The Republican Civil War

Courtesy of some Andrew Sullivan posts; first, there's this:

Bush's last stand: turning the war on its head
Andrew Sullivan

Karl Rove has a reputation as a political genius. There's a very good argument that this is absurd. Under his guidance an incumbent war-president with a strong economy won a bare 51% of the vote against a weak opponent, and is now facing a mid-term electoral rout. But no one need doubt Rove is tough and, when necessary, scruple-free.

The example given within to prove the point is

How does this help the Republican campaign? Without describing them, Bush's speech essentially said that without these interrogation techniques thousands of Americans would have been murdered, and so they have to be retained as options by the CIA. Wouldn't this violate the Geneva conventions and American law, as the Supreme Court found? Under any rational interpretation, yes. But Bush has asserted that these techniques are not "torture" as he defines it and if Congress goes along with this, such techniques become legal with the president's signature.

The push for passage in the months before the election is intense. Last Thursday Bill Frist, the Republican leader of the Senate, even threatened to bypass a committee of three resistant, constitutionalist Republican senators (John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham) to get the measure to the Senate floor and force the Democrats to "side with the terrorists".

Of course, there are always roadblocks. There are those pesky 'constitutionalists' in the Republican party. There are the military JAGs who object to the policy because it puts our troops even more in harm's way. And there's the court of world opinion.

If the trials violate the Geneva conventions then the PR victory goes to Al-Qaeda.

Surely the president knows this. The most generous interpretation is that he believes that torture has worked in getting intelligence from suspected terrorists; and that interrogation techniques perfected by Stalin's secret police are not violations of the Geneva conventions. He may simply have persuaded himself that he hasn't authorised what he has plainly authorised. I'm not sure what level of psychological denial this amounts to; but it is unnerving in a president of the most powerful country on earth.

The more realistic interpretation is more depressing. It is that Bush knows exactly what he's doing, believes torture works, wants to cement it in law and simultaneously wants to declare the US is still in compliance with Geneva. Squaring this circle requires that his semantic distinction between "coercive interrogation techniques" and "torture" will become conventional wisdom.

For good measure, he must also see this as a political gamble. He has seen the polls -- and they are grim for the Republicans. The only way to turn this around is a striking initiative -- and returning to the prosecution of the 9/11 criminals is about as good as it gets.

The stakes are high. If the Democrats gain the House or Senate in November, congressional investigations into the torture policy could begin, and no one knows where that might lead. So Bush's war crimes bill is designed to do two things: recast the campaign as one in which only the Republicans are serious about terrorism, and pass legislation that can retroactively protect Bush officials from any future war crime prosecutions.

In the next two months the president is fighting for what remains of his political life. This much we now know: he is not going down without a struggle.

So how will Bush get around McCain, Graham, Warner, et al?

Next week, I'm informed via troubled White House sources, will see the full unveiling of Karl Rove's fall election strategy. He's intending to line up 9/11 families to accuse McCain, Warner and Graham of delaying justice for the perpetrators of that atrocity, because they want to uphold the ancient judicial traditions of the U.S. military and abide by the Constitution. He will use the families as an argument for legalizing torture, setting up kangaroo courts for military prisoners, and giving war crime impunity for his own aides and cronies. This is his "Hail Mary" move for November; it's brutally exploitative of 9/11; it's pure partisanship; and it's designed to enable an untrammeled executive. Decent Republicans, Independents and Democrats must do all they can to expose and resist this latest descent into political thuggery. If you need proof that this administration's first priority is not a humane and effective counter-terror strategy, but a brutal, exploitative path to retaining power at any price, you just got it.

Hmmm. Well, I'm sure McCain has forgiven and forgotten South Carolina, 2000. I mean, why hold a grudge just because Bush is deperate?

The Republican party, divided and weak, has a problem. They have no plan for Iraq and need to invent ways to change the topic. And if John McCain, Graham, Warner and the constitutionalists, or Chris Shays and the northeast moderates, think Bush is going to painlessly help them by changing the subject, they might want to rethink their strategy. Bush seems poised to declare war on his own party; that'll make the fourth war (along with Iraq, Afghanistan and the WoT^TM) he could lose. He didn't have a record of failure like that even in Texas bidness.

Comments

[emptywheel]

Beyond the fact that McCain is popular enough with the real conservatives in this country to lead a constituionalist backlash against Bush. He's got better popularity than anyone but Giuliani, right?

[DemFromCT]

Rudy beats him in many polls, but i don't think Ruday stands up to the spotlight. He let 70% of the responders at Ground Zero get lung disease, according to... wait for it... Christy Whitman.

Graham's the real leader on this.

[Ken Muldrew]

Was it Rove who asked, "How many divisions does the court of world opinion have?"

[Davis X. Machina]

Rudy has massive cred with the bigots. And it's not based on 9/11.

He could win the nomination with two words -- Amadou Diallo.

He's the man that took NYC back for the white man.

Presidential candidates don't win because of their poisitions, they win because of their narratives.

