Accepting the fact that us “libs” will never get a nominee that we don’t have some reservations about and considering I am far from qualified on making legal judgments, I think we should keep in mind that the DOJ is a very large, dysfunctional, and morale deprived organization at his moment in its history. I believe we should look at leadership and management qualifications in addition to a nominee’s legal views.

We don’t need a DOJ run by deputies or lower level managers who allow political views to override legal justice. We need a tough leader who will watch over all aspects of the DOJ and who will select talented people for key posts who will help banish politics from the department and set up safe guards so that there is minimal chance for partisan politics to ever rule the department again. We need a leader who can communicate clearly, concisely and decisively with the media, congress, legal community, the White House and American people.

Let’s not focus too much on the legal although it is certainly extremely important.

Let's be a little careful about comments on aging and the mind. I'm the same age as the judge, 66, and that means I'm not old. just definitely mature. As long as I can keep taking part in intelligent discussions like those on GG's threads, my memory should be OK for a while yet. I don't think that at 66, Mukasey would be the oldest confirmed for Attorney General. Old can also mean wise and experienced, something that was sorely lacking in our dearly departed, last Attorney General.

The Center for American Progress quoted from GG’s Salon piece as follows:

A RECORD OF STANDING UP TO BUSH: ...Salon's Glenn Greenwald writes that in the Padilla case, "Judge Mukasey repeatedly defied the demands of the Bush administration, ruled against them, excoriated them on multiple occasions for failing to comply with his legally issued orders, and ruled that Padilla was entitled to contest the factual claims of the government and to have access to lawyers." After the Bush administration resisted his order that Padilla be granted access to counsel, Mukasey sternly wrote in a strongly-worded ruling (just a few days prior to the initiation of the Iraq invasion), "Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel. ... It is a ruling -- a determination -- that he will be permitted to do so." One of Padilla's lawyers, Donna Newman, said, "I admire him [Mukasey] greatly." Greenwald writes, "Whatever else may be true about him, then, Judge Mukasey was more than willing to defy the Bush administration and not be intimidated by threats that enforcing the rule of law would prevent the President from stopping the terrorists."

Since the American people did not fall for the surge is working and Gen. Petraeus knows best ploy, the last and most dangerous card left could be the Iranian nuclear threat. Two articles yesterday, one by the AP quoting former Central Command CINC Gen. Abizaid and another by Chicago Tribune conservative columnist Steve Chapman downplayed this threat. Rather than just pointing out M$M weak sisters (no accusation against you Glenn), we should also support sound journalism like this.

Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer, Monday, September 17

WASHINGTON - Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_go_ot/abizaid_iran

Steve Chapman, RealClear Politics, September 17

Osama bin Laden must rejoice to be depicted as endangering our entire culture and way of life. In fact, his movement has failed to gain power in a single country even in the Islamic world, and he hasn't been able to carry out an attack on American soil in over six years. His movement exists today as a fragmented network of terrorist cells, with only a modest capacity to harm us.

Iran, with its fire-breathing president and nuclear ambitions, is supposed to be a looming threat to our existence. But as the world's only superpower, we can easily contain and deter even enemies with nukes -- which is why no one talks about fighting World War IV against North Korea.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/america_is_not_fighting_ww_iv.html

“Betray Us is more familiar to our ears. Said often enough, we hear Petraeus' name and we associate Betray Us.”

Excellent observation. If MoveOn planned this ad using a purposeful Madison Avenue technique to have this effect, then it was very shrewd and they deserve much credit, not criticism. And the more the Repugs and M$M keep it alive, the more it works.