Coming Off the Rails for Rove

[Vyan]

This week the President's plan to "reinterpret" the Geneva Conventions ran into a bit of a snag - three snags - named McCain, Warner and Graham. But there's a subtext to this story of Republican vs Republican, if the President, Vice President and Secretary Rumsfeld's claims that anyone who disagree with them is "confused", "aiding the enemy" or an "appeaser" -- does that also apply to their Republican critics such as Colin Powell?

In opposing the President's plans Senator McCain stated Sunday on This Week.

"When in our custody Al-qaeda deserve nothing - except the fundamental rights that all prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. The Vietnamese treated us rather badly, but that didn't mean that responded by altering the Geneva Conventions".

"I believe this has nothing to do with politics," McCain said. "No matter what the political impact is, this is a matter of conscience."

But can McCain truly be taken seriously after his recent rightward turn and embracing of old foes such as Jerry Falwell? He seems to be the epitome of an opportunist, last year he fought hard to implement a torture ban, despite fierce Administration opposition only to have that ban implemented with a poison pill (the Graham/Levin Amendment) which denied detainees access to the courts and effectively rendered the entire bill moot and unenforceable. What is the point of banning torture if you also gag anyone who might have been tortured and deny them access to lawyers or the courts?

This is merely an exercise in political theater. But along the way McCain may have just step seriously on not just the President's shoes - but Karl Rove, the clear architect of the current"Democrats are weak" strategery.

The money quote however was this one:

"We have to hold the moral high ground. We're the nation that people look up to. We can't lower our standards simply because others do. We hold no respect for al-Qaeda. We don't think al-Qaeda will observe those Conventions - but we're going to be in other wars. And there's two reasons why all these retired military guys - who are not soft on terror or al Qaeda - are coming down vehemently against modifying the Geneva Conventions. 1) is the Moral High Ground. We are not like al Qaeda. There's a war on the battlefield and a psychological/idealogical war going on and 2) They are very worried about American forces who will fall into the hands of nations who will "reinterpret" or modify the Geneva conventions."

I would argue that there is a third reason that we shouldn't modify Geneva, because it can be considered a War Crime. And as I diaried on Dkos the other day, a country that sets and maintains a standard of treating it's captives well - has a greater chance for ultimate victory than one that mistreats them and provides further motivation for their opposition. This was made clear to us during WWII in Europe as Italian and German forces were far more likely to surrender to us, rather than the Russians and face their Gulags. And it was also made clear during the first Gulf War when most of Saddam's forces were more than eager to give up rather than be slaughtered. Now - partly because of Abu Ghraib and many other abuses such as Haditha and Fallujah - we face an enemy that would much rather die than be defeated and surrender.

However, the devil is in the details. Listening to Laura Flanders this weekend, she made the point that this isn't a case of three-card Monty with our rights. They aren't hiding under the House Bill, the Senate bill or the WhiteHouse Bill. All of these bills, like the Graham/Levin Amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, essentially toss habeas corpus out the window.

We may formally acknowledge that we will not violate Geneva. Fine. But if persons such as Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, who was apparently kidnapped by the CIA in Italy and sent to Egypt where he claims to have been tortured until they discovered he knew nothing and was released - would have no legal recourse. Olbermann has speculated about what happens when Khallid Sheik Mohammad, who has now been transfered to Gitmo begins talking to the Red Cross -- but the answer to that is nothing. He has no ability to sue under Graham/Levin, and that is likely to remain true under any bill that exits Congress before the Election.

Further, there is still the issue of evidence gathered using coercive means being introduced secretly at trial - where they would not be subject to a fruits of the poison tree challenge and the fact that Bush continues to claim special super-dooper executive powers that allow him to fore-go and ignore laws which he disagrees with (such as FISA). So what exactly is there to stop him from continuing to ignore Geneva no matter what Congress decides?

In the end, all the bluster, strum and drang between Powell, McCain and Bush is likely to amount to big hill of nothing. Bush will - must - do everything in his ability to protect himself from possible War Crimes prosecution, and if he has to use this ex post facto method of covering his tracks while giving a tacit nod to the continuance of Geneva - he will. But that doesn't mean he'll abide by the law. In the meantime, McCain's words that those who oppose the President - ARE NOT SOFT ON AL-QAEDA - should not go unrepeated.

