A Defining Moment for Congress

"The character of the U.S. has changed. We're in danger of being completely ruled by fear."

Blogger Glenn Greenwald writes: "Anyone who, over the past five years, has placed hopes in the Congress -- and especially the Senate -- to stand up to the president, particularly with regard to policies ostensibly justified by terrorism, has encountered one bitter disappointment after the next. It is difficult to find any period in American history burdened by a more impotent and submissive Congress.

"For that reason, substantial skepticism has already arisen concerning the prospects for preventing enactment of the White House's Specter bill [on wiretapping]. Democrats (and GOP opponents of this bill) have real weapons to use in order to defeat it, if they are willing to shed their irrational, destructive fear of opposing this weak and unpopular president."

What the White House Wants You to Read

The White House, meanwhile, was calling reporters' attention this morning to this Wall Street Journal editorial , which attacks last year's McCain amendment on torture -- the one time Congress did show a backbone.

(And lest we forget, after signing the bill, Bush then asserted in a signing statement that he would "construe" it "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as commander in chief.")

The Wall Street Journal now looks back at that one example of congressional restraint of the executive branch and concludes that "it may well harm our ability to break the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. . . .

"The permissible methods for the spy agency remain classified, and on a visit to our offices last week Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would say only that the CIA would engage in no conduct that 'shocks the conscience.' He added that this concept was context-dependent, since the 'shock' threshold may be higher with the likes of KSM -- who planned Sept. 11 -- than for ordinary detainees. At least we hope it is. . . .

"There's a legitimate debate to be had over waterboarding and other tactics. [And here's the part the White House excerpted:] But part of our problem with the McCain Amendment was that Congressmen refused to engage in an honest debate lest they be accused of approving 'torture,' which no one sanctions but is a word used to slur anyone who wants aggressive interrogation.

"The result was legislation that may have made everyone feel better after Abu Ghraib, but that also probably undermines our ability to get vital information from the next KSM we capture. That ability will be further damaged if the administration's interrogation flexibility is again limited during current negotiations on Capitol Hill over the treatment of detainees. We hope the next '9/11' commission doesn't have to explain why the U.S. stopped employing interrogation methods that were both lawful and successful."

Briefing Follies

So does that mean the White House endorses the Journal's call for an "honest debate" on torture? Not a chance.

From yesterday's briefing with press secretary Tony Snow:

"Q Let me ask you about this debate the president said is so important with regard to interrogation techniques, because he wants now for Congress to clarify what's permissible. The president said he did not authorize torture.