So now we get a torture Attorney General. There seems to be no amount of Bush's crap that people like Feinstein and her ilk are unwilling to swallow.

More bread you got, less shit you gotta eat...

REgards

Pace

on this one. To his credit, he seems to have taken an active role in seeking out, recommending, and advocating for Mukasey. And let's be honest - one can only IMAGINE what sort of cartoon character the Georgieans would've come up with on their own!

Let's also be honest about the fact that in the grand scheme, Mukasey's "opinion" on waterboarding is more symbolic than practical. And too...in keeping with my "let's be honest" theme, it's expecting a little much of Mukasey, for him to "pre-rule" that the guy who nominated him, has violated the law.

But hey...."symbolism" is what it's all about. And, if Congress can advantage themselves of this bit of symbolism to reject a nominee of George's - one who DESERVES to be rejected on the basis of a whole host of larger issues, I'm all for it! BUT....as Shumer recommended Mukasey in the first place, he's really not in a position now, to retract his recommendation based simply on Mukasey's waterboard answer.

Under the Bush/Cheney regime, the United States has become a country that kidnaps, imprisons without prospect of an open trial, and tortures people that the State Security Apparatus considers a threat. Anyone who claims to find that repugnant but in practical terms abets such a regime is a moral coward and is complicit in crimes against humanity. Germany in the 1930s was filled with such people, and it also describes a significant portion of the present-day Democratic Party "leadership."

Again, whilst you rant is well taken, it remains a little unreasonable to expect that George's nominee would concede in his nomination hearing, that George has broken the law.

I don't expect any Bush nominee to do anything but support the secret torture regime under which we now live. It would nice if there were some point beyond which the Democrats would refuse to follow Bush into moral infamy.

So, Shumer rejects the guy he suggested - then, what next? For what it's worth of course, Feinstein's vote is irellevant. But then, back to my question.....Say Shumer rejects Mukasey - what do you presume would follow? Like ahhhhh...George would nominate some other guy, who WOULD pronounce waterboarding illegal?

Me, fairlane, I am impressed by your "lets be honest"

fairlane, in my viiew, is seldom honest.

Whatever, fairlane, you leave me speachless. Eh.

Actually, Feinstein's vote is not irrelevant--the Dems on the committee have the power to keep the nomination from reaching the full Senate, unless one of them votes for him--that vote would be Feinstein's.
Of course George would never nominate someone who would say that waterboarding, which the world has agreed for 300 years is torture, is torture. And the Democrats, if they had a shred of moral courage, would keep turning the nominees down. But of course most of them haven't a shred of moral courage, which again is precisely the miserable point.