Saturday, July 8, the New York Times ran an interesting item -

In his most detailed comments to date on the Supreme Court's rejection of his decision to put detainees on trial before military commissions, President Bush said Friday that the court had tacitly approved his use of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"It didn't say we couldn't have done - couldn't have made that decision, see?" Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. "They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo - whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made."

Mr. Bush's remarks put a favorable spin on a ruling that has been widely interpreted as a rebuke of the administration's policies in the war on terror. The court, ruled broadly last week in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that military commissions were unauthorized by statute and violated international law.

The question of whether Mr. Bush had properly used Guantánamo Bay to house detainees was not at issue in the case. At issue was whether the president could unilaterally establish military commissions with rights different from those allowed at a court-martial to try detainees for war crimes.

There's more, but that's essentially it. The Supreme Court was ruling on something else entirely, but, you see, they were silent on whether the Guantánamo prison itself was illegal, and since they were silent, they obviously approved of it. Silence, even when the topic is something else entirely, is really approval. It's all how you look at it. So it's obvious that they think what "the decider" decided is fine, because, after all, he's the decider.

Is Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the Times mocking him, or just reporting?

There's been some interesting comment on this, like this from Digby at Hullabaloo -

Do you remember the term "Clinton fatigue?" You know, back when everybody was really, really tired of peace and prosperity and talking about oral sex? (You can understand why everyone wanted our long national nightmare to be over.)

It occurs to me that some conservatives, at least the educated ones, must be feeling some serious "Bush fatigue" about now. When they hear ignorant, puerile drivel like this come out of his mouth, some of them (a couple of them?) must look at the calendar and count the days until their personal nightmare is over.

I'm the decider, see. They accepted my decision, see.

Whenever he sounds this moronic I'm reminded that it's probably how it was explained to him. That "see" is the tip-off. He can't actually understand the decision and then go out and expect that people won't think he's a complete idiot for saying what he just said. He doesn't get it. Nobody can spin that badly, not even him.

As TBOGG put it, this is Bush's version of: "That chick at the bar? She's totally digging on me."

It does seem a bit absurd. Be he's the man we chose to lead us.

Then there's this from Jack Grant at The Moderate Voice -

In what twisted universe is it that the President of the United States has to be TOLD by the courts that an extra-legal prison that uses "stress positions" and other "coercive" means of interrogation is not only ill-advised in a war that depends more on image than on casualties but also completely contrary to the most fundamental of American values including the rule of law?

I wish I could say this type of "thinking" along with the willingness of many people to actually support it is incomprehensible to me, but it is not. It merely shows how some are willing to twist responsibility into a rationalization of "they didn't tell me not to" while others are willing to believe whatever their leader tells them. America is not the first nation to support this idiocy, but I had hoped we would be immune.

We're not.

Well, somewhere in the civil courts of Los Angeles Country someone ruled on a workplace injury case in Long Beach, and since they didn't say renters in the Hollywood part of Los Angeles could not keep pet goats, that must mean we can. They were silent on the matter. They didn't say we couldn't.

The problem is, of course, the whole matter is a little complicated, as David Ignatius explains in the Washington Post here -

The post- Hamdan debate involves some long-standing divisions within the administration over anti-terrorism policy. On one side are Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her advisers, who believe that Guantanamo has become a dangerous rallying point for anti-Americanism. On the other are conservative administration lawyers, led by Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, who worry that any attempt to involve Congress or international lawyers in writing new rules would produce an unworkable legal mess that would endanger U.S. security. In the middle, seeking to resolve the issue over the next several weeks, are Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, and Joshua Bolten, the new White House chief of staff.
Bush's comments about closing Guantanamo suggest that he wants to turn a page. But as sometimes happens with this administration, the debate isn't over until it's over - and even then it isn't over. That was the case with the McCain amendment banning harsh interrogation. The president signed the law and then appended a signing statement saying that his executive power wasn't bound by such limits, then made a public statement indicating that despite the signing statement, he would follow the law. Confused? So is the CIA, which is said to have stopped interrogating terrorist suspects altogether until the rules are clarified.

You can see why the president wants to simplify things. The Supreme Court didn't say shut the place down, so it must be fine. Now maybe his own subordinates will stop arguing amongst themselves. You just need to follow the logic. The court said nothing, so they must approve. No ten-year-old gets away with such things with his or her parents - but you never told me I couldn't set my sister's hair on fire - but the idea is that this will fly with the American public. And, oddly enough, it probably will. Everyone loves the clever kid who can find a way out of just about everything. And it is pretty clever, in a junior high way. He's a pip.

But at the same time, some others aren't to pleased, as in this news breaking the same day (emphases added) -

In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.

The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.

But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

… "I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed," Mr. Hoesktra wrote. "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."

He added: "The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution."

It seems the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee doesn't like this "clever kid who hides things" routine much at all. And too, what haven't we found out about even more secret intelligence programs? There's more?

Great.

But then, the man does keep us safe, as in this from Peter Alford in The Australian -

A top North Korean propagandist raised the threat of nuclear war yesterday as the fighting talk triggered by the isolated regime's missile launches got scarier than any disintegrating Taepodong-2.

Kim Myong-chol, a freelance propagandist for the Stalinist state, claimed North Korea would treat any country supporting UN sanctions against it - and that would definitely include Australia - as a nuclear missile target.

"Now the US is seeking sanctions for us doing nothing in violation of international law - this is outrageous," he said in Tokyo yesterday. "North Korea considers this an act of war and North Korea will launch a missile at any country that joins such a resolution."

Regarded as a trusted, though unofficial, international spokesman for Kim Jong-il's regime and with excellent Pyongyang access, Mr Kim also claimed every major US city was now targeted by nuclear-tipped warheads and could be destroyed within half an hour

.

Oh yeah, it just keeps getting better.

And there's this -

"I'm afraid America has no sense of humor," said Mr Kim, who heads the Centre for Korean-American Peace north of Tokyo.

"Kim Jong-il has offered celebrations to the US and happy birthday to George Bush."

The missile firings were timed to coincide with American July 4 celebrations and a pre-emptive party for the US President, whose 60th birthday was yesterday.

Ah, it was a compliment and a celebration! That clears it all up.

The kids are running things.