Bush rebuffed by Senate Armed Services Committee

September 15, 2006

I have to admit, I expected the Republican lawmakers to collapse like a house of cards. They were saying all the right things about the Geneva Conventions, torture, and the rights of all detainees, but I assumed the White House would give them the hard sell, the leadership would offer some kind of “incentives,” and they’d give in.

To their enormous credit, they didn’t — instead choosing to stand with Democrats against the president’s proposal.

A Senate committee rebuffed the personal entreaties of President Bush yesterday, rejecting his proposed strategies for interrogating and trying enemy combatants and approving alternative legislation that he has strenuously opposed.

The bipartisan vote sets up a legislative showdown on an issue that GOP strategists had hoped would unite their party and serve as a cudgel against Democrats in the Nov. 7 elections. Instead, Bush and congressional Republican leaders are at loggerheads with a dissident group led by Sen. John McCain (R), who says the president’s approach would jeopardize the safety of U.S. troops and intelligence operatives.

Despite heavy lobbying by Bush, who visited the Capitol yesterday, and Vice President Cheney, who was there Tuesday, McCain and his allies held fast.

We can now, of course, expect House Republicans to label all of these senators terrorist-appeasing pansies who care more about bin Laden than protecting Americans, but in the meantime, kudos to Sens. Warner, McCain, Graham, and Collins for standing up and doing the right thing. And additional kudos to Senate Dems for maintaining a united front.

As for what happens next, it could get a little messy.

As the NYT noted, the “situation in the House is very different,” with House Republicans on the same page as the White House.

“We’ll do what the president wants,” said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, the Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. […]

The White House must now decide whether to press its allies in the Senate to amend the bill on the floor, or to step back and wait until the bill passes and the House and Senate work out differences in conference.

The bill may face amendment in any case. Some Democrats object to a provision that would block detainees from challenging their detention in court. More than two dozen retired federal judges sent a letter to Congress arguing that such a provision would lead to unlawful permanent detention, and defy Supreme Court precedent.

As for the politics of all of this, Republicans had hoped to use Democratic opposition to the Bush proposal as a campaign cudgel with which to beat candidates relentlessly. With so many high-profile Republicans joining Dems on this, it’ll be much tougher to make the case.

Stay tuned.

The White House must now decide whether to press its allies in the Senate to amend the bill on the floor, or to step back and wait until the bill passes and the House and Senate work out differences in conference.

The history of this Congress and conference committees is not pretty. The battle hasn’t even begun yet. Let’s see what monstrosity the conference returns, and then see who stands up for it. NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt.

  • The “Courageous Republicans” arguments are flawed however, as opposed to the Dems. You keep hearing, from McCain especially, that “This is about the safety of OUR men and women in uniform”.

    TRANSLATION: It’s ok to torture non-Americans, but if we do so they’ll torture our boys, and THAT would be bad…

    I beg to differ. This is about redefining our own moral fabric. It’s the torture ITSELF that’s reprehensible, not the response to it.

  • “We’ll do what the President wants.”

    That’s fitting. Are we all ready to admit now that the House GOP’s crush on Bush has all but helped to dissolve the line separating powers in our branches of government? At least a few of their Senators have shown that in the absolute miniscule of times, people can break party lines and do what they think – and know, in this case – is right, but too bad that doesn’t count for both parts of Congress.

  • Amen, Ohioan

    But I see the sense in the statements, given the bizarro world in which we live. Morals don’t count to the PR presidentcy and it’s lackey media servants. Support for the troops does.

    You can’t give a thousanth of an inch to the immoral fucks in the White House, they will find the flaw & stab, slash, & mutilate in even the appearance of a weakness.

  • Moral principles based on looking over your shoulder at what the other guy’s doing or likely to do down the road? Why not throw off the holier-than-thou cloak? Either come down against torture, period, and stick to that, or declare ourselves amoral, as the 15th century Court of Venice did (they openly tortured, publically posted weekly lists of prices they’d pay for specific assassinations, etc.). I would prefer the former choice, but either way, everyone at least knows what the rules are.

    Strange that our “compassionate conservative”, pharisaical Christian President is the one to advocate a policy of torture.

  • Ohioan

    You are exactly right. America’s heart and soul need to be focused on doing what’s right and honorable, not what might be done to us in retaliation, though to be aware of consequences is smart.

    It becomes more and more evident to me that Bush wants to torture people, even though we know it rarely works and the carrot-stick approach works much better in hard cases.

    There are, of course, always those who don’t know anything at all, and torturing them is brutal, deserving of a long prison stint at the very least. Might as well put a bag on GW Bush’s head, strip him naked, march him into one of those secret prisons we’re assured have been closed down, and torture him until he tells his torturers the correct chemical formula for chlorosulfuric acid or perhaps the square miles of land-area in Russia. He just doesn’t know those answers.

