The torture debate in Congress -- who'd a thunk it?

Every time I write "The president invaded a country and started a war", I'm struck by how shocking that fact is to me and should be to everyone, especially when considering what Robert H. Jackson had to say about doing just that. Well, there is another story in the news lately and I've already pointed to the shocking nature of what is being considered in it -- Congress is debating torture! Let's think about that... this president is demanding that Congress change the laws so that Americans will not be subject to anti-torture constraints. As TPM Reader DK says:

The torture debate in Congress--I never expected to write such words--is as surreal to me as watching the collapse of the Twin Towers. If the Democrats are able to take control of at least one chamber in November, then surely the President's pro-torture bill will be viewed in hindsight as the nadir of the Bush presidency. If not, how much lower can things go?

I am beyond being able to assess the political implications, one way or the other, of this spectacle. Regardless of which version of the bill finally passes, this debate is a black mark on the soul of the nation. Of course passage of a pro-torture bill will diminish U.S. standing internationally and jeopardize the safety and well-being of U.S. servicemen in future engagements. But merely having this debate has already accomplished that. Does anyone honestly believe that if Congress rebuffs the President in every respect that the rule of law and the inviolability of human rights will have been vindicated? Of course not.

The Republicans have defined deviancy down for the whole world, including every two-bit dictator and wild-eyed terrorist.

I don't believe that the real issue is anything more than politics -- the Rovians think that they can use this issue to make Dems look "soft on terror" by getting them to vote against the bill but their problem is that even Republicans are hesitant. As Josh Marshall says:

Karl Rove is certainly playing high stakes poker on the Kangaroo Courts. Set aside for the moment the merits of the underlying questions of whether our country should continue to abide by the rule of law and the principles our founders based the country on. Hard I know, but for a moment, put that to one side.

The aim here was to unite Republicans behind a bill and then force Democrats either to vote for or against -- demoralize the supporters of those who vote for and crush with 30 second ads those who vote against.

But if the White House actually gets tripped up in a fight with members of his own party over what kind of torture we should use, and that's the last legislative story out of Washington going into the election, that really seems like it would be a big disaster for the White House.

I don't pretend that it's a clear political shot to argue, in a highly polarized electorate, that there are certain rights we should afford to anyone in our custody, no matter how bad they may be.

If there's some division over a president who wants to sully our national honor by enshrining torture as national policy, I don't think there's much division over a would-be torturer-in-chief who's so feckless that he can't even get his bills through congress -- and this while he's twiddling his thumbs as Iraq goes to hell.

The question is, Am I really supposed to believe that Republican senators are willing to hand their party leader that kind of reverse on the eve of a critical mid-term election? I have a hard time believing that's going to happen. And yet, who's going to blink?

A friend suggests that President Bush will do what he's done before in similar cases -- fight up to the end, then embrace the opposition's position, repackage it as his own and declare victory.

The problem is that that's not necessarily enough for the president and his chaperone in this case to get an agreement with members of his own party. The whole point of this exercise, which is entirely political, is to pick a fight with the opposition. So the president needs to find a political sweet spot that guarantees agreed with senate Republicans and disagreement with most senate Democrats. This is the first thing to remember. Agreement, consensus is the last thing the president wants because then he loses his political cudgel.