From the Carpetbagger Report:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8410.html'We don't work for the president'
Posted 12:32 pm | Printer Friendly |
Digg this • Add to del.icio.us • Email this
It's after Labor Day, the fifth anniversary of 9/11 is around the corner, and the Bush White House is in the midst of its third "major public relations offensive" on Iraq and the president's vision of a war on terror. Given the speeches, legislative proposals, and debates, this was supposed to be a successful week for Bush and his team — except it's not working out that way.
The president's military tribunal plan, for example, is going nowhere fast, thanks to some steadfast Republican opposition.
President Bush's campaign to sharply limit the courtroom rights of suspected terrorists ran into opposition yesterday from key Republican senators and even top uniformed military lawyers, who said it would violate basic principles of justice.
The military lawyers told a House panel that they particularly object to Bush's bid to allow terrorism suspects to be convicted on secret evidence that is withheld from the defendants, an objection embraced by at least three prominent members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said in an interview that he takes very seriously the testimony of the uniformed lawyers. He also said Bush was "unwise" to come close to threatening Congress in his Wednesday speech. "We don't work for the president," Hagel said.
Well, at least the White House can count on progress on the president's plan on warrantless-searches, right? Wrong.
President Bush's support proved insufficient to push a bill authorizing his warrantless wiretapping program through the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.
Sen. Arlen Specter, the committee's chairman, said the bill stalled because of election-year obstructionism.
"We have seen the incipient stage of filibuster by amendment," the Pennsylvania Republican testily declared as he called off a vote to move his bill to the Senate floor. "Filibuster by speech, filibuster by amendment. Obstructionism."Specter has a point. To hear Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee tell it, lawmakers should discuss, question, and consider changes to a controversial power-grab by the White House, as if they were senators or something.
And while we're at it, Bush's proposed interrogation rules for detainees aren't exactly going over well, either.
Karl Rove probably drew up the plans for the week differently. Indeed, after Wednesday's White House speech on military commissions, pundits were praising the president's cunning political skills.
Instead, what we're left with is a president whose agenda in Congress is going nowhere and whose party no longer expects their president to lead. It ain't pretty.