Comments (51)

Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 10:33 AM:

WOO HOO!!!

swan of blue wrote on November 6, 2007 10:43 AM:

The day after Guy Fawkes Day, our nation officially condones torture. Happy Counterterrorism Day

Reich Winger's NightMare wrote on November 6, 2007 10:45 AM:

re: 10:33 AM

Congrats. You're today's number one ass.

Fractal wrote on November 6, 2007 10:45 AM:

Like I said over at the Harry Reid "hands off approach" posting, why do we keep getting our asses kicked like this? What other possible interpretation can there be of Feinstein's & Schumer's votes, except a complete betrayal of their party, their own constituents, their oath to defend the Constitution, and common sense? We should NEVER allow committees to be organized where just two asshole Dems can overturn our majority control of the Senate. From now on, we must insist on at least a five vote majority for Dems on every committee. This is utter bullshit. They are going to pay for this. Schumer can kiss goodbye any chance that he will have any money for DSCC candidates from the progressive forces in the party. Shithead.

phred wrote on November 6, 2007 10:48 AM:

See ya Dems, you and I have just parted company.

ProDem wrote on November 6, 2007 10:48 AM:

Just another step into the Gates of Hell! Thank you Schumer and Feinstein..You are a f**king DISGRACE!!

Scott L wrote on November 6, 2007 10:50 AM:

Maybe now we can make a unvarnished manual on our new Justice system and hand it out to all forign goverments so they can follow it when dealing with all Americans traveling outside the U.S.

Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 10:50 AM:

Fractal:

Mukasey will also get at least 63 votes on the Senate floor for confirmation -- I didn't think your side accepted "fuzzy math" -- 63 out of 100 is a "majority" right?

Bill W wrote on November 6, 2007 10:52 AM:

It's a damn shame Schumer doesn't come up for re-election until 2010 and Feinstein not until 2012.

I'm so sick of the cave-o-crats.

Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 10:52 AM:

phred:

You PROMISE to never vote for a Democrat again?

Troll Patrol wrote on November 6, 2007 10:55 AM:

Please note: Josh's post from July.

Josh Marshall wrote on July 27, 2007 10:50 PM:

I notice a few folks who asked or wondered what became of Jake D. Simply put, we banned him. We heard the many emails and requests you sent in describing how much he was intentionally disrupting the conversation and community here. We agreed and we banned him from the site. We weren't ignoring your complaints. The delay was caused by the fact that TPMm was not set up in a way to make it easy for us to ban someone. But we made some changes to make that possible. In the nature of things, Jake my resurface with another name or log-in-point of entry. And if that happens, let us know, and we'll get rid of Jake 2.0 too.

As I've noted on other occasions at TPMCafe, conservatives or people who for whatever reason don't share our editorial viewpoint are welcome here. The comments are not for adulation. But there's a difference between dissent and willful efforts to disrupt the conversation. Jake D. clearly went way over that line.

Josh

Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 11:01 AM:

Asking a couple questions in the echo chamber = "way over the line" for moonbats.

Uncle_Meat wrote on November 6, 2007 11:02 AM:

Rebublicrats and Demopublicans.

Two sides of the same worthless coin.

Two parties, one vote, no choice.

scott p wrote on November 6, 2007 11:03 AM:

To the site administrators:

Please consider banning Jake D. His comments are not substantive; he is not addressing the issue of waterboarding from any sort of informed position, and his comments are intended to distract from the site.

For those of us who work with torture survivors and who actually have experience in this area, Jake D's cheerleading for torture - his open defense of the technique - crosses the line from opinion to provocation. Had he restricted himself to supporting Mukasey, I would not call for banning him as a troll. But he has advocated - and continues to advocate - for inflicting severe pain on other human beings. That's a step too far.

Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 11:03 AM:

RON PAUL '08

puzzled wrote on November 6, 2007 11:05 AM:

We all know why Schumer voted yes, but what was Feinstein's motivation?

TheraP wrote on November 6, 2007 11:07 AM:

Thank you, scott p. I completely concur.

To urge torture, in any form, is contrary to everything our founders stood for. Contrary to laws and legal precedent. Contrary to human rights guarantees.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." These were held to be for all. They are contrary to torture.

Good Grief Chuck and Di wrote on November 6, 2007 11:09 AM:

Hard to believe that Congress could hold onto the lead as least liked when up against pro's like W, but they do find their ways, don't they?

Time for a serious third party.

Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 11:10 AM:

I apologize to all of you. I had the stick removed from my ass just now, and my brain slotted back into place. Torture is shameful and Schumer should resign from the Senate.

Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 11:14 AM:

scott p:

Thank you for working with survivors -- has anyone ever died from only 10 seconds with no water going into their nose or mouth?

Mark Richards wrote on November 6, 2007 11:16 AM:

All it takes is one principled Senator to filibuster.

Who, among all those who blathered about principle, is willing to stand?

Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 11:18 AM:

puzzled wrote on November 6, 2007 11:05 AM:

"We all know why Schumer voted yes, but what was Feinstein's motivation?"

Here's an insight:

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html

A little outdated, but you get the idea.

They've all been bought.

RobbyLove wrote on November 6, 2007 11:23 AM:

The founders were also instrumental in the genocide of the Native American tribes and were also slave owners. They had no special moral compass, other than their own selfish desire for their own right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It fell to later generations of Americans to apply that to everybody, not just to white men.

Please don't use the founders as part of a moral argument. Especially not when it comes to the treatment of fellow human beings. They don't pass the test.

That said, waterboarding is torture. Any reasonable person would agree to that. No attempts at moral equivalence can justify torture.

Then again what can you expect from a country that practices the death penalty? We aren't exactly held up as the international standard for respecting human life.

Dear-o-dear. We're really in bad shape, aren't we?

phred wrote on November 6, 2007 11:23 AM:

Jake D. -- Fair question even from such an unrepentant ignorant ass as yourself.

It is possible that the Dems will see the error of their ways, impeach Bush and Cheney, restore the Constitution and the rule of law, and thereby win back my heart.

But since that looks unlikely, I'll consider alternatives. No one, gets my vote without earning it. And the Dems have done nothing to earn it.

PJ White wrote on November 6, 2007 11:26 AM:

If Jake D is banned, why is he here? That's all the attention he'll get from me today. Or ever.

Chuck and Dianne's specious argument that Bush would just find someone worse makes me want to scream. Of course he'll find someone worse. He has an endless supply of these maniacs. And the Judiciary Committee, if it had any balls, which it doesn't, would reject each and every one of them. This is akin to letting your psycho kid kill the cat so he won't burn down the garage. He's going to burn down the garage anyway. The thing to do is to slap him in handcuffs and lock him in the cellar, not to try to appease him by allowing bad behavior. JHC.

Alguien wrote on November 6, 2007 11:32 AM:

As I have said before, if we ban Jake D. he'll have an excuse to claim we can't tolerate dissenting opinions, etc. etc... [although it's OK when Rush, O'Reilly and Michael Savage do it...!]. Why don't we just let him spew his vitriol WITHOUT acknowledging his posts?
Every time you see his name just SKIP to the next comment.
That way he can never that say his first ammendment rights are not being respected here.
Furthermore, his posts get more and more ridiculous when he feels ignored to the point of becoming sit-com material.
I am curious to see what he will come up with to get our attention.
[Consider it an experiment in animal behavior...]

dixiegrl wrote on November 6, 2007 11:43 AM:

Dodd promised to filibuster if it came to the Senate, did he not?

Anyone know his current position on this?

Meanwhile, I have sent the Dem. National Comm. a goodbye letter.

brantl wrote on November 6, 2007 11:45 AM:

"Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 11:14 AM:
scott p:

Thank you for working with survivors -- has anyone ever died from only 10 seconds with no water going into their nose or mouth?"

Where to start on this asshole? Cloths or plastic are placed over the victims' mouths, the victim is reverse inclined so that if it is cloth the water will go into his mouth or nose on each inhale and water is poured unceasingly over the victim until he inhales/chokes on water, or gags for air! The victim is starting to suffocate, you asshole. And possibly has water in his lungs!

If somebody walked up and started to strangle you, wouldn't it be torture, you sadistic asshole? Did your parents successfully teach ANY children ANY morals, you pinhead?

Where did you EVER get this "10 seconds" shit from, anyway?

Idiots like you are going to be the death of any moral compass this country ever had.

brantl wrote on November 6, 2007 11:46 AM:

Please ban the weasel, Jake D. Nobody's got a first amendment right to be a monster.

Fractal wrote on November 6, 2007 11:51 AM:

I think Dodd promised to filibuster retroactive immunity for telcos in the FISA renewal, not Mukasey's nomination.

