Coming off the rails for Rove

This week the President's plan to "reinterpret" the Geneva Conventions ran into a bit of a snag - three snags - named McCain, Warner and Graham. But there's a subtext to this story of Republican vs Republican, if the President, Vice President and Secretary Rumsfeld's claims that anyone who disagree with them is "confused", "aiding the enemy" or an "appeaser" -- does that also apply to their Republican critics such as Colin Powell?

In opposing the President's plans Senator McCain stated Sunday on This Week.

"When in our custody Al-qaeda deserve nothing - except the fundamental rights that all prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. The Vietnamese treated us rather badly, but that didn't mean that responded by altering the Geneva Conventions".

"I believe this has nothing to do with politics," McCain said. "No matter what the political impact is, this is a matter of conscience."

But can McCain truly be taken seriously after his recent rightward turn and embracing of old foes such as Jerry Falwell? He seems to be the epitome of an opportunist, last year he fought hard to implement a torture ban, despite fierce Administration opposition only to have that ban implemented with a poison pill (the Graham/Levin Amendment) which denied detainees access to the courts and effectively rendered the entire bill moot and unenforceable. What is the point of banning torture if you also gag anyone who might have been tortured and deny them access to lawyers or the courts?

This is merely an exercise in political theater. But along the way McCain may have just step seriously on not just the President's shoes - but Karl Rove, the clear architect of the current"Democrats are weak" strategery.

The money quote however was this one:

"We have to hold the moral high ground. We're the nation that people look up to. We can't lower our standards simply because others do. We hold no respect for al-Qaeda. We don't think al-Qaeda will observe those Conventions - but we're going to be in other wars. And there's two reasons why all these retired military guys - who are not soft on terror or al Qaeda - are coming down vehemently against modifying the Geneva Conventions. 1) is the Moral High Ground. We are not like al Qaeda. There's a war on the battlefield and a psychological/idealogical war going on and 2) They are very worried about American forces who will fall into the hands of nations who will "reinterpret" or modify the Geneva conventions."

I would argue that there is a third reason that we shouldn't modify Geneva, because it can be considered a War Crime. And as I diaried on Dkos the other day, a country that sets and maintains a standard of treating it's captives well - has a greater chance for ultimate victory than one that mistreats them and provides further motivation for their opposition. This was made clear to us during WWII in Europe as Italian and German forces were far more likely to surrender to us, rather than the Russians and face their Gulags. And it was also made clear during the first Gulf War when most of Saddam's forces were more than eager to give up rather than be slaughtered. Now - partly because of Abu Ghraib and many other abuses such as Haditha and Fallujah - we face an enemy that would much rather die than be defeated and surrender.

However, the devil is in the details. Listening to Laura Flanders this weekend, she made the point that this isn't a case of three-card Monty with our rights. They aren't hiding under the House Bill, the Senate bill or the WhiteHouse Bill. All of these bills, like the Graham/Levin Amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, essentially toss habeas corpus out the window.

We may formally acknowledge that we will not violate Geneva. Fine. But if persons such as Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, who was apparently kidnapped by the CIA in Italy and sent to Egypt where he claims to have been tortured until they discovered he knew nothing and was released - would have no legal recourse. Olbermann has speculated about what happens when Khallid Sheik Mohammad, who has now been transfered to Gitmo begins talking to the Red Cross -- but the answer to that is nothing. He has no ability to sue under Graham/Levin, and that is likely to remain true under any bill that exits Congress before the Election.

Further, there is still the issue of evidence gathered using coercive means being introduced secretly at trial - where they would not be subject to a fruits of the poison tree challenge and the fact that Bush continues to claim special super-dooper executive powers that allow him to fore-go and ignore laws which he disagrees with (such as FISA). So what exactly is there to stop him from continuing to ignore Geneva no matter what Congress decides?

In the end, all the bluster, strum and drang between Powell, McCain and Bush is likely to amount to big hill of nothing. Bush will - must - do everything in his ability to protect himself from possible War Crimes prosecution, and if he has to use this ex post facto method of covering his tracks while giving a tacit nod to the continuance of Geneva - he will. But that doesn't mean he'll abide by the law. In the meantime, McCain's words that those who oppose the President - ARE NOT SOFT ON AL-QAEDA - should not go unrepeated.

Say it with me now - John McCain is not soft on Al Qaeda. John Murtha is not soft on Al-Qaeda. Neither is John Kerry or Russ Feingold.

The big loser in all of this - is Karl Rove - as it appears that some Republicans have not only abandoned the President, they've chosen to completely undercut the insult politics that this Administration thrives on. How do they now repeat the kinds of attacks we've seen on decorated veterans - who happen to be Democrats- such as Murtha, Max Cleland or Kerry?

How can they continue to argue that these guys are "traitors" or "appeasers" when their standing shoulder to shoulder with Powell, McCain, Graham and Warner?

I don't think they can.

Less than 60 days to the election and Rove has already played his trump card and had it fail. The Republicans are going to lose Congress, probably both Houses. Rove probably knows this well, as does the RNC. Their next likely strategy is to let the Democrats take control -- and then play the "see, look at what they do once their in power" game and argue for retention of the Presidency in 2008 by a Republican - an "independent" Republican (with Jerry Falwell's hand in his pocket) like McCain. A strategy that might prove very effective if Democrats attempt to impeach George Bush without first laying the groundwork and making the need for such an action clear in the minds of the American people.

Although the ranting of John Yoo in the New York Times Post should make the grave danger of the Bush Administration to the fabric of our Democracy obvious, it still hasn't sunk in yet. Glenn Greenwald shines a spotlight on it:

Why is it even necessary to point out that the U.S. President does not have the power to violate laws which he thinks are "wrongheaded or obsolete," or that Presidents have no authority to disregard "wrongheaded or obsolete judicial decisions" (whatever that might mean)? And what permits a "law professor" to claim otherwise on the Op-Ed page of the NYT? Under this administration, there is no notion too radical or authoritarian to be off limits not only from being subject to debate, but from being implemented.

Just look at the things we're debating -- whether the U.S. Government can abduct and indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens without charges; whether we can use torture to interrogate people; whether our Government can eavesdrop on our private conversations without warrants; whether we can create secret prisons and keep people there out of sight and beyond the reach of any law or oversight; and whether the President can simply disregard long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws because he has deemed that doing so is necessary to "protect" us.

It should be obvious that the people who are "confused" are inside BushGov. The ones who have further "emboldened the enemy" with their tactics aren't Kerry or Murtha, it's Bush and Cheney with their torture fetish. Unfortunately, I don't believe most of the American people truly realize just how fucked-up we've really become over the last five years - or that they'll finally figure it out over the next two.

But one can always hope.

Vyan