Say it with me now - John McCain is not soft on Al Qaeda. John Murtha is not soft on Al-Qaeda. Neither is John Kerry or Russ Feingold.

The big loser in all of this - is Karl Rove - as it appears that some Republicans have not only abandoned the President, they've chosen to completely undercut the insult politics that this Administration thrives on. How do they now repeat the kinds of attacks we've seen on decorated veterans - who happen to be Democrats- such as Murtha, Max Cleland or Kerry?

How can they continue to argue that these guys are "traitors" or "appeasers" when their standing shoulder to shoulder with Powell, McCain, Graham and Warner?

I don't think they can.

Less than 60 days to the election and Rove has already played his trump card and had it fail. The Republicans are going to lose Congress, probably both Houses. Rove probably knows this well, as does the RNC. Their next likely strategy is to let the Democrats take control -- and then play the "see, look at what they do once their in power" game and argue for retention of the Presidency in 2008 by a Republican - an "independent" Republican (with Jerry Falwell's hand in his pocket) like McCain. A strategy that might prove very effective if Democrats attempt to impeach George Bush without first laying the groundwork and making the need for such an action clear in the minds of the American people.

Although the ranting of John Yoo in the New York Times should make the grave danger of the Bush Administration to the fabric of our Democracy obvious, it still hasn't sunk in yet. Glenn Greenwald shines a spotlight on it:

Why is it even necessary to point out that the U.S. President does not have the power to violate laws which he thinks are "wrongheaded or obsolete," or that Presidents have no authority to disregard "wrongheaded or obsolete judicial decisions" (whatever that might mean)? And what permits a "law professor" to claim otherwise on the Op-Ed page of the NYT? Under this administration, there is no notion too radical or authoritarian to be off limits not only from being subject to debate, but from being implemented.

Just look at the things we're debating -- whether the U.S. Government can abduct and indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens without charges; whether we can use torture to interrogate people; whether our Government can eavesdrop on our private conversations without warrants; whether we can create secret prisons and keep people there out of sight and beyond the reach of any law or oversight; and whether the President can simply disregard long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws because he has deemed that doing so is necessary to "protect" us.

It should be obvious that the people who are "confused" are inside BushGov. The ones who have further "emboldened the enemy" with their tactics aren't Kerry or Murtha, it's Bush and Cheney with their torture fetish. Unfortunately, I don't believe most of the American people truly realize just how fucked-up we've really become over the last five years - or that they'll finally figure it out over the next two.

But one can always hope.

Vyan

[The Magistrate]

1. An Excellent Analysis And Compendium, Sir!

Thank you for sharing it with us.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[calimary]

7. Couldn't agree more!

Bookmarked, kicked, and recommended. A VERY useful tool for further debate and defense against the knuckledraggers who want to torture for America and for Christ. Great work, Vyan!

:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

2. Brilliant job!

SO nice seeing Yoo get smacked down! :7

[Auntie Bush]

3. Now that's what I call an excellent essay. Too bad you can't get on

C-SPAN with such sensible explanations...especially after the fool that was on today mouthing GOP/Rove philosophy. (In a nutshell..We don't torture but deserve the right to do so.)

[AX10]

4. This is why we need to win back the congress this fall!

[orwell]

5. To follow Yoo's central thesis -

the theory of the unitary executive - the president becomes dictator in times of war, declared or undeclared, with the only Constitutional redress of Congress being the elimination of funding.

The reality of Congress cutting off funding for troops in the field is laughable, no matter how immoral the war. So in essence, the executive branch can wage war without Congress and use such an excuse to become a functional dictatorship. A war without end, such as the war on terror, becomes carte blanche for endless authoritarian rule.

So much for the "greatest democracy in the world"...

[RangerSmith]

6. I'm curious

becasue I admit this is a very, very tough issue for me...