P. S. A longer post from me is coming up with links to Senate rules and provisions of the Constitution governing voting. It got held up in the "first posting" screening 'cuz I accidentally left off my Fractal. I think. Or else it was just too damn long & boring.

Troll Patrol wrote on November 6, 2007 11:52 AM:

It seems the troll has multiple personalities or multiple IP addresses. We need to be patient and alert tpm if and when the problem resumes - meanwhile just pass on by. (or follow link above to rant)

theswan wrote on November 6, 2007 11:53 AM:

The democrats are a sorry bunch. I thought that they were supporters of our Constitution, but obviously not. It's beyond time to look elsewhere.

theswan wrote on November 6, 2007 11:55 AM:

The democrats are a sorry bunch. I thought that they were supporters of our Constitution, but obviously not. It's beyond time to look elsewhere. The club is made up of a very select group of assholes.

Fractal wrote on November 6, 2007 11:55 AM:

Anyway, quick tutorial here: approval of nominations occurs by the "advice and consent" of the Senate while approval of treaties requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." There is no "two thirds" requirement for nominations. U.S. Const., art II, sec. 2. The link is at caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/ (Click Fractal.)

Standing Rules of the Senate are at rules.senate.gov/senaterules/

rightous wrote on November 6, 2007 12:06 PM:

I am at a total loss of words why Feinstein and Schumer's cowardly behavior surfaced on this important matter. Democrats and reasonable American citizens are more frustrated each day with the Democrats' so-called leadership in the Senate.

I smell a rotten rate in the Democratic party in the disgusting behavior of Feinstein and Schumer. I hope the Democratic constituents in California and New York make those two cowards pay the price at the ballot box when they come up for re-election.

We definitely need a third party in this country one that will oppose the ridiculous Republican Party and the cowardly Democratic Party.

Stanley Krute wrote on November 6, 2007 12:06 PM:

Most of the Dems get it. Some don't.

Most of the Gops don't get it. Some do.

Painting with a broad brush, as in "never vote for a Dem agin", leads to Gop victories.

Get real. Don't whine. Organize and educate.

-- stan

bobh wrote on November 6, 2007 12:07 PM:

schumer feinstein lieberman mukasey....is there a jewish pattern here?

Merryll wrote on November 6, 2007 12:26 PM:

This confirms that Schumer is helping hide 9/11 evidence. Mukasy has presided over the coverup as the top judge in lower Manhattan. This will someday catch up with him.

Dennis wrote on November 6, 2007 12:43 PM:

puzzled wrote on November 6, 2007 11:05 AM: We all know why Schumer voted yes, but what was Feinstein's motivation?"

The motivation may be that Feinstein too supported the Iraq invasion while knowing full well that the reasons given by Bush were all lies.

It is idiotic of us to believe that when so many millions of Americans saw through the charade of the build up, that any one member of Congress didn't.

Those who voted to invade Iraq are war criminals just as much as Bush, Cheney and other White House supporters. And they are afraid of being tried for that.

By protecting the White House, Feinstein is protecting...Feinstein.

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

Wordie wrote on November 6, 2007 12:54 PM:

It's shameful that Schumer and Feinstein would not take a stand on this. Shumer's comments about how Mukasey had reassured him that he would enforce any law in which Congress specifically states that a procedure is illegal seems like no more than semantic parsing, since we already have general legal prohibitions against torture, and there's no doubt that waterboarding is torture.

It isn't a stretch to imagine the Bush administration taking broad latitude with this loophole, and using slight differences in the torture procedures themselves and the terminology used to describe them in order to evade any specific prohibition. And what about new torture procedures that Congress may not even know about and so cannot address them with specific legislation?

RJ wrote on November 6, 2007 1:12 PM:

Feinstein's mixed up logic continues to astound me. She supports Mukasey because otherwise Bush would appoint whomever he wants during the recess. This is a non-statement. She is saying Bush gets to pick anyone he wants no matter what and she's not going to do anything about it.

Secondly, she supports Mukasey because he agreed to enforce any new laws congress can pass outlawing waterboarding. This is also muddled thinking. Waterboarding is already illegal. She is saying that Mukasey doesn't need to enforce existing laws and international treaties such as the Geneva convention and that any torture technique is acceptable if it is not specifically banned by Congress in a new law.

Feinstein already lost my vote forever when she voted for the last FISA bill. I guess I am still naive in that I expect this from the Republicans but not from the Dems.

