Throwing the Guantanamo Gauntlet

Today's Washington Post covers the revelation by President Bush that indeed there are secret CIA prisons, they are populated with the worst terrorists imaginable, and the administration has transferred them to Guantanamo to await military tribunals. The political impact is noteworthy:

By challenging Congress to immediately give the administration authority to try notorious al-Qaeda figures such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed by military commissions, he shifted the argument with Democratic critics of national security policies and competence. As Bush framed the choice, anyone against his proposal would be denying him necessary tools to protect American security.

His success in catching much of Washington by surprise showed that a president who polls show has his political back to the wall still has formidable tools: the ability to make well-timed course corrections on policy, dominate the news and shape the capital's agenda in the weeks before Election Day.

Bush's moves were partly a concession to those who have complained about secret CIA prisons abroad. Even as he acknowledged the existence of the prison program for the first time, Bush could argue that there are no terrorism suspects now in the CIA program.

Tell Joe and Suzy America. Tell them the most despicable characters from the terrorist networks, the guys that the experts think have the next 9/11 planned - they've been forced to spend a few evenings with men who make the Minnesota defensive line look like the Ice Capades. Tell them the boys from Langley have finished their little conversation, and it's time to await punishment and the average American will say "Thank you. Now what's the problem?"

Tell the average congressional Democrat up for re-election to explain how they feel about this very issue and they'll swap the conversation back around to Iraq faster than you can say "Nancy Pelosi".

The Post article goes on to observe that by focusing so narrowly on the public's dissatisfaction with Iraq the Democrats run the risk of missing the larger political picture, one which includes the war on terror. Their official position papers on how to preserve homeland security and hunt down terrorists are hardly any different than the Republican versions of same. It's rare that the Democrats ever utter a word on this topic - since it would take time away from overreaching on Iraq - but when they do the Republicans generally smirk and respond by observing that it sounds damn familiar, don't you think?

There may be plenty of room in American electoral politics for a party to articulate a more persuasive and coherent alternative approach to defending our country. But there's no immediate danger of this happening when the Democrats are so blinded by disgust and fixated on the Vietnam critique that they can barely discern the bigger picture much less offer anything better. And Bush is hardly an electoral supergenuis, but he's outwitted their hapless efforts in the past, and he has a reputation for making some cool, calculated moves late in the game. (Cue the long shadow of Karl Rove with organ music ...)

Nixguy has more.

Tags: War on Terror, George Bush, Guantanamo Bay, Election