Comments (15)

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 6:42 PM:

Why not write another strongly-worded letter, Leaky Leahy? There are enough Democratic Senators who will vote to confirm Mukasey that it really doesn't matter if a couple running for President won't.

M M wrote on October 30, 2007 7:08 PM:

For once, I agree with Jake D. that Leahy is acting like a wuss. The tide, however, is turning against Mukasey/Cheney/Addington when even McCain and Graham challenge him on this. If it is framed that he is carrying water (no pun intended) for Cheney and Addington he will not get nominated. They are an anchor around his neck (maybe that's another technique Jake D. would espouse).

Me_again wrote on October 30, 2007 7:08 PM:

Senator Leahy is concerned?

OF WHAT, that he might have to get off his fat, lazy ass and do something?

I bet he hates TMP and Slate magazine, because Sen. Leahy is the most worthless, lazyiest Dem Senator in Washington. Dick Cheney gave Leahy the finger because he knew Sen. Leahy was the go to guy if just felt like kicking the senate dog. Leahy wouldn't do anything, except to sit there and look stupid. I've seen Orin Hatch trash Leahy on C-span but Leahy always just sit there as if he deserves it.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:12 PM:

M M:

There are at least 64 votes for Mukasey's confirmation -- Chuckie Schumer RECOMMENDED him to the President -- so, you really think that NO Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will allow him to proceed to the floor?

M M wrote on October 30, 2007 7:20 PM:

Maybe he has said something, but I haven't read Schumer's reaction from after the second day of testimony to today. I wonder if he knew that Mukasey would not call waterboarding illegal or say that Bush has the right to disregard laws passed by Congress.

Like I said I wouldn't bet anything based on Dems performance to date but I do think the calculus is changing on this and those that believe this is a key American value should turn up the heat on Dems (and Republicans like McCain and Graham should stand up and be accountable as well).

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 7:34 PM:

Time for the Congress - Senate to get off the fence, stop with the diplomatic-nonsense, and call it like it is: Do they plan to hold the witness accounable for alleged illegal activity; based on the answers provided, does it appear the witness knows of evidence that something was going on, but he as a judge did not fully do what should have been done?

Let's get some attention on something other than the non-sense waffle words, and get the Committee to speak in plain english: Is the witness, in the view of the Committee, allegedly complicit with failures to enforce the law, FISA, or Geneva Conventions?

This waffling is not impressive. Time for Leahy to be blunt. Diplomatic words send one signal: "Things haven't changed, we're going to roll over."

theswan wrote on October 30, 2007 7:42 PM:

So, we will finally know just where Leahy stands after his response. Is the Democratic leadership in the Senate different from that in the House? Or just another pelosi reid type bunch?

Ann in AZ wrote on October 30, 2007 8:03 PM:

Easy to see that many of these guys are as big a coward as Mukasey. "I remain very concerned" really doesn't say much, does it? Although, I wonder what Leahy has in mind, since he says he will consult with other members of the committee before he schedules anything more on this...does that mean no vote? The nomination does not get out of committee?

v. popvli wrote on October 30, 2007 9:18 PM:

maybe we libs need to find some tpm readers in vermont to light a fire under leahy. i mean, it might be fun to trash what we don't like, and i'm sure people like jake d. love seeing us devouring our own, but i think it'd be more constructive for us to exhort the right people to voice our complaints - his constituency in vermont. remember, that's a blue state through and through. does anyone know if vermont's local democratic parties are giving him hell? it'd be well worth the time to direct a few of the local parties to tpm, since their senator is such a frequent subject of conversation here.

Uncle_Meat wrote on October 30, 2007 9:45 PM:

(R) vs. (D)

At some point I think there used to be a difference. Now, they are two sides of the same coin. No matter how much bitching urge for change the populace foments nothing happens.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

They are all bought off. I say all, I would love to believe that there are a few that are genuinely trying to do some good, but the majority are infected with lobbyist money.

Vote them all out.

We need to start over.

Hit the reset button...

Jane wrote on October 30, 2007 10:38 PM:

The reset buttons are recruiting candidates and the primaries.

Once it is the GE pick the lesser of two evils if you haven't done your homework on the reset buttons.

sc wrote on October 31, 2007 3:04 AM:

It's pretty strange that this "cellophane + 10 seconds" idea is supposed to suggest that waterboarding is no big deal - what a bunch of sissies for calling it "torture" etc.

Frankly if someone asked me that out of the blue I'd say no, it'd be silly to call *that* torture (happy, Jake?). But in the real world anyone would be a stupid fool to think that's the whole story. It's like saying "isolation" is fine - after all I like a nice afternoon to myself. But in CIA-land, "isolation" can mean being inserted into a metal coffin and completely imombilized for days on end. Can you imagine the claustrophobia?? Add to that temperature, auditory inputs (say, bright lights/sound, chilling, when falling asleep) and this warm-and-fuzzy term "isolation" becomes something out of a nightmare.

Besides, if "cellophane + ten seconds" is no big deal, why does the government hang on to the idea so strongly, try to cover it up, finesse the language, have to strong-arm or circumvent their own legal staff to condone it. I'm sure Jake thinks he's being clever with this refrain, but the only thing he achieves is to appear idiotic. It's obvious he isn't, really, which is what makes his posts so frustratingly sad.

chabuka wrote on October 31, 2007 3:19 AM:

Cowardly little pukes...

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 10:36 AM:

Well, finally!! Thank you, sc, for answering the question with the OBVIOUS right answer -- why was that like pulling teeth around here -- is it because everyone else knew that was the right answer? You now win the grand prize: I will gladly trade everything else known as waterboarding for abortion except when necessary to save the mother's life -- happy now?

exdem wrote on October 31, 2007 10:53 AM:

v. povuli, I am in Vermont and receive the state dem party e-mails and updates but do not pretend to be active in the party. They seem, frustratingly, to only be focusing on finding a candidate to beat the very popular, albeit do-nothing, republican governor, Jim Douglas. Leahy is treated like a saint around here; Vermont's St. Patrick can do no wrong. The state party's communications treat him with reverence and do not put any pressure on him to do more than what he is doing, that being, talking a good game when it comes to accountability. It's sad to me.