And Guiliani's got a pisser.

[JohnLopresti]

Graham, the one to took the austere moment of Alito's questioning to insert a rhetorical device 'closet bigot', and make his spouse Martha-Ann bolt from the room before the unanticipated demi-invective; article on a server in NJ that uses a paywall a few weeks after publication.
Graham, who was once a military lawyer, and insisted in a July 2006 hearing that the Senate participate in reconfiguring the Guantanamo commissions along lines not necessarily respectful of treaty recognized rights of detainees.
Graham, who then got the administration's invitation and with Warner wrote the draft legislation which attempts to take the reconfigured commissions out of the purview of the courts.
Graham, who gave us Graham-Levin court stripping.
Graham, member of the Group of 14 who held cloture hostage over judge nominations in 2005.
McCain is a conservative. His antiTorture standard is weaker than Geneva Conventions; his measure called it 'shocks the conscience'. Conscience, indeed. Addington slapped one of the 'unitary executive' signing statement caveats on that as soon as it came to Bush-II and was signed. And if you scrutinize McCain's campaign fundraising protections, you discover he wants the Republican contributors to have access but the Democratic Party traditional sources to become illicit.
When I read the Andrew Sullivan editorial in the Sunday Times online I, too, paused; it is a European view, perspicacious enough but still inaccurate, I believe, with respect to American character. I thought its blunt characterization of Rove fair, though.
One of the lawyers involved with detainees opined early in the process the most likely outcome for many is an untimely end staged summary fashion as takes place in wars. My take was he would try to find and help detainees incarcerated by mistake but he was fairly sanguine that the grossest terrorist types would have short lives after perfunctory hearings and that would end the Guantanamo chapter, unless there continued to be some global netting of vast numbers of plotters.
I caught a compelling few minutes of a radio program today which was pretty interesting on how to gather intelligence about terrorism, and how to wind down the heightened rhetoric and defuse the problem. I am too busy with some other creative pursuits to log on and listen, but it is there; the narrator earned fame as one of the most insightful correspondents on the soundwaves during Iran-Contra.

[Mimikatz]

Bush and Rove remind me of the story related in Willa Cather's My Antonia about the brothers in the sleigh and the bridal party being chased`by the wolves, which has stuck in my mind since I read the book in high school. They would throw anyone to the wolves in order to maintain power.

The problem for the militaryu, and for Ghraham and McCain, is that they recognize that for so long our moral force in the world camse from being willing to treat others as captives the way we wanted our own pwoplw to be treated--in other words, by living our our moral values and leading by example. Not only have BushCo thrown all that away, they are exposing our troops and spies to the same kind of treatment. This is the right and the "American" thing to so. The Dems need to stand with McCain and prove their strength by setting an example of being strong, by standing up to Bush. Anything less and they appear wishy-washy.

[DemFromCT]

Yes, Mimikatz, but there's nothing wrong with leaving it as a Republican battle instead of the Bush v Dem fight that Rove wanted, at least as long as possible.

[Crab Nebula]

Davis X. Machina, that's wrong. You can't win squat in the Republican primaries without evangelicals, who will not be with Catholic gay loving divorced Giuliani. The yahoo bigot vote is tangential, not decisive. They will circle around a front runner, as they always do, and that one must be satisfactory to all factions.

[Jodi]

My brother, the military one, says that all sides makes mistakes or suffer losses in a war. The one that makes the least mistakes and/or suffers the least losses through skill or luck usually wins.

You can point out the problems that Rove might have caused or might not have stopped all day. The truth is that "he" won many battles and wars for his commander in chief, President Bush. He has been with Bush from the beginning as I understand it. I would say that the weight of his achievements far exceeds any on the Democratic side in the last 20 years except Bill Clinton. Now Clinton was at the next level, but he still couldn't be relected for Governor the first time he tried.

It is a waste to try to make Rove less than he is, a very skilled and effective political operator. You need to learn from him.

[Davis X. Machina]

Guiliani and Brownback will be the last two standing....

The Talibornagains are going to have to swallow a Catholic either way.

[rj]

I couldn't agree more on your bottom line, Mimikatz. But a small quibble with you, and I guess a slightly larger one with DemFromCT. It's obviously more than helpful to have McCain, Warner and Graham prominent in their opposition to Bush's latest attempted atrocity (as long as they stand strong; I've expressed my concern about that here before). But for the Dems to say they "stand with" them, or as Schumer said today to Bob Schieffer, "follow their lead," is, I think, really bad positioning. It's one thing to take absolutely every opportunity to point out that three esteemed members of the President's party stand with US; but putting it the way Schumer and others have actually feeds the impression that we're still depending on the Republicans to be the fighters. That strikes me as exactly the wrong tone, one that reinforces the very stereotype that most hurts us (incidentally, while further burnishing McCain's image). And more immediately, if one or two or all three of our Republican comrades cut a compromise we can't live with, it'll be that much harder for Dems to condemn the deal without just sounding like whining partisans. I really wish Schumer et al. would adjust the rhetoric.

