Letters to the Editor
-
As a resident of NY
I will not be voting for Senator Schumer henceforth. This is merely the latest in a series of Republican-lite capitulations and doublespeak.
And I won't be throwing my vote away on a Green candidate, either! I'll vote for his Repug opponent. At least I'll know where he stands . . .
Thanks, Chuck!
-
and what about the Iron Maiden?
"Congress will adopt a legal ban on waterboarding"
Does Congress have to go atrocity by atrocity banning individual tortures? Now waterboarding will be A-OK. What about tomorrow, removing fingernails? After all it isn't fatal, and leaves no grievous damage. I recall certain Japanese war criminals who were executed for among their crimes torture (including waterboarding).
I find it beyond comprehension that we find ourselves at this juncture, and I find it appalling that Republicans and conservatives have, once again, been allowed to frame the debate and take ownership of this issue and have suddenly transformed the US into a torture state. The next time planes explode into skyscapers, or a shopping mall explodes I hope people will remember this moment...then try to say, "They hate us because we love freedom."
The most alarming part is that the American people as a whole seem so ambivilant to this issue.
-
I just e-mail Schumer
and urged him to meet with Feinstein and LIEberman and do all of us a favor and defect en-mass to the GOP. At least they could then take their "principled" stands as members of the party they have been in support of. They then could look like "reasonable" GOP lemmings instead of turncoat democrats. Placing America squarly into a third-world standing by giving torture a blind-eye pass places them into the good stead of Darth himself who benefits immensly by this latest backpedal of America's moral standing. Heck of a job Charlie...
-
Beyond contemptible
I have never felt such rage at my party, the Democrats. They stand for nothing. They are nothing. I will not any longer be associated with these beneath-contempt loathsome losers. I'm getting out of this party, I can't stand the stench any more.
-
Hilarious!
and he said that he's confident that Mukasey "would enforce that law."
Well, great, Chuck. You're sure he's going to enforce that law. For a minute, I was about to label you Charlie Brown, and Mukasey, Lucy. You're just sure he's going to enforce that law. And then I realized, as I was reading the Op-Ed, that you're not Charlie Brown. You're just a cynical political hack who expects to smooth over your constituents' outrage by telling them that a law will be enacted, and Mukasey will follow that law. Voila! Problem solved. No need to worry.
Except, Chuck, why don't you be upfront about the odds that such a law will be enacted. Even if something could be passed in the Senate (and that's no guarantee, thanks to my very own Joe Lieberman, and, let's face it, Dianne Feinstein) there's this little problem:
George W. Bush would almost certainly veto any ban on waterboarding, meaning it would take effect only if two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate were willing to stand up to the president and override such a veto.
And that is never ever going to happen.
Cynical political hack.
But so serious and bipartisan.
-
Wait, hear me out...
I think Mukasey's nomination deserves to be moved to a full Senate vote. He's legally qualified with a past reputation for fairness, even though his equivocations on waterboarding are, as Condoleezza Rice might say, "disappointing." His refusal to speak clearly about waterboarding prompt questions about his character. But I think reasonable people can disagree about whether or not this is a deal-breaker.
Will we get a better nomination from the Bush Administration? Are we better off with Mukasey as Attorney General than no one at all? Will he serve the position well? Will he do more good than harm? Will he reign-in some of the Bush Admistration's excesses? Again, because I think reasonable people can disagree about these issues, Mukasey should get a full vote.
The thing is, with this going to a full vote, Mukasey will certainly be confirmed (it'll be a squeaker, though). Should we choose this over ideological purity or is it better to send a message?
I'm really not sure what to think about this. But I do think Mukasey could do some good.
-
That'll cost 'em
In fact, it already has. I'm cutting off all donations to the Democratic party.
The Democratic Party appears to be running on the "well, we're not as bad as the other guys" platform. After all, we have no other choice but to vote for them...unless we want to vote Republican.
I beg to differ. They've lost my money, and next they'll lose my vote. A pox on both their houses.
-
I can only hope...
That Mukasey is GWB's Earl Warren.
-
Got
"fillabuster"??
-
Bullshit all around
The idea of there needing to be a statute explicitly banning waterboarding is ridiculous. It is banned by the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that we signed, which is therefore U.S. law according to the Constitution. A statute outlawing it would be completely redundant.
And the idea that it hasn't occured to Schumer that Bush would veto such a bill is a laughable at best. There's no way he doesn't know that, and he was most certainly fully aware of it when he made his statement on the matter.
-
No, this isn't going to happen, mizbinkley:
it'll be a squeaker, though
No it won't. It's probably going to be 70-30s range, which doesn't qualify as a squeaker, because every single Republican will vote for it, and the lacking-any-backbone or integrity Democrats will vote for it, as well, for fear of being called mean names by the Republicans.
This isn't a question of ideological purity, unless you consider ideological purity the belief that the United States stands for something besides torture. If so, then call me an ideological purist, and proud of it.
Yes, I agree that Mukasey might do some good, but he's also significantly smarter than Gonzales, and has already demonstrated that he leans towards safeguarding executive power, so it seems to me that in the rush to complement him, and the relief that he's not another Gonzales, the Senate is on the verge of confirming someone who might be even worse than Gonzales. Just because that person is demonstrably more competent.
I say this even though Chuck Shumer tells me that a vote for Mukasey is a "vote for justice".
Up is down, black is white, and the bar has been so lowered by this Administration that we're going to install someone who won't rule out torture as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. Sweet!