Classified, whether waterboarding is torture? Bush says this is classified and since Mukasey may have to deal with this in a future case, he can't make the obvious determination presently.

What a crock of shit.

We gave the Democrats a mandate a year ago, and what have they done...........Zip, Zero, Nada, Nothing, Zilch.

Of course the sudden upsurge in outrage over waterboarding is artificial. These are politicians who, as we know, follow the public rather than lead them. The complicity of the Democrats over the past six years is clear and indefensible. They behaved so because they feared the "weak on terror" slurs reflexively shouted by Republicans. This is the same thing as saying they did not believe--in a political context, let it be noted, and certainly not driven by conviction--that opposition existed in sufficient numbers to support rejection of such policies. So the current makeover ought not to come as a surprise. The very air scents with opposition and happily the polls confirm it. The lesson here is that public engagement is the ignition for political change. We know the path we take in its absence.

Bush hasn't "lost" a big fight yet. Harriet Miers withdrawing from the supreme Court nomination doesn't count, because Bush needed conservative support and he didn't lose to the "disloyal" Democrats.

Do Senators fear that a big nomination loss, or a veto override, will create a "Daddy's gone ballistic and is out for revenge" scenario? They should relax. Bush is a bully, and bullies back down when faced with strength. I believe he'll repel even his own followers with his petulant whining if he doesn't get his way.

To test his maturity after this loss, some regular citizens in a crowd he's addressing could form their hands in the "L" position WHERE HE COULD SEE THEM. ("L" for "Loser") and see if he could take it. Sure, it's childish, but shouting gets you thrown out and maybe even tasered, and you can get evicted for a T shirt. It would look silly for security guards to drag out a nicely dressed protester for a hand gesture (especially when we have Bush on video flipping the bird). Maybe a childish insult will strike a nerve with this petulant President, and get him to reveal his true immaturity.

She'll make sure Bush gets what he wants She always does. I wonder when the voters of Galiforiniah will wake up and smell the BushDog? Torture will be enshrined as a part of American foreign policy and congress will be impotent. When Mukasey gets confirmed, congress should just pack up their bags and head home. If they think they're irrelevant now, wait until presidential ruling by fiat becomes the norm. He won't even have to acknowledge theri existance.

It's the best way for Democrats to show they don't buy into the executive power grab. Even if the votes aren't there for removal, the investigation will be worthwhile. Airing out the issues here is very important.

Senate Democrats can help by voting down Mukasey, and then stepping up the investigations. They should provide criteria for the selection of any future AG. Bush will complain, but that's all he does. When the Senate jumps high enough, Bush complains that they don't jump fast enough. So screw him. Draw a line in the sand and explain to us that you're doing it because you can't let this continue.

If opposed Mukasey is "good politics," then so much the better, say I.

Ditto, if restoring Constitutional government is good politics, we know it's going to happen.

Outcomes matter, not personal authenticity.

Now, granted, the Democratic Party has a long, long way to go. But any opposition to Mukasey is good behavior, and we need to look at it, and reward it, in that light.

I think Chris Dodd has played a part in this sudden small vision of spine, and I think the waterboarding issue has galvanized a lot of voters to contact their Senators, so the "gentlemen" are responding a bit to some pressure on a relatively easy moral call.

It would be nice if they were bothered by lots of other Mukasey problems, but we may have to settle for waterboarding as the pushback issue. Heck, I'd be happy if they were saying "no" because Mukasey has an annoying smile. In the end, it probably won't make a difference as DiFi and others will just vote the (s)ucker in.

"Why the apparent change?

When he was nominated you seemed to grudgingly support him:

http://salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/16/mukasey/"

I have to agree on this one. I recall reading this post and thinking, ok at least Greenwald there will be some degree of independence. Granted it was hedged a little, but the overall thrust was that he'd be ok. That put my mind at ease.

Maybe it's the case that the new evidence is that he really would knuckle where that wasn't clear before, but he is the same man now that he was 2 months ago.

"After all, as a federal judge, he ruled that the President has the power to detain American citizens on U.S. soil indefinitely without ever having to charge them with a crime -- a position he more or less repeated on the first day of his confirmation hearing.

There is no more extreme expression of radical executive power theories than that ..."

No, its actually a close second to his refusal to state that the president's exercise of executive power is circumscribed by the law.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004497.php

Mukasey must be rejected, not just for being wishy washy about torture but as Jay Gold point out, he doesn't believe the President lacks the power of a king (if you can authorize the breaking of any statute, how are you not king?)

We are moving too slow because the debate should not be about whether the Democrats will vote to confirm him, it needs to be about how we will get Democrats to filibuster him. Mukasey will get Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, so a filibuster is the only thing that matters in the real world.

I don't give two shits about whether Senators make a statement by voting "no" on a successful nomination. This isn't about whether they have the courage to cast a meaningless vote. This is about who will be our Attorney General.

Let's move the debate on to urging a filibuster. The GOP has filibustered just about everything since the 2006 elections, so if it's okay to "obstruct" health care for children, then it's okay to "obstruct" a law enforcement officer who has said in testimony that he won't enforce the law.