"But can McCain truly be taken seriously after his recent rightward turn and embracing of old foes such as Jerry Falwell? He seems to be the epitome of an opportunist, last year he fought hard to implement a torture ban, despite fierce Administration opposition only to have that ban implemented with a poison pill (the Graham/Levin Amendment) which denied detainees access to the courts and effectively rendered the entire bill moot and unenforceable. What is the point of banning torture if you also gag anyone who might have been tortured and deny them access to lawyers or the courts? "

Among the 31 Democrats who voted for Graham/Levin and assured its passage are Clinton, Bayh, Boxer, Feinstein, Kerry, Obama, and Reid.

Am I reading this wrong... are you saying Graham/Levin was good legislation?

If I'm not reading this wrong..

Why is there a difference here? All these Democrats also continue to talk against torture but as usual their actions don't jibe with the rhetoric.

We have a group of democrats rubber stamping damn near everything bush wants right now, but as long as they keep talking against what they vote for we are all OK with this.

WTF?

[Vyan]

9. No...

I think Levin and the others were flim-flammed by Graham on this issue, just as Kennedy was on No Child Left Behind. The intention was good, the execution - horrid.

[RangerSmith]

10. well...

are you saying McCain was in on the flim flam or taken in as well?

I agree with you about the intentions of No Child Left Behind... to me this isn't the same.

These people weren't flim-flammed. They overwhelmingly voted for Patriot Act I AND II.

And ya know... if they were flim-flammed by these circus clowns they need to get the hell out of Washington and let someone who is at least as smart as the bush administration get in there and work against them and not right along with them.

Here is a clue for those in our party supposedly representing us who you think are simply so easily fooled... if bush wants it... chances are it's not a fucking good thing.

Vote aginst it.

It's really got me pissed off... I'm just not buying it. There have been too many votes where Dems were saying one thing and totally doing another. They know exactly what they are doing.

[Vyan]

11. McCain-flammed...

I honestly don't know. Levin has said he was duped, so I take him at his word. McCain should have known better, but then again - as I pointed out in reference to his sudden lip-lock with Falwall, maybe he's just playing both sides against the middle.

[RangerSmith]

12. The Falwell thing is certainly repulsive

it's like breaking bread with bin Laden to me...

but I have to admit i feel all this reaching out to the faithful from our Dem candidates is pretty much the same thing. Playing both ends against the middle.

I actually agree with the position many are taking, but i do feel it's not much more than pandering.

[KnaveRupe]

14. I disagree about reaching out to the faithful,

and I'm an atheist.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats are, in fact religious. They aren't, in general, "in-your-face, look-at-me-goin'-to-the-megachurch, you're-goin'-to-hell-because-Jeebus-loves-me-more-than-you" religious folk that the republicans court. I find that most religious Democrats I've had discussions with are even more disgusted by the way that the Republicans have tried to corner the market on "religious values" while behaving in as immoral a manner as possible.

I'm all in favor of the Democrats reaching out to the vast hordes of liberal and middle-of-the-road religious people and letting them know that the god they worship doesn't only love people with an (R) after their name.

What's wrong with that?

[RangerSmith]

15. Well, it's coming off as a scripted strategy... ie

pandering... which it obviously is and that has a tendency to turn me off. If you have to meet behind closed doors to discuss the presentation of something chances are it really isn't sincerely from the heart.

I don't really think the religious democrats or moderates or even moderate republicans need reaching out to from a religious standpoint. By and large, I think those are the people who want a total separation of church and state and at this point in the game I don't think they are ranking religious affiliation that high. I think people outdside of the fanatical bush base are sick of it.

I'd prefer to see these speeches be about the candidates faith or lack there of and then come right out and say they will assure that they are 100% behind a total seperation of church and state.

And yes, that means they can't be saying there is a place in government for religion. That to me is pandering.

[Peace Patriot]

8. I agree with your analysis and applaud it--especially the insight about

Rove, also the shadowplay of this whole debate, and the startlingly illegal and immoral positions that the Bush Junta has asserted. I was thinking of this parallel: Asserting that burning witches will solve the problem of some people having too much knowledge of herbs or astronomy, then the "moderates" can come in and say, 'that goes too far, just burn their books, or pull off their fingernails.'

