This is the kind of thing that passes for news analysis on the right.
Taken as a whole, the President’s maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.
You get the image of some sort of panting dog, reading that, or maybe some pre-teen girl in her bedroom with walls covered in sparkles and hearts thumbing through Tiger Beat.
Related
No related posts
Loyola is a relatively new contributor to The Corner, but he’s already jumped to the top of the list for insane Bush-cultism and bizarre, slanderous comparisons (comparing Michael Moore to a Nazi propagandist). Throw in the fact that he has a soft spot for Russ Feingold and you’ve got one confused conservative.
I was taken aback by this part of the post:
I thought those guys were all dead. Right, Jay?
What?!?
Bush wants to put limits on interrogation techniques? Give these thugs their “rights” under the Geneva Convention?
I expect right wingers to express their outrage and taunt him for wanting to treat these terrorists with kid gloves.
Actually, you guys should be cheering Bush’s speech. The legislation that he wants is the perfect opportunity for Democrats to clearly outline a moral, humane, progressive roadmap for the treatment of captured terrorists.
I for one will be waiting to see what the Democrats propose.
The only way that Democrats can lose on this issue is if they have no idea what they want in terms of proactive policy … that’s not going to happen, is it?
Actually, legislation like this should have been proposed ten years ago. Most of the hand-wringing of the Clinton administration was due to the fact that they had no idea what to do with Osama Bin Laden once they had captured him. If Democrats are serious about pursuing a “law enforcement” approact to the WOT, then they need to be able to clearly explain to Americans how they will detain captured terrorists and how they will bring them to justice.
“Most of the hand-wringing of the Clinton administration was due to the fact that they had no idea what to do with Osama Bin Laden once they had captured him.”
Well, maybe they should have predicted that one day he would orchestrate attacks against the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon. Or captured him just because we wanted to.
Aren’t you guys the ones who keep reminding us that “9-11 changed everything”?
What has the Bush administration done to bring OBL to justice? Other than allowing him to escape after being handed him on a silver platter 3 times after 9/11, that is?
The legislation that he wants is the perfect opportunity for Democrats to clearly outline a moral, humane, progressive roadmap for the treatment of captured terrorists.
Let’s teat them like we treated that home-grown terrorist, Charlie Manson.
Wait. Insane and hate-filled as he was, he got a fair trial.
Bummer.
If Democrats are serious about pursuing a “law enforcement” approact to the WOT, then they need to be able to clearly explain to Americans how they will detain captured terrorists and how they will bring them to justice.
Don’t the Republicans have to explain why they HAVEN’T done that? Aren’t they, um, in charge?
The legislation that he wants is the perfect opportunity for Democrats to clearly outline a moral, humane, progressive roadmap for the treatment of captured terrorists.
Hate-filled reactionary Timothy McVeigh also received a fair trial.
Uh, there always was a way for dealing with terrorists, ranging from the court system to military tribunals, etc. It’s the Bush administration that has actively undermined those systems, often for unclear (”classified”) reasons. You know, those systems that caught Timothy McVeigh and the original crew responsible for the first attack on the WTC in ‘93. The problem is catching terrorists, not prosecuting them. That requires a robust intelligence service, strong international cooperation, and above all, a clear and effective plan for winning the hearts and minds of those who might otherwise provide sanctuary for these criminals.
And again, there is no “War on Terror.” That’s pure marketing hype, just like the “War on Drugs” (or the “Clear Skies Initiative” and other bits of Bushco propaganda). Asking how Dems would fight it is simply asking them to buy into Bushco’s terms and battle on the GOP’s turf. Sadly the Dems have largely thrown away any opportunity to reframe the debate by repeatedly moving to affirm Bush’s policies and largely trying to “out hawk” the Republicans. Their best hope now is to frame their position as one of hope, a strategy for finding our way out of the endless tunnel the GOP and their defense and industry cronies want us trapped in.
As for Loyola, he gets one thing largely right, and that’s the move by Bush to “fairly” try a group of select detainees while pushing through legislation to authorize his kangaroo courts and do a run around of the Hamden decision. It’s a simple play, force an up or down vote with no allowance for debate or revision. Frame the whole thing as a “with us or against us, strong or weak on terror” affair. If the Dems don’t play along, immediately get on the air and hang the vote around their necks, if they do, turn the election debate into “how can you say we’re criminals shredding the Constitution only to vote for the very system you so vociferously opposed?” Here’s hoping enough people are done with the GOP to shut out the noise machine and overcome the “Diebold factor.”
How many successful terror convictions has the Bush administration had so far? I guess that is why he needs the kangaroo courts.
From the internets:
After holding these guys for three to four years, Bush decides that now, exactly two months before the election, it’s time to send “Congress legislation to specifically authorize the creation of military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes” in order for them to “face justice” because the families “should have to wait no longer”.
Is anybody buying this story?