Billy,

I don't get your reference: Is this something Iglesias said or something that Mukasey said? Or is this an interpretation of something either of them said?

I think that Iglesias's optimism might be because Mukasey has that background as a federal prosecutor. Note that Iglesias uses the word "appears"; he sees the possibility that Mukasey "gets it."

The contrasts between Gonzales and Mukasey are already striking, in that rather than finding words NOT to answer the committee's questions, Mukasey has worked to find the words to answer the questions without betraying Bush's trust. If Mukasey does indeed get it, then it's essential that he at least demonstrate that balance, so that he can have the chance to get the job.

If this is part of what he interprets, I don't see how this compromises Iglesias's credibility. Please elaborate.

Anonymous

Senator Whitehouse's shrewd line of questioning exposed Mukasey for what he is: a Gonzales clone, only with a bit more polish. If Whitehouse was able to force this smooth talker into announcing before a world-wide audience that torture can be rationalized as legal, we can expect the same Gonzales-like maneuverings in Justice outside the view of Congress and the public.

Whitehouse exposed Mukasey as a fraud. Iglesias, in rushing to prove his Republican credentials, is not willing to acknowledge that.

linda

I would tend not to issue a blanket indictment against all the fired prosecutors. It must be remembered that all were dismissed because of dissatisfaction with their unwillingness to toe the party line. Credit indeed must be given to David Iglesias, because his initial outcry is what spearheaded the subsequent series of investigations, culminating in the resignation of numerous miscreants. Unfortunately the fired proscutors, for whom the Democrats in Congress came to their defense, are still card-carrying Republicans. I agree with you that they maintain their principles only up to a point.

I've lost track of how many senior positions are unfilled at Justice, but wouldn't it be reasonable to at least request that Mukasey appoint Iglesias to one of those posts?

Actually, all of those fired USAs represent a pretty solid talent pool, if the GOP wants to turn toward the light. Otherwise, the only mistake they made -- in their minds, of course, not mine -- was to get caught.

Given the past seven years, and as a Bush nominee/appointee, let's not be surprised if Mukasey is a disappointment...nobody, but nobody(unless it's some little guy down at the bottom of the chain of command) will be prosecuted for war crimes, or trying to circumvent the Constitution.

And if Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales and Rumsfeld aren't war criminals, then none have ever existed and the term is only a catch phrase for misdemeanors.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

It's absolutely unbelievable to me that people STILL think Bush is going to appoint ANYONE who isn't willing to toe the GOP line and continue shredding the Constitution in favor of some Banana Republic style government. It's just not going to happen and, quite frankly, I'm sick of everyone acting optimistic at nearly every change in personnel.

I mean, how many times does this have to happen before people catch on? Is the entire country suffering from battered wife syndrome?

Wake up!!!

If Mukasey had any integrity he would condemn water-boarding as torture under the Geneva Conventions and is a violation of U.S. law.

Then the administration would yank the nomination.

Then we would know for sure that the Administration has authorized torture.

But Mukasey did not condemn it.

Please explain why we would accept the word of someone that didn't report criminal activity by a senator and congressperson attempting to affect and or/obstruct justice?
this, a bush appointee, and you think his judgement about another one is somehow acceptable?

I do believe that memories are far more fleeting for some than others. Those incapable of remembering are thus often repeating themselves.

Mr. Iglesias embarrasses himself again pretending to be legitimate. Others mess themselves printing something he says that sounds good. John Dean is clearly sorry for what he did. But he did it, he broke the numerous laws he swore to uphold. Now he does his best to bring that in hiding to be examined in the light.

This nominee has all ready stated he is in favor of war crimes as defined and agreed to by the civilized nations, and he is not in favor of following the constitution of the United States where it involves the legal rights of it's citizens, or those of other countries.

And you can explain why anyone would even consider this kind of human drivel for nomination to the AG? Is this really all we have?

...Alberto Gonzales with a brain...

I was kinda open minded about it before the hearings but now, yeah, I don't think Cheney make a mistake nominating him, he's on Team Bush. He's a lot smoother than AG but he's left plenty of wiggle room around all of the important issues. I can't see him issuing an orange jumpsuit to anyone in the administration.

I'm afraid Billy Pilgrim is correct. Yesterday the gloves came off and the poker hand with the ace up the sleeve was revealed.

The Republic is not in danger. It's doomed.

The fact Mukasey would not give a direct answer as to the legality of the use of "Waterboarding" in interrogations presents a definite result that he will be a "BUSH" supporter and not a defender of law and the Constitution. DO NOT CONFIRM!

Judge Mukasey gave a straight and honest answer as to whether "waterboarding" is torture. He doesn't know what's involved in the technique. If it constitutes torture, then it is unconstititonal. The man is a lawyer and former judge, not an expert on what constitutes torture. A good lawyer will tell you when he doesn't know enought to give an opinion. A bad lawyer will give you an opinion without having thought about the issue.

As attorney general, his legal opinions will carry a huge amount of weight. It would be utterly irresponsible for him to speculate on the legality of interrogation techniques until he has fully considered the views of experts and he has studied applicable precedent.

Mukasey answered the question of torture being unconstitutional the first day of the hearing. The reason he answered Sen. Whitehouse's statement of semantics with "sorry", is because it IS semantic.

If waterboarding is a specific form of torture that needs clarification in the law, then present it as a "defining part of torture" in the law. As of now, Mukasey can only render formal opinion that "torture is unconstitional".

And if you think Mukasey is bad. Take a look at who's been put in charge as the interim AG just a few days ago. Peter D. Keisler. It'll make your feets sweat.

Bush could do very very well if Mukasey doesn't get confirmed.

With Keisler and Bradbury as a team? Unstoppable!