Here I was getting ready to give McCain the benefit of the doubt for his role in standing up to Bunnypants on the torture bill. Eehh, not so fast. He's apparently rolled everyone, and is now "agreeing on a compromise" to allow Beloved Leader get most of what he wants.

It's 2002 redux. Democrats through their spinelessness have now painted themselves into a corner by hoping McCain was going to actually stand up to Preznit Waterboard'n'Shackles. All that remains is for the Democrats to stand up to the Torture-Happy Republicans now and they're gonna get a full load of double-ought Max Cleland-ing right up the ass.

This is starting to look like a Rove Operation, his fingerprints are all over this, from "handling" McCain's "insurrection" to Bunnypant's "belligerance". It seems like a classic Rove Roll.

Buh-bye Democrats, nice job snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2006 mid-term election cycle...

Yo! Congress. You of the eternally-inked rubber stamps... how do you like being played for fools and losers again?

Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., offered to substitute her original bill on giving legal status to Bush's domestic surveillance program with a bill that would grant a key administration request: allow wiretapping on Americans in the event of an "imminent" terrorist attack.

In exchange, the administration would be required to share with Congress more details of the nature of the threat, presumably with the House and Senate Intelligence committees and some congressional leaders.

Because when you've pissed on the Constitution once, it's easy for it to become a way of life when you're a republican.

Ah, yes, Autumn is here and the smell of cordite is in the air in Old Baghdad; 'tis the season for detention, and the defense by Beloved Leader and his minions of capture and detention without end, even as they wax philosophic over the sweetness of exported Democracy to the heathen, who remarkably managed to have not only self-governing civilizations while the NeoCon WASP progenitors were still at the "fire good, winter bad" stage of their social and cultural development, but were pioneering international trade, social justice, and mathematics as civilizing skills to build communities and empires on.

The
Pentagon defended its monthslong detention of an Associated Press photographer in Iraq, asserting that it has authority to imprison him indefinitely without charges because it believes he had improper ties to insurgents.
...
"All indications that I have received are that Hussein's detainment indicates that he has strong ties with known insurgents and that he was doing things, involved in activities, that were well outside the scope of what you would expect a journalist to be doing," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. He refused to provide any details.

Seriously.

Whitman said that Hussein's case has been reviewed three times by U.S. and Iraqi detention authorities. But the AP had only been told of one review, and that had taken place without any representation from Hussein or his representatives, Tomlin said.

Orwell is so proud. Jefferson is so spinning in his grave.

I don't have the transcript, but while I was at lunch today there was a TV playing with Faux News. Shepard Smith was interviewing John Bolton concerning Iraq, and Bolton's rationale for the New Improved NeoCon logic for invading Iran was this: 'they have massive oil reserves, they have no need for nuclear power, ergo all their nuclear development is directed towards making weapons. Any other explanation does not hold water.'

Now that's not an exact quote (I am not a stenographer), but it's the gist of what he was saying to Smith. Right before Bolton, some other guy was on, and either he or Smith was saying "we don't negotiate with terrorists", with reference to Iran. As if.

I was looking up some information, and came across this old "Newshour" transcript of Jim Lehrer interviewing Bunnypants, the Candidate. It's very, very instructive. (bolded italicized material is my emphasis)

Isolating our enemies

JIM LEHRER: On a more general issue, Governor, the case in both Iraq and Kosovo or Yugoslavia, the sins that we moved against militarily and which you supported -- you say you support - I assume you support what your father did in the Gulf War. I didn't ask you about that.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I did.

JIM LEHRER: Right. And then what the Clinton administration did as a follow-up against Iraq.

George W. Bush: No, I don't support what the Clinton administration did as a follow-up. What the Clinton administration did as a follow-up is they -- is they allowed the inspection regime to wither. I think we need to have inspectors back into Iraq, and I think we need to make it clear to Saddam Hussein we want them back into -- we need to make it clear to our allies we expect the inspectors back in to make sure he's not developing weapons of mass destruction.

