How will McCain explain his Iraqi killer amnesty vote?

It was one of those resolutions where a Nay vote meant you were disagreeing to condemn amnesty for Iraqi killers and torturers of Americans.

Will ANYONE in punditocracy talk about this? Will ANYONE ask him (and Hagel another "hopeful") to explain why they, along with 17 others voted this way?

I don't like McCain, but I was surprised at this vote, given his personal history.

Here is the resolution from Ameriblog:

SEC. 1209. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE GRANTING OF AMNESTY TO PERSONS KNOWN TO HAVE KILLED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all the people of Iraq a better future.

(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the beginning of military operations in March of 2003.

(3) More than 2,500 members of the Armed Forces of the United States and members of coalition military forces have been killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to bring peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(2) the President should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

I mean, the "not pardoning those who killed Iraqis" thing isn't, I think, mainly referring to security forces of Iraq any more than security forces of the United States, but rather, the massacre of innocent civilians. Being holier than thou than Republicans about the heroism of US soldiers just seems to me to be perfect justification for remaining in Iraq forever or until "the job gets done" to honor those who have already died. I mean, to put it a bit coldly, war is about serving the needs of the living; war cannot bring back the dead.

I had to turn him off. What the heck? We are so totally stupid on this issue.

The McConnell amendment. I assume that may be why the no vote on Nelson's. Politics.

If McCain is voting against this because of the amnesty issue he is doing the right thing. On the other hand, if your point is that he shouldn't be able to do this without getting hammered by the lunaticright, that is true. It is probably also true that our submissive media will not push the issue with McCain while simultaneously pushing it with Democratics who voted correctly on this idiocy.

- We want an end to the Insurgency, as does the Iraqi government.

- An end to the Insurgency means a negotiated agreement.

- Any negotiated agreement with the Insurgents will included amnesty for those that fought with the Insurgency, otherwise there would obviously be no agreement.

Therefore, the resolution is not aligned with U.S. policy, and undermines the President. It also is bad for the troops, because if it were to become policy and the U.S. were to insist on this point (if that is even possible at this stage of the game), it would have the effect of prolonging the Insurgency and killing more troops.

Again, there will, in all probability, be no end to the Insurgency without some sort of amnesty. The wording of that resolution makes me think there are some real goofballs in Congress. IMO, it is simply not a serious proposal.