    Anyway, I’m hoping the Republican Senate’s rebellion against Bush’s lust-to-torture will end it once and for all.

  • “It’s wrong, oh, and we don’t want it happening to us.”

    Is that about the McCain/Warner/Graham position?

    I’d wish someone would point out (as CB has before) that it doesn’t work. The poor tortured souls tell you any damn thing to get you to stop, none of which turns out to be true. Now, if you are the Spanish Inquisition and your objective is stealing all their wealth by getting them to admit to crimes against the church, the lack of truth doesn’t really matter. On the other hand, if you are the Intelligence Community of the United States of America and every lie that spews out of your victums mouth sends thousands of soldiers and policemen on multi-million dollar boondogles that don’t make America any safer, then not getting truth from the mouths of terrorists matters a whole hell of a lot.

    But really, the rules that Boy George II is trying to implement here are not to cover the next torturer, but to cover that last torturer. I think the Bushites have finally gotten through their incompetent heads that their “Jack Bower” policy was a mistake, but they want legal cover for crimes (and they are crimes) committed in the past. So you can expect a full court press by the White House to do anything to cover their ass. That’s the way Boy George II thinks, as we know.

  • Lance,

    I agree with you about Bush’s fear because of his authorization of torture. Just recently I found this information about the lengths to which Bush has gone to avoid prosecution under international law for crimes committed by his administration:

    [In August 2002] George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to “use all means necessary and appropriate,” including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the International Criminal Court. http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/

  • First I would like to congradulate McCain, Warner, Graham and Collins for their unwavering beliefs.

    Second and most importantly there is one fact missing from this debate that should first and foremost be investigated and that is the SECRET PRISONS themselves. As I’m sure that it is against International Law, the EU constitution and NATO charter to transport prisoners to SECRET PRISONS in foriegn countries for the purpose of interogation and torture. Where is the media outrage at this abuse of power by Shrub and company.

    Why aren’t the bloggers all over this?

    For democrats to win we need to stand up to the schoolyard bullies and let the chips fall, quit all this softballing the repuke challengers and the voters of America will always vote for what is RIGHT and the rule of law. FEAR will not dominate in “06” as it has in the last 2 elections. Keep all the good post and comments coming I love to read them.

  • “The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to “use all means necessary and appropriate,” including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the International Criminal Court.” – anney

    Somehow, I don’t think President Nancy Pelosi is going to bother after the Impeachment of Dick Cheney and Boy George II to invade the Netherlands 😉

    Glad you like my analysis.

  • America is in a very sad moral condition when a so-called super power has to debate whether to toture prisoners or not to toture them, even worst when AWOL and draft dodging leaders are advocating the change in world values to permit toture and secert trials. What country are we living in? Dosen’t sound much like the America I grew up in. I am a 57 year old Air Force veteran who served during latter ’60s and early ’70s. Quite frankly, this is unbelievable. Would you or your children join the military now under these current conditions?

  • “”We’ll do what the president wants,” said Representative Duncan Hunter of California”

    What the Hell ?? Does this guy even realize how stupid he sounds. Talk about a awesome talking point. He might as well have said we will Rubber Stamp anything the president wants stamped.

    Can you imagine if Alito said that ?

    Last item I checked, we have three branches, someone want to give Hunter a civics lesson in ‘checks & balances’.

  • I think the Republicans will still use this issue as a cudgel, the people they’re talking to are desperate for some excuse as to why the GWOT is not going well. This gives them (in their koolaid addled state) an excuse, even if they have to throw a few “liberal” Republicrooks under the bus..

    If only those liberals would let us interrogate the terrorists, THEN we’d win the war on terror!!! We need to elect more Conservatives!!

    Gotta remember how stupid people are. It’s sad.

  • “This is about the safety of OUR men and women in uniform”.

    In defense of McCain, I think he is trying to frame the debate in terms anyone with more than two brain cells to bang together can understand. Yes it is sad that he can’t just say torture is evil, shame on you for suggesting it. It’s sad and still shocking to me that we, the United States of America, the good guys, have to have a debate about torture at all.

    But his approach circumvents the “you’re coddling terrorists” arguments. It takes the focus off terrorists or suspected terrorists(which is where Team Bush want to keep it) and puts it back on the soldiers which are so precious and fragile (according to TB) that even debating about the war will hurt their wittle feelings. TB couldn’t be bothered to provide adequate forces, equipment, planning to protect the soldiers, McCain is offering something that will protect them if they are captured not just in this war but in any war.

