usa, a-okay!

so the bush administration has backed down on redefining article 3 of the geneva conventions. the original source of disagreement between the administration and the so-called republican "rebels" involved how to define the rules governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects and provide legal protection to c.i.a. officers who conduct said interrogations.

the deal that was reached seems to be pretty vague, maybe because they might still be working out the details. but for the most part it seems that the compromised agreement ensures that detainees are handled according to geneva convention standards for treatment of prisoners and not a more narrow interpretation that president george w. bush had sought.

the accord, however, states that bush has the authority to enforce the geneva standards and enumerates acts that constitute a war crime, including torture, rape, biological experiments and cruel and inhuman treatment.

so what does this mean in the end? it means that the bush administration made a bunch of noise. it made a lot of threats and posturing, and in the end, didn't fully shoot what was left of the credibility of the united states. already, the administration's propaghanda - er, i mean, spin - machine is in action, turning this into a full on victory. once more, by scaring everyone to death, bush appears like he's standing tall; the protector. the defender. when in reality, he's just a bully.

but was this all just a matter of a bait and switch? to distract everyone from what is still ongoing in iraq? keith olbermann takes a look at the suggestion that this whole business with the geneva convention serves as a useful distraction tool.

(source 1) (source 2)