but then tell you how it's OK and acceptable. He did this with Roy Moore (Alabama Senate race) in where he both demonized him and rejoiced his warped religious ways (anti-LGTB policies, etc).
He did this with his constant rhetoric (and endless articles) of how awful the MS-13 gangs are ("brown people"), but then dispel the same evil from white-supremacists gangs.
All this, while using religion, Bible quotes and Jesus to oddly justify it all.

The difference between White Supremacist gangs and MS-13 is that MS-13 is an issue of porous borders as well as criminality, whereas White Supremacist gangs are American citizens that, whatever the evil they do, it's not something surrounding the border security issue.  But, yes, if I were President, I would direct ICE to ensure that no followers of these kinds of White Supremacist movements in Europe be permitted to enter the US, based on ideology.

There's no controversy over what to do about criminal White Supremacist gangs.  Enforce the law.  There is a controversy on what to do about illegal immigration, which involves the entry of criminal gang members who are foreign nationals into our country.  Here, too, I advocate enforcing existing laws.  

ProudModerate2 has no interest in getting his facts straight.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Fuzzy has a perverted way of explaining right from wrong.
In the same sentence, he will tell you how wrong something/someone is, but then tell you how it's OK and acceptable. He did this with Roy Moore (Alabama Senate race) in where he both demonized him and rejoiced his warped religious ways (anti-LGTB policies, etc).
He did this with his constant rhetoric (and endless articles) of how awful the MS-13 gangs are ("brown people"), but then dispel the same evil from white-supremacists gangs.
All this, while using religion, Bible quotes and Jesus to oddly justify it all.

The difference between White Supremacist gangs and MS-13 is that MS-13 is an issue of porous borders as well as criminality, whereas White Supremacist gangs are American citizens that, whatever the evil they do, it's not something surrounding the border security issue.  But, yes, if I were President, I would direct ICE to ensure that no followers of these kinds of White Supremacist movements in Europe be permitted to enter the US, based on ideology.

There's no controversy over what to do about criminal White Supremacist gangs.  Enforce the law.  There is a controversy on what to do about illegal immigration, which involves the entry of criminal gang members who are foreign nationals into our country.  Here, too, I advocate enforcing existing laws.  

ProudModerate2 has no interest in getting his facts straight.

And there you have it folks ....
In Fuzzy's world, evil by gangs in the USA is explained-away depending on what country you are born-in, and if you are a national of this nation or that one.
Instead of seeing the heinous acts committed by gangs equally, it's just a matter of distortion by mimicking trump's bigoted (build the wall) methods.

We can't deport White Supremacist Criminal Gang members.  We can only put them in jail/prison when they commit crimes.  And we should.

I do see the heinous acts equally.  The law should be enforced in both cases.  I've never said that White Supremacist gangs should get a pass from being subject to criminal penalties for their criminal actions.  But the ease of which MS-13 members go back and forth across our borders is a justification for increased border security and immigration enforcement. 

I'm making this statement for the rational members of the forum.  ProudModerate2 is unable to disagree with someone in a rational way.  I recognize most of the forum disagrees with me on these issues, but most of you don't actively distort what I've said over time due to their own prejudices either.