Schumer and Feinstein should agree to undergo a waterboarding, to help them get a better sense of the technique, just in case they're as confused as Mukasey about it.

Meantime, Bush is in full spin cycle...

Asked if he considers waterboarding legal, Bush replied: "I'm not going to talk about techniques. There's an enemy out there."

As if: a) terrorists somehow don't know what the technique is, and b) would have some kind of defense against it, were they in captivity! What a crock.

I got irritated when they demonstrated (via computer animation) on NBC the technique, showing the torturer with a juice glass of water poured on the victim's face. *splish* goes the torturer, emptying the little cup.

Sorry, but if you're going to simulate drowning, it's going to take more than a juice glass of water ("time to drink from the firehose!!") Even as the media are forced to reveal something of the technique, they sanitize it, lest it wrinkle too many American brows.

The only reason the Bush League don't want any information the technique is because IT IS TORTURE. Same reason why he wants an Attorney General who'll allow it to stand unchallenged.

I'm sure Feinstein will punt on this critical vote, given her track record, and sadly, I think Schumer will likely vote for confirmation, as well. The principle Bush/Cheney are standing for is being authorized to do whatever the hell they want to captives. What principle is Schumer standing for?

You see what Schumer and Feinstein are doing, don't you Tim? They are doing a little pole dance, Washington style, to see if they can get the Republicans to stuff some greenbacks in their g-strings.

"Oh," Schumer coyly croons as he slides up and down the brass pole, "I haven't made up my mind yet. Maybe I'll go this way, or maybe I'll go that way. What ya got, boys? Let's see what you're willing to trade for my vote."

And Feinstein, a seasoned old slattern is sitting straddle-legged on her bentwood chair ala Marlene Dietrich, not saying a word. She knows the less she shows 'em, the more they want it. It drives them crazy. But the Republicans know she'll eventually put out. She's in the world's second oldest profession: politics.

Another great analogy from our good friend Mr. Owen. Now let's watch this one play itself out.

Of his vote-to-come, Schumer says, "I'm not going to have a public discussion on it." God forbid we have a public discussion about the public's business.

I'm a little more sympathetic to Chuck Schumer.

Schumer has held a high opinion of Mukasey for a long time. He didn't agree with Mukasey on everything but thought him to be a man of principle who'd uphold the rule of law in the face of partisan politics.

But now Mukasey is equivocating over something as "repugnant" (Mukasey's own word) as waterboarding for what seem to be partisan reasons. How can Mukasey be trusted now?

I think Schumer's a little heartbroken. He's probably curled up in the fetal position somewhere with a pint of Ben & Jerry's. Does he dare trust Mukasey again? How can he risk his heart?

i urged that the senator block the mukasey nomination; wonder how many greenbacks it would taken to sex up my opinion?

From this administration, we will never get somebody who agrees with us on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best thing we can hope for is someone who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first."

just sounds like some multiple personality disorder at work.

Wouldn't someone who put the rule of law first agree with the Democrats on issues like torture and wiretapping? Or is there some subtlety here that I'm missing??

What a crock o'crap.

You know how you make someone feel like drowning? You drown them. The Gestapo called it "The Bath." You dunk them and fill their lungs with water, and you revive them, clear their lungs.

That's really the issue with the waterboarding, the one the government and the media are dancing around, because to honestly evaluate what's going on, to think about it, would reveal it for what it is. That's why they'd never actually demonstrate the technique on any politician who's supposedly confused about what it entails -- because it is, by definition, cruel and unusual punishment. Unconstitutional, yo!

And the crap with Bush threatening to not have an Attorney General if Mukasey goes down, well, LET him make that threat, let him follow through on it -- better for Bush to stand firm and foolish against legality and for cruel and unusual punishment than for Congress to enable the ongoing lawlessness of this administration by rubber-stamping Mukasey.

Let this administration have no Attorney General, rather than Congress supporting its lawlessness, and making themselves complicit in its illegality. Bush/Cheney will beat the bully pulpit, Fox will loudly attack the Democrats, but the fact of it is that what Bush/Cheney want is the approval and acceptance of torture, in violation of our Constitution. They are on the moral wrong on this issue, pure and simple, and they are on the wrong side of the Constitution.

New York Salonistas should be leaning hard on Schumer, California Salonistas should be at least trying to lean on Feinstein, to get them to at least try to do the right thing, here.

Mukasey has already demonstrated that he WON'T put the rule of law first. He has said that one reason he can't say that waterboarding is torture is because it may put some members of the administration in legal jeopardy. That means he puts the legal welfare of Bushies before the legal welfare of the United States.

So, by Sen. Schumer's own standards, the choice is clear. Vote No.

and e-mailed him too. I will be disinterested in giving my future support to the man if he votes yes to the nomination. Just because Bushit isn't interested in nominating someone who's not in favor of torture or illeagal spying doesn't mean the rest of the free world isn't appaled by it. It doesn't mean Schumer shouldn't also be appaled and vote no to Bushit's maddness. It should be the very reason why he shouldn't vote yes...