Juliette, you wrote: "If you look at the newspaper, the critics are either the Republican Senators, good investigative journalists, or the military/state department/academic lawyers. And that criticism seems to really be undermining both the theory of Bush's proposal, as well as other aspects of the bill that now seem to allow torture.

That is good, from the Democratic perspective. First, because, why should we engage in a debate that is clearly timed for the election."

Because the silence is deafening. And because voters aren't going to be deciding whether they are going to vote for journalists, or military or State dept. or academic lawyers in November.

How will the voters even know the Democrats even have a sensible and affirmative stance on these issues if Democrats are silent or barely visible?

I agree it is extremely helpful to have these other groups speaking out, particularly Republican senators and the military's own lawyers. Democrats in these closing weeks need to make frequent reference to these other groups and individuals who are opposing the Administration's stance to build the case against the Administration as clearly extending beyond partisan politics.

In any case it is the Administration, and not its critics, which is playing games with this issue for partisan political reasons (why the announcement now, just as the political campaign season begins in earnest, and with Republicans getting clocked in the polls?), just as it has consistently done with all things 9/11 since the 2002 elections.

Why Should the Dems Talk?

Oh, I don't know ... To defend the honor of the nation and the integrity of our values against the subversive crypto-totalitarian gang that has seized control of our government?

For a few centuries now, millions of Americans have fought and died to defend the values enshrined in our Bill of Rights, including the rights of the accused to confront their accusers, and see the evidence presented against them.

And now, even while their comrades are dying abroad, all four branches of the armed forces have sent their top lawyers to Congress to speak out on behalf of the American way, and to defend the legal values of all civilized peoples.

That's called courage. Those soldiers have it. Bush doesn't. And he's betting Americans don't either. He thinks Americans are worms like him - a crawling, small-minded and fainthearted people who share the fear and barbarism and weakness and stupidity that characterize his own pathetic little mental world. And he's betting that his opponents, out of an obsessive, craven fear of appearing weak, will choose to be weak.

After all we have seen from these villains for the past five years, with our honor besmirched by our deeply un-American leaders and our once vaunted reputation for justice and fair play dragged through the mud, can't Democrats at long last show they have just a little bit of the right stuff, and - with the five year anniversary of 9/11 upon us - finally stand up for what's right?

Look what's happened to us. Our country is dying! And we're talking about standing by and looking on from a safe distance, and hoping somebody else does the work of reviving it.

I'm from New Hampshire, where most of our license plates sport the motto "Live Free or Die". Most of the time, we don't give it much thought. But there are times like these when I'm really glad it's there.

I'm so tired fear and doubt, and of not having a country worth believing in. I want the old America back.

This is the tough line the Dems have to walk. Bush is clearly trying to bait the Dems, to make the debate about whether or not we should fight terrorists. So I agree that Dems shouldn't "talk," if all they're going to do is end up explaining why we have to be fair to terrorists.

As others already pointed out, though, not engaging this fight is why we keep on losing.

So the Dems simply have to talk, but they have to do it the right way. Keep the focus on the White House's incompetence. Their failure to get the job done. Their insistence on breaking the law.

This is no time to back off from a fight. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I feel that this post is so dangerously wrongheaded and foolish as to leave me all but speechless.

The strategy chosen mimics the Democrats strategy on Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, on Trent Lott's racist outburst, and on the Dubai ports matters.
It never did the Democrats one bit of good, and did a lot to make them look impotent and ineffectual.

Why should anyone vote for politicians who are going to be giving passes and sitting out the issues of the day? Seriously.

More to the point, doesn't this position simply hand the game over to the Republicans?

Look, people, think things through! Is Bush running for re-election in November? No he is not. It is a midterm election, that he can sit out. Which is a good thing, because he is incredibly unpopular, and any Republican who gets too close to him is dragged down. This means that Republicans are establishing their bona fides and winning votes by running against Bush....

So what does Bush do? Can anyone tell me? Anyone? How about you, there in the back...

Bush opens up a fake issue, a target, that Republicans can run against and press hot buttons. That gets them instead credibility, instant rep as independent mavericks, instant votes.

Bush risks absolutely nothing. His announcement of his secret prisons, his determination to put a few on trial... costs nothing.

So sure, let the Democrat sit it out. Let the Republicans run circles around them. Let the Republicans establish themselves as the 'stand tough' opposition to the President. They sweep back into power. Suddenly they rediscover party loyalty... and everything is as it was.

Like I said, this is just an appalling appalling suggestion.

Views on this issue are highly mixed at this forum. My take is that, while putting Democrats in power may be necessary to America getting back on track, it is by no means likely to be sufficient. Having Democratic majorities in Congress with Bush still in the White House *could*, and hopefully will, lead to blocking the Bush agenda and some real oversight.

But beyond that, our country desperately needs a forward agenda on a wide range of issues. It is by no means clear that Democrats, even if we win back majorities in Congress this fall and go on to win the White House in 2008, are prepared to move forward with such an agenda and will be able to do so given the relative ease of blocking initiatives with filibusters in the Senate and the reality that Republicans will, no matter what else happens, control significant portions of the mainstream media. The last time Democrats controlled the White House and Congress at the same time was 1993-1994, and it was not a pretty picture.

But having said that, by far the most doable scenario is for Democrats to work to get the Congress back, to win the White House in '08, and apply intense and unrelenting pressure on our leaders to address the most pressing issues the country needs to face if and when that happens. Obviously it makes a huge difference which individual occupies the WH.

So, is it necessary for Democrats to regain power in order to begin to clean up the messes that have been made and move a positive agenda? I would say yes. Is it sufficient by itself? No. My two cents' anyway.