How real is the dissension within the Republican party over detention and interrogation by the CIA?

Some people may be mistakenly presuming that the disagreement that surfaced last week over the detention and interrogation policies of the CIA between the Bush administration and some senior U.S. senators means as much as the media makes it sound like. Even if the Senate does pass its own provisions that are at odds with the administration and the House legislation, there is still this thing called the "conference committee", where differences "get worked out". The dissension we saw last week was in public. Unfortunately, "conference" is mostly in private and involves a lot of "horse trading." The bad news is that senators may water down their views and get "bought off" with all manner of compromises, even on matters unrelated to the matters at hand. The senators can play it both ways and posture in public but nod and wink in private.

Even if provisions are passed that are distinctly unpalatable to the administration, we could easily lapse into a situation where the law is promised publicly, but enforcement of provisions could by done with a lot of nodding and winking and otherwise turning a blind eye.

We can hope that the rebellious senators will stand their ground and prevail against the administration and the House, but I wouldn't bet on it, yet.

Last week we saw only one act of the play, or one cattle in the war. The rest of the play/war has yet to play out.

To answer my question: How real is the dissension within the Republican party over detention and interrogation by the CIA? My answer: The dissension is sincere, but more apparent than real, and subject to "moderation" (watering down) once the conference committee gets down to business.

-- Jack Krupansky