If you're driving a Hornet, you need to release those AIMs at a good long safe distance. You don't want to be getting in close. You aren't good there.

Ouch

Excellent post. Quite excellent.

Two most excellent comments.

Thank you GG for this very informative view. Seems fair to say that Mukasey would be far better than our past two AGs.

But still not nearly good enough. Not because he is conservative, and not because he would be insufficiently independent. I think he would pass the minimal standard on the latter, based on your piece.

But his apparent belief that the president can arrest and incarcerate without charge is hopefully a deal-breaker. Didn't Gonzales say that Habeas was not affirmatively guaranteed in US law--and doesn't Mukasey's opinion appear to be along the same lines?

If he is the nominee, and this is indeed his position, and if congress asks about it, and if he happens to give them a straight answer, and if they actually care about habeas, then I hope congress will reject him. I count four "ifs" above. That's a lot.

WT said:

While admitting that legitimate distinctions can always be made between the bad and less bad, I still find myself wishing a plague on all their houses. Glenn has more tolerance for reality than I do this morning, or most mornings, for that matter...

GG responded to Che (taken horribly out of context):

...then the very loyal Paul Clement would remain as Acting AG for the remainder of the Bush presidency. I suspect the White House would be very happy with that outcome...

There will never be a single senate consideration in which it could not be said: "we can't make a simple, principled decision here, because of "X". Where X is some special condition, or problem, or perception Congress may have about reality. Or conversely because of some information Congress may have received from the president, vice-president, secretary of state, national security advisor or director of the CIA, a 4-star general, or some foreign agent, let's use Chalabi as an example.

There will always be that argument, that excuse, that somehow convinces them that the simple, principled decision should be abandoned "in the present case".

I believe that a good argument could be constructed that our leadership has usually made poorer decisions when they abandoned the simpler, principled action(/vote), and ignored the evidence of their own lying eyes, in favor of something that they thought they knew.

The vote for the authorization of force was one such example.

This vote for the AG is another chance. A chance to ask a simple question: "is this an acceptable nominee or not". To me, it's a simple decision, based on Glen's piece today. He's not, IF he claims that executive power trumps habeas. It is that simple.

Yes, that leaves Paul Clement as acting AG. But personally, I will willingly accept the punishment of a dead-ender acting-AG of a dead-ender president--IF--I gain a senate that has begun making principled, solid decisions. For the most solid of reasons I add--for not wanting to destroy 800 years of habeas tradition.

I would (long-windedly) add this: As soon as congress begins to act in this very simple, principled way, they will begin winning the understanding of the american people, and the american people will begin viewing them in a more positive way.

More importantly to your point, it's a bit hard for me to imagine this Congress taking the kind of principled stance over habeas that you suggest. Let's remember that while the Bush administration first denied habeas, the Congress last October formally endorsed that position when it passed the MCA.

My aspirations are not "reality-based". I acknowlege. Even dislike that term, by the way. Reality-based. Rosa Parks wasn't "reality based". Almost as bad as "The Homeland". How the hell did our country become the "homeland". Its an abomination.

And who the hell was it who decided that "blue" meant democratic, and "red" meant republican. What the hell is going on, I ask you.

Kitt, during my whole long (and increasingly senile) life, hues of red were the undisputed property of the left. It was the color of heat, passion, etc.

The conservatives were blue. Cold. Passionless. Heartless.

One day, somebody changed all that, and apparently I missed the memo. It was a mistake, imo.

Peter Keisler now in as Acting AG. Lederman at balkinization apparently knows him, likes him and his integrity. Disagrees with his positions, but of course that is true of anybody Bush is going to bring in.

If Keisler is as good as Lederman indicates, why is Mukasey necessary? Let the ("new, improved") acting AG run the program for the remainder of the dead-ender term. If Keisler is liked/respected within the DOJ, they will arguably do as well under him as they would under a new political appointee.

Iraq acting almost as if it was a sovereign govt. Revoking Blackwaters license to kill indiscriminently througout the country. Look at youtube videos of Blackwater in action, look at the recent book by Scahill. Writes for The Nation.

http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-Rise-Worlds-Powerful-Mercenary/dp/1560259795

A good cspan book-talk presentation on this book, if you can catch it. A real eye-opener.

Blackwater a heavy GOP contributor. Watch whitehouse try to reverse this decision by "our ally in the war on terror" and "sovereign government".

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushismtribal.htm

"That such an assertion can be reported as a point of controversy is truly beyond belief."

Welcome, all, to the administration where the unbelievable meets a "can-do" attitude...