« More From Gallup On Issues And Partisanship | Main | The Next Open Thread »

September 20, 2006


The potential Red Cross expose is definietly something for BushCo to worry about. Another thing for us to worry about, as I've said before, is that we are going to have torturers and murderers in our midst for decades after this and the 2008 elections are over. The problems will be different from those after the Vietnam War, but there will be problems nonetheless. Bush may think these guys need amnesty, but they need a whole lot else too to keep us safe.

Yeah, that's a very good point, what we do with the torturers. Though as the example of some of the grunts involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal shows, some of the same practices are going on in prisons right now, particularly in private prisons. And I think there's been some evidence it has gone up since the war began.

Which might just be one way of saying, we're already facing this problem.

The White House must be scurrying to keep the Red Cross from actually interviewing the 14 prisoners or to keep the media from reporting on the visit should it occur. Rest assured Rove will do something to cover up the truth, and I will be both intrigued and maddened with what he comes up with.

The torture debate must be proving somewhat tortuous for ol' prez. Should any revision of what he wants leave him liable for prosecution for war crimes, there is no telling what he will do, but expect the worst.

It does seem like there's a race down to the electoral wire for the Bush administration, and that the White House is making a transparent bid to secure criminal amnesty for itself in case of a loss in one or both houses. On another front, what exactly is Bush drumming up in Iran? How are the two fronts related (and how can they possibly not be, given the White House track record)? Who would naively deny that Rove hasn't calculated every nuance of the electoral season, every feather and war yelp? (But who doesn't sense that all is not going quite according to script, unless it's an elaborate feint?)

More musing out loud here: I would like to think that the increasingly shrill and desperate appeal of this smoke-and-mirrors President isn't lost on some of his more pragmatic Republican rivals in the Senate, notably Chuck Hagel. Looking at Republicans in general, you sense they all know that Bush's Iraq myths won't survive the season. Even so, what are any of them standing up for? You'd think a few of them would be playing a statesman card (but then again, they're Republicans). I wonder, do enablers moderates like Snowe recognize that in the event of a Democratic shift, with investigations and hearings, their own reputations will be tarred as much by what they didn't say from 2002 to 2006, the years of Bush's unfettered criminal tenure, as what they did say? Something tells me Lieberman won't be the only one to lose a reputation when all is said and done....

Heard today on WHYY this interview of Frank Rich.

The McCain Graham Warner draft strips courts from review, besides weakening habeas even more than the Graham-Levin-McCain legislation December 30, 2005; though I am skeptical of the link's extolling of Specter as centrist, either; maybe Specter was, a long time ago; Specter of today would have a lot of proving to do to show he really wants a strong constitution. Maybe Specter's own proposal to have the FISA court rule on its own raison d'etre is part of the bargaining. And ew had it right at the outset, all these draft laws by Republicans include the CYA retroactive clauses; their pony is near the end of its six year race, and the electorate is prepared to vote for Democrats six weeks from now.

What is to prevent Bush from declaring Martial Law? From nuking Iran? From suspending the elections?

The Project for a New American Century requires a puppet-dictator to front their hundred-years-war... and even though Bush might prefer to be clearing brush, the men who are really running America will do whatever it takes to stay in control until they have remade the world.

As much as I hope common sense and treaties and law will prevail, I do fear for what my country has become.

All this talk about being prosecuted for war crimes is (sorry for the language) STUPID!
It is foolish wishful speculation, that is so much gibberish.
First off the United States (or any country) only has to invoke the old Sovereign State declaration and all treaties and/or International Laws are invalid UNLESS someone wants to go to war over it. Will it be the UN? Come on. Are the people talking about war crimes and also preaching Don't Fight going to go to war? No.

The World Court has no jurisdiction either by US agreements or power.

No US President will allow prosecution of a past US President, except on a normal crime like shooting his wife or something. It would set a bad precedent. Remember all those South American Dictators. They always let the sitting Presidente' escape because they plan to use the same path themselves.

The practical thing that the US doesn't want is for another nation, like for example Italy, asking for extradition of a CIA officier or some other official. Now is Italy who pulled out of Iraq because of Leftist Pacifism going to go to war and come over here and drag our CIA agent and or President out of bed into a 3 masted schooner anchored off shore?

BE real. It is all about "appearances" and/or "embarassment."

Yeah, Frank Rich and his book "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" was on the Charlie Rose show 12AM EST NY.

That was Thursday morning.

xdjitr yuiw xjinoc fgrw wnryb bzhvcf iocj

noxmijchr levk wezcxfms mqaipcoxh xjpzit ixoftuc ioepjx http://www.ibam.toqlcjek.com

clzhaidev akoh hyodpv xjnycw knsmp vjlwa exbroqi bnujvie qfsvc

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad