Compromise?

In case you thought you were having a long nightmare over the weekend- yes, the United States is involved in a national debate over how much torture we should be doing. Sorry. So insane is the very concept of this that I was watching 'The McLaughlin Group' yesterday morning, and Mr. McLaughlin himself (normally a very composed man) was freaking out at the very idea of what we may be about to do as a nation... legitimize torture. I gave my thoughts on this whole 'debate' (including the false arguments being regurgitated by Bush cultists) on Friday and I stand by them.

And after being proud of the stand taken against the President's position by Sens. McCain, Warner, Graham, and the Democrats on the Senate panel, the cynic in me- always with an eye on the elections- is wondering what the Republican party is playing at here. If McCain, Warner, Graham are taking a genuine stand based on a long-term view (which sees, besides the general immorality, how this will come back to hurt us for decades), then God bless 'em. But I also wonder if there's a broader political strategy at work here (the Republicans know party in-fighting is less than appealing to voters), one which the White House will find some common ground with them on.

The media is buzzing today about the possibility of a 'compromise' between the White House and the anti-torture Republican trio. Rest assured, that the compromising will not be done by the White House... And I am willing to bet that, par for the course, the compromise will be just for the cameras and the President will get his way in some form.

This likely outcome should be obvious to anyone who has cared to pay attention to events in the past year. We all remember late last year when Sen. McCain and the majority of the Senate tried to pass a full ban on torture. The President fought it every step of the way; Vice President Cheney even crawled out of his bunker to try and strongarm some Republican support on Capitol Hill. The President even threatened one of those vetoes we would later find out is solely reserved for stem cell research. In the end, the ban passed by a veto-proof margin. Rather than admitting defeat, the President pretended the ban was his idea all along and held a photo-op with McCain at the White House to announce the signing of the bill. Weeks later, the Boston Globe revealed that the President had added a signing statement to that bill basically asserting his legal right to ignore it at will. The media at large and the Senate gladly looked the other way.

Here are some scenarios that could occur with the President's current torture/tribunal plans: The Senate trio stands their ground, Bush capitulates publicly, but adds a signing statement afterward saying he can do what he originally wanted anyway. Or, the Senate trio 'compromise' with the White House, basically give Bush what he wants with slightly nicer wording, and hold a big photo-op together in Washington for the media. Or, the less likely scenario, the Senate trio just folds like Arlen Specter has on the wiretapping issue, but publicly maintains a 'maverick' image.

In the end, no matter which scenario occurs, here is what will have happened in this whole debacle: President Bush will get exactly what he wanted anyway- a congressional approval of his "program" (read: torture and prisons). John McCain will have restored the 'maverick' myth he lost while spooning with the religious right all year. The GOP will be able to say to voters that their members stood up for morals, but stayed tough on terror, and therefore a Democratic congress is unnecessary.

This crowd cannot win wars or balance a budget, but they have mastered the political game.

Finally, the NY Times' Paul Krugman nails what is really motivating the White House's fight-

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president’s power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it’s a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they’re asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.

Indeed, just another chapter in our continuingly permanent constitutional crisis...

[Related reading:
-Firedoglake: The GOP At War With Itself — Honestly? Or As An Election Maneuver?
-Slate magazine: Stream of Conscience-- Why it matters what definition of torture we use.
-Crooks and Liars: Graham Nails Geneva Conventions Argument
-Digby: Tortured Compromise]