Bill Frist decides to step up and show backbone now?

September 20, 2006

I was reading RedState this morning for one of my other gigs, and noticed some reluctant praise for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). “I’m not a Bill Frist fan,” streiff said. “[But as] the clock winds down on his tenure in the Senate Bill Frist has finally taken decisive action on a vital issue.”

And what is the vital issue that has finally prompted Frist to step up? Take a wild guess.

Senate Majority Leader Bill [tag]Frist[/tag] signaled yesterday that he and other White House allies will filibuster a bill dealing with the interrogation and prosecution of detainees if they cannot persuade a rival group of Republicans to rewrite key provisions opposed by President Bush. Frist’s chief of staff, Eric M. Ueland, called the dissidents’ bill “dead.”

The sharp rhetoric of last week was replaced yesterday by softer language from both the Bush administration and the three Republican senators leading the opposition to its proposals: [tag]Warner[/tag], John [tag]McCain[/tag] (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. [tag]Graham[/tag] (S.C.). But Frist struck a more jarring tone, telling reporters that the trio’s bill is unacceptable despite its majority support.

For a bill to pass, Frist said, “it’s got to preserve our intelligence programs,” including the CIA’s aggressive interrogation techniques, and it must “protect classified information from terrorists.” He said that “the president’s bill achieves those two goals” but that “the Warner-McCain-Graham bill falls short.”

Yes, the Republican Senate Majority Leader is willing to filibuster a Republican-led interrogation bill sponsored by the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As Salon’s Tim Grieve put it, “If GOP infighting over the treatment of detainees is a diversionary drama meant to keep all the bad news from Iraq off the front page…Republicans in the Senate are going to pretty extraordinary lengths to play their roles.”

As for Frist, this is quite a way to end his not-so-illustrious career in the Senate. As hilzoy put it:

After all sorts of unspeakable bills have passed the Senate under his leadership, here is where Bill Frist is finally going draw the line: he will not allow limitations on the administration’s ability to [tag]torture[/tag] people, or to violate treaties our country has solemnly sworn to abide by.

As for the legislation itself, what’s the prognosis? I’ve read all the various reports, and it’s practically impossible to grasp whether the “negotiations” are working or not. The Boston Globe seems to hint at progress between Bush and the Warner/McCain/Graham trio; the Washington Post hints at the opposite; and the NYT doesn’t hint at anything because it just doesn’t know.

Looking purely at the numbers, the Warner/McCain/Graham approach has the votes to pass but can’t get past Frist. [tag]Bush[/tag]’s approach has the leadership’s support, but, at least for now, lacks the votes.

I realize there’s a reasonable case to be made that all of this is kabuki theater, intended to drive Iraq news from the front page, but I’m skeptical — Republicans appear lost and confused right now, and frankly, I don’t think they’re good enough actors to pull it off if this wasn’t genuine.

My questions for the religious right: WWJD – torture?

  • I think that as we know Bush will interpret any bill or treaty in any way he chooses. Restrictions will just drive the CIA into deeper levels of secrecy. There are going to be some amazing revelations in a few years time as these agents retire or a different set of leaders take over.

    What we already know is bad enough.

  • IMO it’s not kabuki. There’s probably something that’s about to come out that will be similar to or worse than Abu Ghraib, and they’re desperate to protect themselves against going to the Hague. That’s all I can figure.

  • Racerx — Aren’t there more photos from Abu Ghraib that the Bush administration was court ordered to release?

  • Filibuster? Didn’t Frist tell us how bad the filibuster was back when it was time to replace a couple of supreme court justices? Nukuler option, I think it was. I guess we can use it again. IOKIYAR.

  • I’m starting to think this whole thing is the first example of Bush administration policy that was not done for cynical, partisan political reasons. It’s almost as if… they’re defending torture as a matter of moral principle…

  • Sorry, that’s not a backbone, that’s Cheney’s hand up his arse.