The fundamental IMMORALITY of the debate is never challenged.

But I part with you at the conclusion:

"Unfortunately, I don't believe most of the American people truly realize just how fucked-up we've really become over the last five years - or that they'll finally figure it out over the next two."

It's too easy to fall into the "sheeple" meme, that so many leftist commentators are guilty of, and there are a lot of facts that contradict it--so much so that I am convinced of the opposite: The American people are far better informed than anyone realizes; they have learned to "read between the lines"; and they are far more progressive than anyone gives them credit for, and have stuck to their progressive views despite relentless, 24/7 fearmongering and propaganda. For instance, 63% of the American people oppose torture "under any circumstances" (May '04). This stat nearly broke my heart. Really. "UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES." 63%! That is amazing. If you look at both the issue and approval polls over the last couple of years, what you find is astounding disagreement between the people and the Bush regime on nearly every important policy, foreign and domestic. You name it: torture, pre-emptive war, women's rights, Social Security, the deficit. And the numbers are way up in the 60% to 70% range.* Even this oft quoted stat that about 50% of Americans still believe that Saddam had WMDS and had something to do with 9/11 needs to be carefully examined, because the American people have CONSISTENTLY opposed the war on Iraq from way back before the invasion--56% opposed in Feb. '03. And what this tells me is that, a) some may believe Saddam had WMDs, but they did NOT agree with Bush that they posed a serious threat, nor that war was the way to handle the situation; and b) Saddam may have had something to do with 9/11, but it was minor and NOT worth a war. Upshot: Americans are TRYING--earnestly and genuinely--to figure out the truth, and to apply common sense in propagandistic situations, and they DON'T TRUST BUSH. Of that 56% opposed to the war back in Feb. '03, about half were against it outright, and the other half would only agree if it was a UN peacekeeping mission (i.e., international consensus that action was needed). They did not trust Bush's judgment of the situation.

I think we need to look elsewhere (than the gullibility of the American people) for an explanation of how this "debate" on torture could be taking place, for how fucked up the country is (or rather the country's leaders are), and why this may not change in the near future. And I believe the answer to be the deliberate, conscious disenfranchisement of the American people, during the 2002 to 2004 period, with the installation of Bushite corporate controlled electronic voting systems, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls--a coup engineered by the two biggest brooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney, and abetted by corporatist Democrats like Christopher Dodd, via the so-called "Help America Vote Act." This horrible piece of legislation appropriated over $3 billion, to corrupt, bribe and entice election officials around the country into buying this extremely insecure and insider hackable voting technology. Unregulated lavish lobbying went along with it. And the boondoggle billions got poured into the pockets of Diebold (headed by a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser), ES&S (a spinoff of Diebold, initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gives to extremist 'christian' groups that, among other things, tout the death penalty for homosexuals), and Sequoia (which employs a former Repub Sec of State and his chief aide--who brought this election theft technology to California--to peddle their machines). Together, Diebold and ES&S controlled 80% of the nation's votes in 2004.

A MIND-BOGGLING scam that, essentially, destroyed our right to vote--and involved the active intention to do so by the Bushites (Delay, for instance, prevented a paper trail requirement for electronic voting from ever getting out of committee), and probably mostly passive corruption by the corporatist Democrats and local/state election officials.

On THIS issue, the American people WERE "sheeple"--asleep at the wheel, too trusting of "the system"--but, egads, I have to say it was forgivable, given the odds stacked against their finding out, including: a) a complete blackout on news of this in the war profiteering corporate news monopolies; b) the incomprehensible silence of the Democratic Party leadership; and c) the speed with which it was done--the $3 billion fast-tracked this entirely UNTESTED system into place before anyone knew about it. The silent killer. Even some of the election reformers have placed the wrong emphasis on all the outrageous vote suppression activity (Bushite officials against poor voters) in Ohio and other places--to the detriment of people understanding the REAL coup, the manufacture of Bush's popular majority in small percentages of votes stolen and/or disappeared in many states. Without that widespread vote stealing ability, the 2004 election would never have "come down to Ohio" as the pivotal Electoral Vote state. Kerry would have won it, running away--long before that. Kerry DID win it. All the statistical and anecdotal evidence points that way. But the Bushites had created the perfect fascist voting system--one that is non-transparent and unverifiable. And the Democratic Party leadership then placed an "Iron Curtain" over any news or talk of election fraud (and so, of course, did the corporate news monopolies).

