President Bush made an impassioned defense on Friday of his proposed rules for the interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects, warning that the nation’s ability to defend itself would be undermined if rebellious Republicans in the Senate did not come around to his position.
Speaking at a late-morning news conference in the Rose Garden, Mr. Bush said he would have no choice but to end a C.I.A. program for the interrogation of high-level terrorism suspects if Congress passed an alternate set of rules supported by a group of Senate Republicans.
Those alternate rules were adopted Thursday by the Senate Armed Services Committee in defiance of Mr. Bush. Setting out what he suggested could be dire consequences if that bill became law, Mr. Bush said intelligence officers — he referred to them repeatedly as “professionals” — would no longer be willing and able to conduct interrogations out of concern that the vague standard for acceptable techniques could leave them vulnerable to legal action.
“Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that Al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland,” he said. “But the practical matter is if our professionals don’t have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.”
This kind of speech is unique to this Administration in my political memory. I presume that rebellious Republicans are Republicans who disagree with him. I just don’t recall any previous President referring to members of his own party who disagree with a position as rebellious. He assumes that Republican equals guaranteed votes for what he thinks.
But beyond that, I don’t recall any other President accusing dissenters of undermining the nation’s ability to defend itself. He is so used to having a Congressional majority at all times, that he is lashing out angrily at the possibility of not having people always doing what he wants to do.
And furthermore, where does “Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that Al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland” come from? Where is the evidence that the intelligence community thinks this? Where is the thwarted attack averted by torture methods? How do we know that this isn’t just something he’s saying to shame people into supporting him [as has been the case in the past]?
Actually, it all sounds very familiar. ‘We have to go to war immediately with Iraq to avert their attack on our shores.’ ‘They have WMD’s! and CBW’s! and are training Terrorists!’ ‘The people in Iraq fighting us are insurgents [rebellious Iraqis who won’t listen to me].’ ‘We have to be able to listen in on any communications we want to without judicial review to avert disaster.’ It’s Chicken Little politics, over and over again. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" 
Only with Bush, it’s not "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We must tell the King." It’s more like, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! You must do what I say."
Bush says, “But the practical matter is if our professionals don’t have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.” Absolutely fine. That’s the whole point of not approving your torture program, Mr. Bush. We don’t want that program to go forward…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.