Why weren't McCain&Co "outraged" that Rick Warren didn't trust McCain IN THE FIRST PLACE?

After all, it was Rick Warren who famously took pains to point out that McCain wouldn't BE ABLE to hear the questions ... that he'd be in the 'cone of silence.' Why point this out? It's certainly NOT a tribute to McCain's presumptive honesty ... a testimony to 'trust' ... that such a precaution was necessary and that Rick Warren went to the trouble to ensure that the facilities were arranged.

It seems to me that a demonstration of 'trust' would be best made in merely asking such an 'honorable' man to not try to listen in or get prepped on the basis of monitoring the questions.

But when we find that McCain actually (and admittedly) CIRCUMVENTED the preparations themselves ... preparations to accommodate him in such a room ... which is an inherent violation itself ... we hear the hue and cry about how 'offensive' it is that anyone would have the temerity to suggest McCain wasn't trustworthy.

Excuse me?

Seems that horse escaped the Trust Barn long before Saturday night ... and then McCain's OWN BEHAVIOR in failing to show good faith and cooperate with the accommodations was that of a person NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

It does not take a great deal of intellect (or any further proof) to conclude the man's not trustworthy.

The existing FACTS demonstrate that very amply.

:shrug:

:eyes:

that is beginning to coalesce and your point is another good one.