Coming With Both Barrels

Today's analysis of the Hamdan decision and its implications in the LA Times and elsewhere make it pretty clear that Cowboy George isn't going to let 5 dudes in black robes tell him what to do. And clearly, he's going to seek approval from the Congress to get everything he already has confirmed and made law:

Meeting the high court's objections required little more than having Congress put its stamp of approval on a system of military tribunals, the White House suggested. And some congressional Republicans quickly agreed.

"The Supreme Court did not require these people to be let go. They simply said, If you want to try them, Mr. President, you need to get Congress involved.' I agree," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former military lawyer, told CNN.

"Once we do that," he added, "I think this problem will be behind us."

He predicted hearings beginning as early as July, with a vote on a plan in September.

And the White House is likely to ask for the same kind of tribunals that violate the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Why they would be legal only if Congress agrees to them is unclear. But the Court's opinions at least offered that as a possible remedy.

There's no doubt in my mind that this will become a campaign issue. The LA Times agrees, but watch them completely contradict themselves in the space of a couple paragraphs:

The White House response was essentially to move the issue into the political arena by announcing it would seek congressional approval for its approach to prosecuting foreign terrorism suspects.

Thus far, the GOP-dominated House and Senate have given Bush almost everything he has asked for when it comes to fighting the U.S.-declared war on terrorism.

Republican strategists are likely to see huge advantages in moving such an issue into the realm of political debate before November's congressional elections. In that sense, Thursday's decision could be a political plus for the GOP.

White House political strategist Karl Rove has said repeatedly that the party's fall campaign will hammer the message that Democrats operate with a "pre-9/11" worldview, and Republicans will attempt to paint Democrats critical of military tribunals as being soft on terrorism.

Still, whatever the immediate political implications, moving concrete legislation through Congress will add a major item to the White House agenda, and some Republicans, especially in the Senate, have grown increasingly wary of the administration's efforts to enhance executive power.

In other words, somebody in Rove's office spun us that this will be a great political victory, even if the White House doesn't have the votes in their own caucus to do it.

The Dems had better get prepared for this one. It's clear that Bush will seek the exact same standard for military commissions through Congress that he's already had. And if anyone objects, they're going to be smeared as obstructionist, as America-haters, as terrorist-coddlers, everything. The President's minions in the House and Senate are going to throw the book at our guys.

All the Democrats have to do is defend the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The wingnuts will smear and smear, but as long as they don't give an inch, and set it up as a choice between monarchical rule and checks and balances, I still have faith that they win on that score.

Digby agrees but isn't sure the Dems will have the stomach for it:

I think this could be used to the Democrats' advantage if they were willing to risk changing the terms of the debate for this midterm election and aggressively confront Karl Rove's "you talkin' to me?" trash talk campaign. The Supremes have provided a basis from which to assert congressional perogatives and a hook on which to hang the discussion. Perhaps they will. I hope so, because I am getting a terrible feeling that a lot of rank and file Democrats are going to take a pass on voting this time; no matter how much they dislike Bush and disapprove of his policies, it's very hard to see at this point what difference it will make if the congress changes hands.

Unless the Dems start making the case that Democrats will confront the president if they take power, it's hard to see why turnout will be high enough to offset the Karl Rove red-meat-travelling-salvation-show. He has made a fetish out of exciting his base for the past two elections and at this point it's all he's got. Unfortunately, the Democratic response, just as it has been since the early 90's, is to run from its base and play to swing voters. This hasn't been working out very well for them and it seems remarkably counterintuitive this time out.

I'm not as pessimistic this time. I think the Democrats might have figured this one out. But it will be interesting to see.