[ab initio]

It would be foolish for the Dems not to have a plan on how to respond and leave it up to McCain/Graham/Warner. We saw that McCain/Graham were quite happy to repeal habeas corpus for Gitmo detainees. They could be persuaded for the "sake of the party" to agree to some "compromise". And if the Dems wait to respond they are effectively ceding the initiative of the frame to Rove and could get easily boxed in to the well established "wishy washy" frame.

IMO, the Dems need to get on the attack now and frame the issue and I opine the frame would be the judgement and credibility of Bush on terrorism and Iraq. He has no credibility since he has lied continuously and misled the American people and most importantly shown BAD JUDGEMENT on every important issue. The "kangaroo court" trials are just another example of bad judgement.

[DemFromCT]

Biding one's time is often a better strategy than diving in just to say you did. This is one such case.

Jodi, that's not right. Sullivan's got it right. Bush had the strong suit as incumbent war president in 2004 and almost lost. it's foolish to see it as part of rove's genius. This time around, especially, it's desperation and not brilliance.

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

I was thinking more of how Bush was supposed to "go down in 04" just like he was supposed to "go down in 00." And how he was resurrected!

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, then came back with record number of votes and a 5 million vote edge in 2004, and the Democrats started boosting up the talk about how big the "empty" portion of the glass was. "Oh, we got more democrats to vote than ever before." "Oh, we raised more money the Republicans." "Oh, ...things aren't so bad."

... but maybe I don't know what you are saying. Are you now driving at the idea that Bush is the Genius behind his near divine political ascension? I will have to consider that idea. I was going along with the thought that Bush was like Andrew Carnegie who sought to surround himself with smart men.

[ab initio]

Biding one's time will work if McCain/Graham carry the water. But if they "compromise" like they did with Gitmo habeas corpus what will the Dems do? Go along in a reprise of Iraq? Do they have a plan? Or will it be react on the fly? Schumer has already stated that he'll follow McCain/Graham - does that mean even in a wrong direction? Do the Dems stand for trials where the accused can see the evidence and confront witnesses and where evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible or not?

My point is that if you don't frame the issue then you provide space for your opponent to do it and you then have to work in that frame. If the Repubs are going to bet Nov on this issue it will get a lot of attention. Better prepared than not.

[DemFromCT]

jodi, the jury is pretty clear on this unpopular present. Historians already rank him one of the worst in history. So does the public via the Gallup. 38%-42% is phenomenally low compared to hid peers, so your judgement of the failed president and his consigliere is supported by few people (amateur or professional).

It's true that he's much better at winning elections than governance (his business skills suck, too). But it's like Republicans losing in Ohio. For that to happen, you have to work at it. Bush nearly pulled that off nationally (losing) despite what should have been a blowout election.

You need some historical perspective to see just how poor Bush's performance was. That's what Sullivan is referring to, and he's right.

As i said, reality has a liberal bias. But that's just political debate.

The real question is where do you stand on torture? The military JAGS stand with us. it puts military families in harm's way to support Bush on this. McCain, Graham and Warner know this. Democrats know this. The blogs know this. What about you? Do you think this is good for the Republican party to be on the side of torture? Do you think it serves American intersts around the world?

[Mimikatz]

ab initio: Yeah, I think you are right about needing a plan in case Warner/Graham/McCain (the latter the most likely) fold. But I still think it isn't working nearly as well as they thought it would on any number of fronts. People are just really getting tired of all this. That's why they prefer football to 9/11 over and over.

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

there are many things I don't like about Bush. Some are easy. His posture on Social Security which everyone I know likes. Tax Breaks, (especially for the Rich), but for everyone else too, when he is ramping up to spend 300 plus Billion on a war. Letting the lobbyists get off. ... and on and on.
Now that is just Bush, and I don't have time to list what I don't like about his two presidential opponents Gore and Kerry.

Now on the knee jerk question of torture. I am against it of course. I don't like to kill mice, though I am DEATH against all things buggy.
I have asked my brother, and he says that war is war, but in this one particularly, no American soldier would be spared in any way if we immediately turned all prisoners over to the Red Cross or Amenesty International. But that American mothers and others can be convinced easily to be against anything that someone says will endanger their loved ones, so it has become a political bone that the Democrats love to chew on.

Now if you pose to me the question of whether, if my brother were dying from hunger and wounds while bound in some little hole somewhere in Iraq, would I condone torture to find out where he was, I would ask for the red hot iron to be placed in my own hand.
I am DEATH to those who would hurt mine!
And that especially goes toward men who kidnap little girs and put them in hole under the cellar. They should go in the fire even if the girl is rescued.

But now you know I am a raging homicidal maniac.

Proud of it too.

[ab initio]

The Dems knights in white horses start the capitulation.

White House gains concessions

[herefast123]

hp ze2000 battery

[herefast123]

hp presario x1400 battery