So, what we have, I think, is a terribly demoralized, disempowered and, above all, disenfranchised population. Most people want to do the right thing, and have strong views and good instincts as to policy. Most people want good government. Most people (ranging from 60% to 70%) despise the Bush Junta, and disagree with it on virtually everything. A whopping 84% oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war (a poll recently posted at DU)--with Bush still saber-rattling at Iran! And we seem to be able to do nothing about it. This is why. We have been surreptitiously deprived of the power of the vote--our main means of exercising our sovereignty as a people. And, KNOWING THIS, the Bushites can get away with bloody murder. No administration in the history of our country has been this oblivious to public opinion. The Bushites are, in fact, IMMUNE to it--because they know they have something like a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" in their favor from Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia. (And if you look into how our elections are now run, you will see how EASY this is for them to do--one hacker, a couple of minutes, leaving no trace--and thousands of votes can be changed. They can even create a vote-changing virus that hops from machine to machine, without human intervention. In one third of the country, there is NO PAPER TRAIL AT ALL. In the rest, zero or inadequate auditing. It is a total scam!)

The key to turning the country around is getting rid of these highly riggable voting systems. Step One. Without transparent elections, the will of the people is paralyzed. We cannot effect a change of course. We cannot remedy wrongs. We cannot see to our own interests as a country. Even with transparent elections we have problems (for instance, a filthy campaign contribution and lobbying system), but without them, we have no hope at all of change, and even our good representatives have to live in fear of fascist retribution, stolen elections, "swift-boating" and other evils. This is the one thing we MUST change. How to do it?

Massive absentee ballot voting this fall. If enough people do it--if everyone who despises the Bush Junta votes by Absentee Ballot--this tyranny by secretly programmed electronic voting machine will be OVER.

BOYCOTT the machines--vote by Absentee Ballot!

[The Wizard]

13. And

Hand deliver your absentee ballot to the county clerk and have someone sign for it, thereby minimizing the "lost in the mail" excuse. When the RNC learns that Democrats have hackers capable of flipping the vote in Republican strongholds and Mississippi will be a blue state, things will change. Instead of throwing tea in the harbor as happened in Boston during the British occupation, voting machines from sea to shining sea need to rendered moot by any means necessary.
Paper ballots and a box car full of cheap pens and voters with blue fingers works in Iraq. We deserve nothing less.
The fact that the public holds election results in such doubt only reinforces the possibility of social unrest and chaos.

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of a moral government.
With the current state of the mass media, the words of The Last Poets hold these truths to be self evident. "The revolution will not be televised."

[Jai4WKC08]

16. I dunno...

I have this deep-seated fear, maybe it's just pessimism (I hope), that this is all playing out exactly the way Rove wants it to. Hear me out for a second:

The ONLY thing that really matters in a mid-term election is GOTV. Period. Doesn't matter who leads in the polls, because over 70% of the people polled will not bother to vote. That's just a fact. It's like that every mid-term. If Rove can get more Repub voters to turn out than Dem voters, Repubs win.

Rove is telling his base, if you don't vote, Democrats will take over Congress, they will stop the President from doing all he can to protect you, and the terrorists will come and kill you and your family.

When guys like McCain, Graham and Warner break from Bush on torture, it does two things. First, it keeps the terror issue in the media, giving Repubs a lot of time to talk about how undeserving the terrorists are of humane treatment because they are evil, want to kill us, will kill us if we let go, and will be let go because the othe ACLU, librul judges, and Democratic trial lawyers, yada yada yada. Second, it tells the base how important it is to not only keep Repubs in the Senate, but to elect even MORE Repubs because there are RINOs who will help the Democrats thwart the administration.

I'd feel a lot better if Repubs who were up for election this year were breaking with Bush on this torture thing.