Covering the Frist-a-Buster: The Morning After

I have to say, the press coverage of yesterday's Senate stemwinder is paltry at best. The wire services and New York Times give it some play, as I discussed much earlier this morning, but I expected much more from the newspapers this morning. No editorial from the NYT; nothing, so far as I can tell, in the Washington Post except for a link to the Liz Sidoti AP article previously discussed. They do have an editorial up panning the gun-dealer "bailout" ... but it's from yesterday. USA Today seems bereft of coverage, but I confess I may be missing something since I find their website completely unnavigable, if that's a word.

The Los Angeles Times does run a story on the events this morning, headlined "GOP Pressure Over Detainee Policy Leads to Defense Bill Delay." James Gerstenzang leads with "Faced with pressure from fellow Republicans to impose restrictions on the Pentagon's treatment of detainees, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Tuesday that he would delay until September consideration of the $491-billion defense bill authorizing funding for military operations next year." The piece pretty much mirrors the earlier wire services reports, with a few minor tweaks.

Gerstenzang goes "big picture" though, albeit briefly: "Taken together, the interrogation and base-closing amendments suggest a growing independence among Senate Republicans as President Bush struggles with declining support for the war in Iraq as well as an investigation into the involvement of top White House aides in disclosing the identity of a CIA agent." I'm not sure I'd draw that conclusion quite yet, but I have to say I certainly hope it's true.

The Washington Times analyzes the maneuver in "Defense bill shelving seen as face-saving for Bush," by Stephen Dinan. Frist "pulled the plug" on funding our troops "rather than face a host of votes on base closings, veterans benefits and the administration's detainee policy that could have embarrassed President Bush." I'm so glad that's the top priority of the Senate. Not particularly surprisingly, the Times fails to note that Frist moved directly on to guns, saying simply that "Mr. Frist's office said he had to pull the bill from consideration in order to get other things done before the summer recess, which is scheduled to begin at the end of this week." Mmm, other things.

Thanks to the wonder that is Google News, we can take a look through the rest of the morning papers very easily, and I found that while most papers who ran anything on this went with either the straight wire-service reports or slightly edited versions of those, there were some exceptions and additions:

- Louisville Courier-Journal (KY) editorializes on the McCain/Graham amendments and the Bush Administration's attempt to scuttle them in "Standards of Decency." The entire editorial is worth reading, but here are some excerpts:

"Sen. John McCain should know a thing or two about mistreatment of prisoners held by military forces.

The Arizona Republican, after all, was a captive for five-and-a-half years in North Vietnam, where he was subjected to a year of torture, two years of solitary confinement and inadequate treatment for injuries he suffered when his plane was shot down.

You might think, therefore, that a Republican administration and Senate leadership would respond with deference to Sen. McCain's legislation to set rules for the treatment and interrogation of terrorism suspects in American custody. ...

However, the Bush administration has worked furiously to kill the measure. ...

Mr. Cheney and other presidential advisers said the bill would restrict the President's ability to fight terrorists and protect Americans.

That is utter nonsense. ...

Wars aren't a president's private reserve, to be waged however he sees fit.
The well-being and honor of the country are at stake, and it's well past time that Mr. Bush be held to an exacting and higher standard."

- Hampton Roads Daily Press (VA): In "Annual Defense Bill Stalled," David Lerman covers the defense side of the story, but like the Courier Journal, doesn't bring Frist's guns maneuver into the game.

- Boulder Daily Camera (CO): An editorial, "Torture is not an option" takes a great tack at the beginning:

"Sept. 20, 2001: Nine days after terrorists struck the United States, President Bush told a joint session of Congress that 'We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.'

July 26, 2005: The Bush administration lobbied vigorously against proposals to prohibit the use of torture against suspected terrorists in American custody. So strongly does the administration oppose these measures that President Bush's top advisers have threatened to recommend a veto of the entire defense authorization bill if it includes new restrictions on the treatment of detainees.

It is a long way down from Bush's eloquent affirmation of principle in 2001 to the unambiguous defense of torture as an option in 2005."

The piece goes on to discuss the specifics of the McCain/Graham amendments and other proposals from Democrats, and concludes "McCain and a few of his Republican colleagues deserve to succeed in this endeavor. They've watched with frustration as the White House failed to hold senior military officials accountable for shameful incidents of torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Translating that frustration into law would be one step toward restoring the honor and reputation of the United States."

- The Virginian-Pilot: Another editorial, "Protecting America's deepest interests." "The senators are right to see a larger role for Congress in this sensitive business, and they should not be deterred by stiff-arm tactics or by veto threats conveyed by Vice President Dick Cheney," says the Pilot, which outlines well the amendments that have been offered, calling them "reasonable steps, consistent with public expectations. The Democratic alternative is yet another commission to review administration policies on interrogation and detainee abuse. Americans do not need more study to know that some of those policies don’t pass muster. Given the administration’s sorry record, Congress has a duty to insist that the government live up to principles our troops are striving so hard to defend."

If you find other links to coverage on this, feel free to include them in comments or email them to me. I'll do another roundup later on in the day if warranted. I have to say, so far I'm pretty underwhelmed by how this is playing in the papers. It seems like the kind of story the press would leap at, but I guess there might be one too many angles or something - just enough to make covering it the least bit tricky.