Quote of the day: President Bush announces that the best way he can fight terrorism is by resigning to prepare for the first of his war-crimes trials

"If Guantanamo Bay has any purpose, it is for men like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, considered key players in 9/11. . . . [But] if the White House had not wanted to place terror suspects beyond the reach of the law, all 14 of these men could have been tried by now, and America's reputation would have been spared some grievous damage."
--from the lead editorial, "A Sudden Sense of Urgency," in today's New York Times

Okay, first thing, about that head above--you know, about the president announcing he's resigning: Just kidding! That isn't actually what he said.

As for what the president actually did say: All those who think that the lying thugs of the Bush administration won't get away with their latest, fairly breathtaking scam, raise your hands.

Oh, poor, innocent babes!

The scope of the effrontery, cynicism and dishonesty on display is mind-blowing, even by the standards of this bunch. These are people, after all, who consider telling the truth about anything, ever, a crime punishable by . . . well, we don't know what. The situation has never really come up.

Oh wait, there was the time poor Larry Lindsey tried to put some kind of dollar figure on the potential cost of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. He got fired. But administration sources claimed it was because he's fat, and we've always suspected that that's how the subject was crammed into the tiny bit of brain that Chimpy the Prez makes available for presidential business: Hey, the guy's a tub, and he won't even jog with you.

(In general, Bush admiministration officials who have strayed anywhere near the radioactive zone of "truth" have been unceremoniously returned to private life. Talk to, say, former Treasury Secretary O'Neill or former EPA Administrator Whitman. That's the "honor code" of the Bush Crime Family: Perpetrate the rankest ineptitude, preferably over the longest period of time, and you're all but guaranteed promotions and possibly medals; come anywhere close to telling the truth, and you're shit-canned.)

You'd think that the president's people would be concerned that acknowledging the existence of the secret CIA prisons from which the New Guantanamo 14 are being transferred might just add to the list of war-crimes charges "the boss" will face when his time comes. However, tactically speaking, it's likely that all that will matter is that by moving these 14 suspects to Guantanamo, the managers of our war on terror have increased the population of potentially serious terrorists there to, uh, about 14--which they hope will change all the legal math on how Congress and the country view the one war we know the administration is dead serious about: the war-to-the-death against U.S. and international law.

The NYT editorial writer wasn't fooled:

Two months before a Congressional election in which voters are expressing serious doubts about the Republicans' handling of national security, President Bush finally has some real terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Bush admitted yesterday that the Central Intelligence Agency has been secretly holding prisoners and said he was transferring 14 to Guantanamo Bay, including some believed to have been behind the 9/11 attacks. He said he was informing the Red Cross about the prisoners, placing them under the Geneva Conventions, and asking that Congress--right now--create military tribunals to try them.

Those are just the right steps. If Guantanamo Bay has any purpose, it is for men like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, considered key players in 9/11. They should go on trial. If convicted, they should be locked up for life.

But Mr. Bush's urgency was phony, driven by the Supreme Court's ruling, not principle. This should all have happened long ago. If the White House had not wanted to place terror suspects beyond the reach of the law, all 14 of these men could have been tried by now, and America's reputation would have been spared some grievous damage. And there would be no need for Congress to rush through legislation if the White House had not stymied all of its attempts to do just that before.

The nation needs laws governing Guantanamo Bay, not just for the 14 new prisoners, but also for many others who have been there for years without due process, and who may have done no wrong. . . .

[Note: The full text of the editorial is appended in a comment. (No, really! I already did it!)]