Dee Illuminati wrote on November 6, 2007 2:09 PM:

On Jake and the banning of him. I want to make the observation that when FreeRepublic and Libertypost banned people it was as a result of an irritation with an individual whom acted the part of a 'consistent contrarian.'

And that I feel is not an exercise in 'abnormal psychology' but instead censorship of a political idea, no matter how ridiculed by a group in a community.

While Jake's purpose was to disrupt, the ability to ignore that individual was within our power, we had the right to acknowledge that individual or to ignore him.

I feel Jake's behavior and beliefs were immature and inconsistent with pragmatic thought, and many of the so called observations or posts simply argumentative.

But nonetheless the groupthink that the current Neoconservatives applied to pre-war planning, selective intel cherry picking, and an overall strategy of beliefs, unchallenged of course by purposefully excluding oposite views, leads me to suggest that the 'banning' be temporary and that it be made clear to the alias Jake that the opine as a concept is valued, even encouraged, but that even at that point as long as the comments are directed at a 'public figure' or a 'public policy' firmly within the public domain, that that dissenting view be allowed.

I guess as a paleocon (a registered republican) where I differ from the majority on this board. I might disagree with Jake's opine, but I would damn sure fight for his right to have one.

I would hate to see the left become the ugly mirror image of the intolerant right. I would hate to see the principles of decrying the fact that Valerie Plame's campaign contributions to Al Gore were entered into congressional testimony, while playing to the fullest extent the donations by the sister of Eric Prince to the GOP.

It is when members of the Left and Right decide to behave as if "right or wrong" mattered, then we can get the perspective of courage, John Ashcroft as an example whom did not cave to executive priveledge, Daniel Levine, or others according to your conscious.

Rest assured my well reasoned opines can stand the muster of criticism, can tolerate dissent, and the responses and replies and the manner made an exercise in polemics and rhetoric which should be an art.

Jake was never disruptive, but yes annoying in that his opine was perenially contrarian. Biut in as much as we do not live under mob rule, or for that fact enlightened leadership minus the litmus of consenual reality, then I would suggest a 'time-out' be applied to Jake with the admonsihment to keep the comments focused on issues if possible.

In retaliation if we are not vigillante we becme what we despise.

While I share some views with progressives, nonetheless note that I don't always do the bump, bump, bump.. monotony of endorsement and concurance of this website.

I think that there is something horrible when you can tune your TV and get 'internal public consumption' news as certain as the menu at McDonald's or Wendy's, choosing O'Reilly or Olbermann.

Count me in the middle irritated with the false choices and here for a wider perspective and a healthier diet.

Jake should in my opinion be given a 'time out' and some guidelines for participation that are consistent with how you would want to be treated say for example you were at the AEI and it was toture appreciation day and the securiity dragged you out the door after they advertised the event open to the public.

Scott P wrote on November 6, 2007 3:36 PM:

Here's the last comments I'll offer in response to Jake D.

I know personally two persons subjected to asphyxiation (waterboarding) as torture. One was a Honduran labor organizer, who had a wet sack put over his head and removed repeatedly as he reached the point of unconsciousness - classic waterboarding. He suffers from nightmares and depression to this day.

The other is an Iraqi Kurd who was tortured because his brother worked for the United States. He was asphyxiated with a sack also - this time a plastic sack. He was eventually released, and died of a heart attack shortly afterwards. His brother still suffers from guilt at having "caused" his death, even though the torturers are actually responsible. Interestingly, the US tortured a former Iraqi general by beating him and stuffing him into a sleeping bag.

So did waterboarding work? Both said whatever the hell they thought their tormenters wanted, but nobody ended up ahead. The only difference between the Kurd who died and the Iraqi general who died was that the US tortured the Iraqi general and Saddam's goons tortured the Kurd. The Kurdish family members who survived hate the Ba'ath Party and those Arab family members who survived hate the US with undiminished vigor. The Honduran immigrated, but his friends back home continue to organize and the goons who tortured him are no closer eliminating their opposition than ever.

All torture does is increase resistence and make conflicts harder to resolve. It destroys persons lives, diminishes the humanity of those who engage in it, and it is pointless in the long run.

I don't expect sociopaths like Jake D to understand torture, because they don't have the capacity. I'm writing this for benefit of other readers.

Steaming Pile wrote on November 6, 2007 4:37 PM:

Would be nice, Fractal, to have 5-D majorities on the committees, but Senate rules prohibit it. I think it spells out what the committee makeup is for a particular partisan breakdown, which in this case means the majority only gets one extra seat. You have to get to 60-40 D (not counting Lieberman) to change the rules, and that probably won't happen until 2010.

