Can it be that snippets of reality are finally starting to sink in? Is there a bit of realization by the Democrats of just the enabling Glenn documents here, and the beginning, finally of some push-back?

Only time will tell, of course. And the analysis I saw yesterday suggests that Mukasey still would receive something on the order of 70 votes.

Sigh. That's better than 90 but leaves a long, long way to go. If Mukasey is actually denied confirmation AND retroactive immunity is removed from FISA, then I will actually believe that some sort of minor course-correction back toward the country we used to be has started. If the journey starts now, great. If it starts next year, so be it, but it will be more difficult. The journey back is not one that will be short, easy or even pretty, but it is mandatory for the survival of the country.

But I still find any opposition at all heartening. The Congress has failed us and failed us badly-- but I'm glad they're at least putting up some fight.

That's because those views have become normalized over the last six years. Congress had all sorts of remedies which it chose not to invoke in order to ensure that the administration's lawlesnssness (sic) and torture regimen ceased and that there were real consequences for that condcut.(sic) -- from lawmaking to investigations and even impeachment. They chose instead to allow it all to proceed.

Yes, it is sad, but to those of us who have been paying attention this is certainly nothing new. This "normalization" of all of these horrors -- it is who we are now. We are what we do after all. Chris Floyd got it right in his Post Mortem America piece.

"A Republic, if you can keep it." I doubt Franklin would be surprised by any of this. Ahh well... it was a semi-good run while it lasted.

Mukasey's ilk ought to go "waterboarding"

or surfing, either or, in a cold bath tub.

I agree with what you say about the behavior of Democrats in the past on the torture issue. I can't help but hold out hope, though, that this time, Sheldon Whitehouse's question on waterboarding has put the Bush administration in a corner. By demanding no less than a statement that waterboarding is torture and therefore unconstitutional, the Democrats put Mukasey in an impossible place. He knows that the Bush administration has made waterboarding quasi-legal through its secret memos, and that those who have engaged in waterboarding have received quasi-immunity. (We all know this). So he can't say it is unconstitutional or illegal without jeopardizing that part of the Bush administration's secret structure. But he also cannot come out and say that waterboarding, which is so obviously a practice of repeatedly simulating the death of the prisoner, is constitutional.

There's nothing Mukasey can say on this. Let's just hope that the Democrats don't back down.

Dear Mr. Greenwald:

Is it possible that the reason for this sudden backbone on the part of the Democrats has something to do with the Democratic candidates' positions?

I recall that some time ago you mentioned how polls repeatedly supported the analysis that the American public condemned torture and illegal wiretapping, and that every time the Democrats caved to Republicans on those issues their positive numbers dropped.

Presumably each candidate now has their own quasi-independent poll analysis teams- teams that no longer take their cues directly from the same clump of people informing, say, Harry Reid and Rahm Immanuel. That would increase the likelihood that someone in those teams would challenge the party's main poll analysts, and as a consequence at some point one or two of the candidates might have signalled to Reid or others that their caving in was shooting the Democrats' electoral chances in the foot.

This is, of course, pure speculation on my part, but I have read campaign notices by Barack Obama and Chris Dodds stating flatly that they oppose grants of telecom amnesty, so it is not beyond considering.

So am I just grasping at straws here, or is this a realistic possibility?

I'll support anyone, any time, who takes a stand against torture. This is why I welcome the fact that a few Democrats have seemingly located their consciences, a critical faculty that has recently been conspicuous by its absence.

I have no idea what motivates the Democrats individually or collectively. Not possessing the personal qualities necessary to be a successful politician, I can't begin to understand this breed.

Anything that is an attempt to turn back the tide sweeping this country back toward barbarism, is welcome to me. Perhaps I am naive and this is just a cynical move, meant to score some political points with the Democratic base. Whatever. I continue to hope that the tide will turn, that together the American people and the Congress will repudiate the shameful policies of this administration. If the refusal to confirm Mukasey is a step in that direction, I welcome it.

Regardless of whether it actually accomplishes anything in terms of curtailing U.S. policy regarding enhanced interrogation techniques, a failure to stoke support for Mukasey's rejection also holds symbolic significance. It is certainly possible for the tools of totalitarianism to be enabled in a democracy, but that doesn't excuse a failure to use the tools of democracy to resist.

Mukasey's refusal to say that the President is bound by statute - i.e., by the law - strikes at the heart of the Constitution, and is far more dangerous than his failure to classify waterboarding as torture, deplorable as that is. Yet we're not hearing a peep from Democrats about that issue.

Waterboarding is nothing but an act of pure sadism. Those who permit and enable it in any way are sick sadists. To express "reservations" about Mukasey's de-dacto support of this sadistic act is morally as pathetic and bankrupt as expressing reservations about the Nazi atrocities. Instead of this wimpy, halfhearted whimper, there should have been a unified, unequivocal statement from the Democratic caucus that Mukasey's nomination was dead because of his refusal to unequivocally condemn a sadistic and highly criminal act sanctioned by the US government.