War - Day 3

The battle of Election 2006 took some remarkable turns today. Bush White House moves seem to be hitting a Wall of No, with Dems generally united and some unusual allies, including principled military lawyers, nervous Republicans and their new best friend, the blogosphere.

First Bush's version of military tribunals, which considering his entire record of public service one can only assume would revolve around the most rigged possible outcome, preferably with crony judges and politically timed verdicts, is going down in flames. As in, shot down by our own military, which you can only imagine they've been waiting for a long time to do. Per The New York Times:

But the military lawyers argued back. And the Senate Republicans said there were still several areas of contention between them and the administration, chiefly, a proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence shown to the jury.

Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States "should not be the first."

The U.S. military has a standard procedure for showing the defense an unclassified version of the evidence. Presumably this means one where all the U.S. secrets that need to be preserved are pared away, leaving the actual stuff that can convict a defendant. So far enough GOP Senators, like those who are reading the current polls and might ever run for office again, are with our fine military legal experts:

"It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them," said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. " 'Trust us, you're guilty, we're going to execute you, but we can'’t tell you why'?"

Now hold on a sec, mister, why wouldn't anyone trust the Bush Administration?

It turns out that El Presidente's attempt to reinstall blustering wingnut John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, after circumventing a contentious Congressional vote earlier this year, is (per Steven Clemons) in big danger, due to the anticipated strength of a Democratic filibuster should Bolton's nomination reach the Senate floor and sudden prophylactictic blockage in committee by embattled GOP Moderate Lincoln Chafee (R-RI):

Today Chafee told Senator Lugar that he would not support John Bolton as things stood. He would vote no if pushed. This has been glossed over now by Senator Chafee's staff and others as being a prolonged period of purgatory for Bolton because Chafee has "unanswered questions".

But the vote was delayed -- and it is now certain to be delayed beyond the September 12th primaries in Rhode Island. After Senator Chafee wins, which TWN hopes he does, the Senator's hand is even freer to vote his views and conscience on Bolton.

And finally, the storm over ABC's two-night The Path to 9/11, which if not conspired in some way by Karl Rove could easily be his wetdream, is getting a pre-broadcast shellacking, helped in large part by an activist netroots preventative war.

You know you're in trouble when even your publicity-shy lead actor goes on Showbiz Tonight to say the movie lies.