Digby evaluates the torture-bill “compromise” between the Bush Administration and McCain-Graham-Warner (via Atrios):
Democrats allowed this to happen by not calling attention to the fact that the McCain-Graham-Warner bill did away with habeas corpus for terror suspects. Interested more in the spectacle of Bush being handed a “defeat” by members of his own party than they were in critiquing the flaws in the actual piece of legislation M-G-W proposed, they stood silent. They forgot that Cheney-Bush-Rove never truly compromise: they ask for everything they want, knowing that they’ll wind up with most of what they want. And, as Digby notes, they look all the better for having “compromised” to get the legislation through.
The words “habeas corpus” were not even part of the public debate.
Now we are going to be, by fact and law, a nation of torturers. The day that bill passes will be a day of infamy not soon forgotten.
Update: Amid the despair we feel today, it’s important to remember this:
The bill is not yet law. There is still time for action. What will Democrats do to stop it, and what will we do to support them?
Update #2: Steve Gilliard has another take on the situation.
2 Comments on "Screwed Again"
Kevin Wolf:
Over at Shakes place there was some discussion about whether the Dems should step into the “debate.” I said, dammit, yes. This is too important an issue.
But many others were happy to see the “fight” among the Republicans. Now we see where that got us.
This is dangerous stuff, for all of us.
Matt:
Exactly, Kevin. Democratic politicians let the “meme” go forward that the M-G-W bill represented a real alternative to the Bush plan. That put them in an extremely vulnerable position, utterly powerless to affect the kind of compromise that was worked out in the end.
One of the tougher questions I have, though, is whether or not liberal bloggers could have done a better job of pointing out the flaws in the M-G-W bill. On one hand, we’re just ordinary citizens, and many of us don’t have the time, energy, or expertise to critique congressional bills.
But, on the other hand, given the blog triumphalism that is talked about so often, shouldn’t we have done a better job of re-framing this debate? In some ways, isn’t the failure of the Democratic Party in this case also a failure of our own?
Comments