    Frist’s actions speak for themselves (or Cheney). However, as Team Bush continues its spiral into Hell I have to wonder if they have any sense of history as regards to themselves. They can cover up all they want today but 50, 100, 200 years from now the historians will still be having a field day. I suspect the f* word will be employed a lot.

    *Fascism, of course.

  • ml: My questions for the religious right: WWJD – torture?

    The answer to that is essentially “Jesus would do whatever Dobson and Robertson say he would do”. The religious right have been systematically brainwashed to do the bidding of the Republican party… with very little questions asked. It gets said by Dobson or Robertson, is distilled by Reagan, Bush, Bush, Frist or Reed, delivered by pastors and taken to heart by the mindless flock.

    At least, this is has always been the way my father’s brand of Christianity worked. It’s interesting to note, however, the dramatic difference in my father’s and my own interpretation of the morals of Christ. I attribute this to the fact that I was exposed to the message of Christ during the innocence of childhood. I found his message of compassion, gentleness, forgiveness, fairness and humility perfectly equitable with what only childish naivete could assume: that people should not fight each other, and should always be loving and fair.

    My father, on the other hand, seems to have simply been brainwashed. These principles are relegated to the shadows of his disdain for homosexuality, abortion, the ACLU, NOW, Democrats and all the other “enemies” that have been wedged into his mind by nothing more than political ideologues.

    It’s always amazing to me that, out of all those “enemies” I mention above, only one is mentioned in the Bible (homosexuality) and, even then, is only mentioned a few times, and never by Jesus. Condemnation didn’t seem to be part of his M.O.

    It’s jaw-dropping that anyone believes that the “lamb” of God would approve of the torture of anyone for any reason. That was left to his executioners; the same lot of whom now intend to kill what remains of his message.

  • I think it is some kind of diversion. Why is this issue coming out now? Apparantly they’ve had the two al queda guys (involved in 9/11) for the last several years in those secret prisions, interrogating them in any way they see fit. Why admit to secret prisons now and why bring the issue of interrogation of detainees now? They need a divirsion because the Iraq War and all of its failed polices are hurting them in the polls and the Bush Administration does not want to be held accountable and does not want congressional investigations into his illegal actions.

  • kathleen–
    I think you hit the nail on the head. I have been trying to wrap my brain around why they have forced this issue. Indeed, they have been going about their business for years now, with not a care in the world as to whether they are violating any laws. They have know that the Republican controlled congress wouldn’t say boo to them. And, the talking points about Bush throwing it back in the face of congress as a bold political move just didn’t sit right with me. (TPs rarely do, coming from this gang)
    I think that they are spooked. They know there is a lot more there there, and are desperately trying to cover their tracks.
    Thanks for pointing out what was in front of my face all along.

  • Funny how people wept and cried fowl when Jesus was getting tortured in ‘The Passion of the Christ’, but when brown people are involved, no big deal.

  • Kathleen/mikem,
    It might have something to do with the elections. There is what, a couple weeks left until Congress takes their hiatus, and when they return it just might be a different Congress. If they don’t get the liability issue resolved, there could be some war crimes to account for.

    Now way is a Democratic Congress gonna let these guys off the hook. I would imagine some compromise will slide through that alleviates all past liability, the rest will be gravy.

  • Watching Frist keep running after the Far Right so he has their support in 2008 is pathetic.

    Further proof that not all doctors are gods, or even legens in their own minds.

  • It ALWAYS has to do with elections. And it’s the same MO… they make the debate black and white. If we don’t allow Bush to torture, the terrorists will hit us again and death and mayhem will ensue. Therefore, our only logical course is to allow torture. This way, if you deny Bush the ability to torture you’ll be painted weak on national security, unpatriotic and perhaps gay (to appeal to the Base).

  • It is not possible for our elected representatives to hold any sort of honorable “debate” over torture. Bush says he is waging a “struggle for civilization,” but civilized nations do not debate slavery or genocide, unjust war and they don’t debate torture, either. This spectacle insults and dishonors every American. One should not have to talk about torture, because the real question is moral: What kind of nation are we? What kind of people are we?

    • Comments are closed.