Now, it would be interesting to see who votes for cloture and against confirmation. Those people should automatically get a primary challenge.

steambomb wrote on November 6, 2007 6:11 PM:

I just wanted to pop in here to say..... Water boarding is allready illegal. It's called torture and torture is illegal. We know this because a japanese man was tried for war crimes because of water boarding our soldiers after WW2. Now I dont know what the F-tards Schumer and Specter are talking about when they say they will pass a bill making it illegal. It is allready illegal. Some one tell them to pull their heads out of their asses and look at the previous case law on it. Just because this supreme court doesn't follow precedent doesn't mean that is how our congress should act.

Dee Illuminati wrote on November 6, 2007 7:18 PM:

Scott P I spoke out against tortue as early as 2003, it has not been a career enhancer... but if you look back at the posts here you will see that my objection is cogruent with yours.

"Torture hurts people and institutions"

If it is a bumpersticker I want one.

I also realize that there is unintended consequences and indirect victims of this policy, and that a hegelian swing innapropriate and without details is counter productive.

I genuinely have empathy for educated DOS career professionals with familes, 'dependents' whom to use the term 'repugnant' feel as we do about torture and the fact that it makes their jobs more difficult.

I have empathy for the uneducated, the WV national guards whom were scapegoated, yes they did abuse people, but this was done under marching orders from above and their sentences were not tempered with that recognition.

Beyond the immediate setbacks, I focus on the human ability to see the truth that this is a bad policy, continue to educate on the topic, and await a time when we can look back at this abomination and start leading in the market place of ideas instead of diminishing our most important asset, which is "freedom" and not our dollars.

Truthwhip wrote on November 6, 2007 9:29 PM:

Whether they realize it or not, Chuck and Dianne just cut their own throats. Concerned liberals never forget the way certain politicians vote on particular issues. The Bankruptcy Bill was one such bill that put a certain group of Democratic (Blue Dogs) politicians on an official shit list. The recent FISA Bill was another vote that will matter a great deal going forward -- and now we have this vote that will also remain very memorable.

As for trolls:
One can always spot a troll by the fact that they never add anything to a discussion. They are there only to disturb or derail discussions, and ultimately to upset people who are sincerely attempting to communicate with each other. Trolls should always be quickly banned -- if civil discussion is considered valuable.
Clearly Jake D is a troll.

jimbo92107 wrote on November 7, 2007 3:32 AM:

The salient point was this:

"...Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) joined the nine Republicans..."

Yes, they joined the Republicans in helping to confirm a pro-torture loyal Bushista. We must never forget that.

Schumer and Feinstein are hereby ejected from the Democratic party. Not officially, but oh, so truly.

Dee Illuminati wrote on November 7, 2007 8:35 AM:

I have always been from the moderate segment GOP. I read the sh1t list entries of irritated 'progressives' upset that the Democratic caucus allowed the confirmation of the A.G..

I want to point out something, I actually watched the re-run on CSPAN last night of the hearing.

I think that if anybody was 'upset' with the circumstances it was Lindsey Graham whom I have met personally, liked him, and continue to identify with as 'my republican party.' In addition I'm a Wayne Gilchrest supporter, a former supporter of McCain in 2000, and undecided now.

But even though the confirmation proceeded, this issue is NOT closed. And keep in mind that many Republicans genuinely find the practice of waterboarding abhorent and are 'genuinely educated' in the ramifications of the issues. You cannot watch that hearing with Graham, look back at the legislation that he proposed and has had passed, and not see a genuine 'disgust' with the practice.

But the reason why I posted was that the Denocrats and Republicans should NOT vote lock stock and barrel on party line. I'm damn thankful that Wayne is targeted by the Club For Growth as essentially being an independent! He receives contributions from me for precisely that fact!

And I also keep a mental note of those whom seek to 'punish' him for a principled vote in the absence of PAC money.. very interesting list...

Count me with the moderates in the GOP whom are as disgusted as many of you with the act of waterboarding, but be careful of demanding that your party vote the caucus line... thank God that Wayne does not and that Lindsey Graham was one of the 'first' voices whom objected to coercion and torture.

Our system cannot be improved with groupthink or mob rule, it is NOT supposed to work that way.

There were few win win scenarios, and I feel that the new A.G. has his work cut out for him.