    That is the other good thing about McCain’s approach. It reminds people that this will have affects not just in this conflict but in future conflicts. TB wants to frame everything in terms of fighting terrorists and only terrorists as if there will be peace and kittens for all after…I’m not sure how they define victory, but they seem to think victory is achievable and after that no more conflict forever. Whatever. Thinking people know even if you could wipe out every terrorist network, you can’t wipe out war any more than you can wipe out murder.

    I think it also allows McCain to keep the focus on himself as a soldier who was tortured. Versus MonkeyBoy draft dodger who couldn’t even be bothered to show up for National Guard training half the time. Is McCain grandstanding a bit, showing off a bit? Hells yeah, but if it works….

  • Let me follow up on ScottW’s comment.

    CB wrote: “As for the politics of all of this, Republicans had hoped to use Democratic opposition to the Bush proposal as a campaign cudgel with which to beat [Democratic] candidates relentlessly.”

    I think the bifurcation between the Republican-controlled Senate and obsequious Republican House is an excellent opportunity to perform some political jujitsu. The Democrats can now seize a campaign cudgel to thrash Republican House incumbents with by portraying the lock-step Republican members as what they truly are: Rubber-Stamp Republicans—rubber stamps for Bush’s failed policies.

    I live in suburban Philadelphia. There are three hot House races here that are being watched. The Democrats–Joe Sestak (vs. Weldon), Patrick Murphy (vs. Fitzpatrick), and Lois Murphy (vs. Gerlach)–should consider this opportunity as “political ammo.”

  • My Waterboy John Cornyn is alright out there diluting the McCain approach. Our enemies don’t take prisoners. Heads Republicans win, tails the rest of us lose.

  • “My Waterboy John Cornyn is [already] out there diluting the McCain approach. Our enemies don’t take prisoners.” – GwashB

    A stupid shortsighted argument. Al Qaeda is not the only enemy we will every face. And I bet Shoshana Nyree Johnson and Jessica Dawn Lynch really appreciate the implication that they were not real prisoners of war who needed Geneva Convention protections. Or maybe moron Cornyn forgot about them?

  • Before we start congradulating the so-called coragous republicans who opposed this bill, we should thank the democratic politicians who were already ahead of their peers who opposed this. Where are their names listed? Why isn’t anyone saying thanks to them BEFORE saying thanks to the republicans?
    The republican senators who opposed this bill are doing the right thing, but they are late.
    Reading the constitution is a mandatory requirement for holding office, not an optional inconveinence.
    If the republican senators wish to get my thanks (and I thank the democratic senators FIRST), they will have to be consistent with their voting record when standing up for human rights, and against torture.

  • Bush is responding as expected:

    “Time is running out,” Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference. “Congress needs to act wisely and promptly.”

    “And the reason they need those tools is because the enemy wants to attack us again.”
    …

    1. Ominous unsupportable hints of danger lurking just over the horizon. Check.
    2. Implication that the only wise course for Congress is to do what he says. Check.

    “It’s unacceptable to think there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective,”
    …
    3. Attempt to change the subject back to scary guys. Check.
    4. Further demonstration that he does not care that what impact this law will have on future conflicts. Check.
    5. Skipping over the bit about how torture makes us more like the scary guys. Check.

    “[Intelligence professionals – ie torturers] don’t want to be tried as war criminals. …”

    6. Unintentional revelation of his real concern. Check.

    Bush’s voice rose and he chopped the air with his right hand several times as he spoke on Iraq.

    7. Temper tantrum when he doesn’t get his way. Check.

  • “[Intelligence professionals – ie torturers] don’t want to be tried as war criminals. …”

    “6. Unintentional revelation of his real concern. Check.”

    Bingo!

  • Orange- Great observation! GW continues to churn out the same old bull shit. The only thing is there are less and less people willing to buy it. This president”s own party can’t get away from him fast enough.

  • Basically, the whole thing comes down to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” It has always been national self-interest that has gotten nations to agree to the various “laws of war” as they have come down through the centuries. In World War II, we went out of our way to create food for German POWs that was like what they were used to back home (black bread, etc.), because we wanted to be able to be morally “above them” when it came to the German treatment of our prisoners. That is what it has always been about.

    Saying McCain is somehow less than honorable for pushing this as a way of defending Americans merely demonstrates the lack of knowledge on the part of the “moral brigade” here about how the game is really played. McCain argues in favor of maintaining Article 3 to defend Americans. The result is it defends everybody, and other Republicans (the majority party, remember????) join him. The ultimate result is Bush gets whacked.

    Keep your eyes on the ball, people.

    • Comments are closed.