JIM LEHRER: OK. Well, then my question was a more general question -- that we had both Iraq with Saddam Hussein and Yugoslavia with Milosevic; they're the ones who committed the sins that caused us to move militarily, and they're not only alive and well -- many innocent people died -- they're not only alive and well, they're still in charge. What -- is there a realistic way to deal with that kind of thing when you have an evil person in charge and causing these things to happen?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I think the most realistic ways to keep them isolated in the world of public opinion and to work with our alliance is to keep them isolated. I'm just as frustrated as many Americans are that Saddam Hussein still lives. I think we ought to keep the pressure on him. I will tell you this: If we catch him developing weapons of mass destruction in any way, shape or form, I'll deal with that in a way that he won't like.

Jim Lehrer: Like what, bomb him?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, it could be one option. He just needs to know that he'll be dealt with in a firm way.

JIM LEHRER: But you don't think that there's any way in our democratic society that we can move against individual leaders?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Do you mean to go assassinate him?

JIM LEHRER: Well, any way.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Actually, it's against the law, as I understand, for an American president to order the assassination of any world leader. I am -- I think that's right -- if I'm not mistaken, Jim, and yeah, I mean, obviously we need to keep the pressure on these men. At some point in time the forces of good will take -- will handle Saddam Hussein; I'm confident of that. But we've just got to keep the pressure on him.

JIM LEHRER: And just live with the frustration that that's what happens in our kind of society.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, that may be true, but keep the frustration down to a minimum by doing what we say we're going to do and when we do something make sure he understands loud and clear we mean it.

Pretty clearly the messianic "forces of good" thing was at play with Preznit Dimestore Jesus, it's just amazing that so many normally sharp people like Jim Lehrer chose to utterly ignore it to either keep his access via Rove and Bartlett or was just plain oblivious.

Back during my misspent youth in Naval Aviation, the A-6 guys (and I don't know why it was them) always said, "It's better to get even than mad". John McCain was a light-attack bubba, having been a Spad/A-4 and A-7 driver, so maybe he just spent enough time in the Ready Room Bar in Cubi listening to the Grumman Ironworks Drivers pontificate on interpersonal strategery, who knows. But you know, this sure is starting to look suspiciously like Payback, and in a good cause if it is.

Congressional Republicans had carefully orchestrated the finale of the legislative year to be a showdown with Democrats over which party is best equipped to keep the country safe, a handpicked fight on traditional Republican turf.

But the high-stakes standoff between President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) over military tribunals could ruin that legislative strategy, political analysts and strategists say. Instead of fighting Democrats, Republicans find themselves in the middle of an intraparty struggle between an embattled president and two of the most respected figures in their party, McCain and his ally on the issue, former secretary of state Colin L. Powell.

McCain has been playing the game with Bunnypants for the last couple of years, and is now in a perfect position to throw up more than a little AAA into Rove's election-year alpha strike with his stand on the Amendments that Deserter Boy and his courtiers want to make to the Geneva Conventions. After all, he lived with the protections of Article III, in so far as the North Vietnamese afforded US POW's any consideration under the Geneva Convention during Vietnam. I honestly don't see McCain turning his back on other servicemen and women now and into the future to help make Bunnypants look "Tough on Terra™"

Because in the end, there was always South Carolina. And I have to wonder if this become a case of "getting even" when it comes right down to it. It's free, no one is ever going to blame McCain (except Rove and perhaps a few shrieking Chickenhawk wingnuts) for this stand. He earns the gratitude of virtually every senior officer in DoD who understands the gravity and repercussions of the changes to the Article III "interpretation", and most importantly he sets himself up as "independant" of Beloved Leader on an issue that really counts to him personally, which gives him HUUUGE "character" points among the "McCainiacs" who have been disillusioned with is performance and sycophancy to the 1600 Crew over the past three and a half years.

So, South Carolina? Yeah, it makes sense to me. Your thoughts?

Payback is a bitch, isn't it?

1. Rolled
   
2. Riiiight
   
3. Spreading Freedom, Democracy, Love and Understanding 101
   
4. More NeoCon Bullshit
   
5. Interesting stuff
   
6. Payback?