Evadt wrote on November 11, 2007 10:09 PM:

11NOV2007 NPR / WEEK IN REVIEW / SUNDAY - NPR Senior News Analyst/sage Daniel Schorr said Mukasey responded to Senator Patrick Leahy: "The Constitution authorizes the President to ignore or disobey statutory law when he thinks it necessary to defend the Country."

After the Cold War, citizens trusted elected leaders and national security professionals to guard against and prevent attacks like 9/11: THEY failed. How do Americans now trust the same leadership to fix the problem, when essentially the same leaders led us down the wrong road in the first place?

No doubt, America has enemies. Like it or not, the reasons—how and why we got to where we are—don’t seem to matter much, anymore: there are enemies who have demonstrated motive and means to kill Americans. It is also true, bombings in the UK and Spain et al prove international terrorists can be living right next door.

And if that's not enough, think about school shootings, the war zone in Compton, and the fact that Americans spend over $66B on recreational drugs, financing drug/gangsta terrorism and oppression in nest countries. The Spain train bombers funded their terrorist operation thru the sale of ecstasy and meth. Come on now, progressives! Think about it! You wonder why the hard right authoritarians get support from those willing to remain reticent on Constitutional compromise. Even paranoids have real enemies.

Of course, there is sufficient reason to question Mukasey's take on the theory of Constitutional (unitary executive) law-breaking authority. Wes Clark has stated he saw a memo a few years back outlining the plan to replace governments in seven countries in five years: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and others. (Goto his talk at the Commonwealth Club in October.) Has the reaction to pre-emptive strike, get-tough shock ‘n awe spawned a convenient excuse for gutting the Constitution? Has “…either you’re with us or against us…” polarized enough Americans to hand-off rights of privacy?

After the Soviet collapse, national security think-tankers correctly saw the need to stabilize danger zones. But “the plan” has been implemented by fools for other men (gender not implied)—their incompetence gave the world accelerated destabilization: just at the time when America should have demonstrated the best of Constitutional Democracy—freedom and liberty.

Are Americans willing to accept further abrogation of Constitutional Law - inalienable rights? How can we trust selective law-breaking in the hands of authoritarian ideologues? Are they deciders, or dividers? How do Americans trust leadership to fix the problem, when they're THEY responsible for flat-out taking us down the wrong domestic and foreign policy roads in the first place?

And the big question: Are corporations who have illegally gathered and disseminated privacy information exercising their patriotic sense of duty in these dark times; or are they serving up lists of legitimate American dissenters for future corrective action without having the foggiest notion or care how that information might be put to use? Is collected privacy information going to those in power who have thrown aside other laws, like the Geneva Convention, leaders who say torture is okay as long as God’s on our side?

If the Constitution authorizes the President to ignore or disobey statutory law when he thinks it necessary to defend the Country, can the President’s judgment be trusted to know when it is necessary to disobey statutory law?

If the Dan Schorr Mukasey quote is accurate, we are left wondering what the hell Democrats and Republicans sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution were thinking when Mukasey got his pass.

mark hawthorne wrote on November 13, 2007 1:44 PM:

I have been a lifelong Republican, until now, its time to be an Independent.
To stand alone ,if necessary , because I along with Millions of others
Know the difference between Right and Wrong, and Torture is Wrong.
As my daughter would say “ It’s a no brainier “ Nuff Said.

At what time did we, The United States become a Nation that condones
Torture ? Only during THIS Presidency , and never before .
How in the world does someone become the U.S. Attorney General ,
That doesn’t know or think that Waterboarding is Torture ? And what
Of those that didn’t vote against the Confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey ,
Shame, Shame On all of you .Republicans and Democrats alike . I Have heard it
Said, “ He is the Best Candidate we have “ God I hope that isn’t true.

I have walked thru the “ Killing Fields “ of Cambodia, seen with my own eyes
The results of a Nation that condoned Torture , the bones and clothing are still
To this day coming out of the ground for all to see, but hear in America our children
And future generations will not have to dig into the ground to see our past sins,
They only need look to the library, the newspapers and yes even our congressional
Documents to see what we thought was “acceptable “ to do to other Human beings.

Its Ironic , if someone were to ask if it were “ok” to use “Waterboarding “ on a dog or cat How the outcome would be different, the outcry would be defining , the outcome,, We just wouldn’t stand for it! No debate, No Compromise, , Just NO, ,,,,ITS WRONG.