Comments (13)

Joe Bonham wrote on October 17, 2007 4:15 PM:

Ignorance about waterboarding? Either this guy is flat out lying or he is so out of touch with torture procedures used by his fellow countrymen that he isn't qualified to be AG.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 17, 2007 4:44 PM:

Again, Mukasey is an old-style Republican AND he appears to be saying most of the right things BUT (having interacted with the Bush43 Administration at all) can we trust him?

Given that a significant body of evidence exists pointing towards crimes having been committed by members of the Executive Branch, I think we have a right to know.

Katherine wrote on October 17, 2007 4:49 PM:

Your coverage of the hearings today is credulous & below your usual standard. General denunciations of torture, a complete refusal to discuss techniques--we've seen this movie before. Praising Goldsmith's book is nice, but it's not much to go on. I can easily believe that Mukasey will do better than Gonzales, but his statements at hearing today are much, much less than meets the eye.

Carolyn wrote on October 17, 2007 5:10 PM:

I would prefer not confirming a lawyer so out of it he doesn't know what waterboarding is. I wish they'd paused and asked him to describe what he THOUGHT it might entail.

nellieh wrote on October 17, 2007 5:25 PM:

The Senate Judiciary Committee is beconing as laughable as Gonzales previous testimony. Are they dense? Finestein already had him confirmed before she asked the first question. Republicans keep crapping on them and they think it is caramel sauce.

judyinnm wrote on October 17, 2007 6:14 PM:

Do we want an AG who doesn't read the papers? What does it matter what Bush's nominees SAY during confirmation hearings - We all know what they're going to do once in office; whatever they damn well please (or whatever pleases Georgejr & dick). (See: Alberto Gonzales, John Roberts, etc.,promises versus actions. For that matter see the entire Federal government elected officials promises to uphold and defend the Constitution....)

MikeJ wrote on October 17, 2007 6:42 PM:

Coercion-gotten? I'm no grammar nazi, but it would be nice if this post were in English.

Honest John wrote on October 17, 2007 8:34 PM:

Sure, but not one Senator asked the obvious question: "What is 'torture/coercion'"?

Honest John wrote on October 17, 2007 8:37 PM:

Uh-huh. But throughout the entire hearing not one Senator asked the obvious question: "Judge Mukasey, what is 'torture/coercion'"?

Honest John wrote on October 17, 2007 8:37 PM:

Uh-huh. But throughout the entire hearing not one Senator asked the obvious question: "Judge Mukasey, what is 'torture/coercion'"?

Howard Johnson wrote on October 17, 2007 10:48 PM:

Why did Lindsey Graham, favorite of the administration feel it necessary to defend the treatment of KSM at this moment? KSM the supposed mastermind of 911 has been completely hidden from public since his capture. Graham is one of very few to have seen him. Graham should have to testify in public, under oath, as to what he said, and how it was obtained. We need some truth about 911.

Tamar wrote on October 17, 2007 11:22 PM:

I'm amazed that you give him such positive coverage. He professed to be against torture but wouldn't get specific about what torture includes, said he couldn't comment on either the memos in the Justice Department allowing "harsh" interrogation techniques or on the warrentless surveillance program because he says he hasn't read the memos or been briefed on the program.
Seems to me he's slithering out of answering the hard questions, but because he is more articulate and intelligent than Gonzalez, he'll get away with it.

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 12:04 AM:

Yep, he's saying all the right things, but does that mean he can be trusted to do the right things?
Who knows what spoken or unspoken understandings he has with those who appointed him?