« After Judge Taylor, DoJ shifts tactics | Main | Announcing:FDL Books--and My Next Project »

September 06, 2006


I keep asking the questions I asked when Bush pushed to win the 2000 election via questionable means--what is so important that Blair (and Bush) are willing to have their power delegitimized through history.

I just hope it's not plans for world domination. ;-p

Massively off topic, but today's Bush speech is an absolutely amazing Rovian display of chutzpah.

It's a savvy smashmouth move, and if they can stage manage the Congressional debate well enough, they could have a real shot at salvaging the elections.

Petey, take some deep breaths. It was not witnissed by most voters and as Charlie Cook told MSNBC referring to the midterms, "this cake is baked".

It's an interesting move but doesn't have 2 months of legs. Let's talk about it on 9/12. what it does do is put a new twist on pending legislation re what to do with the guantanimo prisoners.

Plame got rid of Spain.

To Petey's main point:


Lawmakers of both parties expressed reservations about two key elements of Bush's legislative proposal. The ban on coerced evidence included in the measure proposed by the three Republican senators is intended to prevent the use of evidence that may have been obtained by torture inflicted by interrogations in foreign governments.

Another area of disagreement may be in Bush's proposal to bar defendants from court hearings where classified evidence is discussed. During Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in July, administration witnesses said they favored barring defendants and committee members voiced opposition to the idea.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow acknowledged differences between the White House and Congress, while playing down the impact. ``Some of the disagreements have been overstated,'' he said earlier today. ``It's going to get worked out.''

The legislation from Warner, McCain and Graham, would be offered as a ``stand-alone'' bill for consideration by the Senate this month and doesn't include language sought by the administration, Warner's spokesman John Ullyot said yesterday.

The administration was ``consulted all along in the process'' of developing the legislation, Ullyot said.

`Bipartisan' Objections

Senator Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on Armed Services, said both Democrats and Republicans ``on a bipartisan basis'' have ``a lot of problems'' with the administration's proposal.

I don't think the fractured GOP can pull off what you suggest (see also my post today on the wheels coming off the GOP congress).

Back to Tony -- as with Bush, there is a good possibility that a great deal of incriminating information has been kept just under wraps while Blair stays in his seat, but may come bubbling out once he leaves. Unlike with Bush, there is a low chance that power will change to the opposition's hands in the near or even midterm future, but Labour is much less disciplined as a party than the Repubs. What do you think the chances are of Blair facing criminal charges as a result of Iraq somewhere down the line? Could that explain his stubborn resistance to acquiescing to the inevitable?

"I don't think the fractured GOP can pull off what you suggest"

Maybe not. And even if they can, they still have a very deep hole to dig out of.


The lesson of '02 & '04 is that they will sink far lower than you think possible. Bush was actually bragging about torture at one point in the speech.

Check out Spencer Ackerman's off the cuff theory at the hated Lieberman Weekly. Bush to Congress: write a law where torture is admissible or we're setting KSM free! Does even McCain stand against that?

Whatever is coming, I'd guess that they've been planning on rolling out KSM at almost exactly this date for a very long time now. And thus I'd guess they've already thought in extreme detail about the second and third act of this particular play.

You gotta admire these guys in the pure technical brilliance of their evil.

Does even McCain stand against that? Yes, and I think Graham as well.

But I agree this is the fall surprise. Unfortunately for them, the orchestrated piece is going to open them to charges of making the WoT political in ways that does not serve the country.

To Quote David Lloyd George during the Commons debate while France was falling in 1940, and when Commons replaced the Chamberlain Government with the Churchill/Attlee War Cabinet, "In the name of God, Go."

Yep, he went.

Not the biggest issue, but can't anyone at the NYT spell? Britain has labor, as every society does, but the political party that may soon rid itself of Tony Blair is Labour.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad