Regarding Mukasey: Now that it's over, I'm going to hope for the best.

[cali]

True, I don't have high expectations, but I don't agree with those who say he's worse than Gonzo. Gonzo was a longtime enforcer for bushco. It was always a given that the only interests he'd be looking out for were bush's.

Mukasey does not have that relationship or history with bush. He as actually come out in opposition to busho in Padilla.

The Justice Department is a bloody mess. He can't do a worse job of politicizing it than gonzo. Maybe he'll be better than I expect.

[NightWatcher]

1. but Mukasey has been a longtime supporter of Uber Prez Power

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey suggested today that the president could ignore federal surveillance law if it infringes on his constitutional authority as commander in chief.

Under sharp questioning about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Mukasey said there may be occasions when the president's wartime powers would supersede legal requirements to obtain a warrant to conduct wiretaps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/18/mukasey-bush-can-ignore-_n_69047.html?load=1&page=2


It's illegal, but the pres can do it if he 'needs to'. Sounds a lot like Nixon saying, "if the president does it, it's not illegal"

[Marr]

2. Let me now how that hope works out.

For myself, I'm going to refrain from voting for or otherwise supporting any Democrat who ignored the principle here in favor of political expediency.

By the way, Mukasey's refusal to call waterboarding torture is a clear indication that he considers his roll to be that of covering up for the Bush Administration rather than enforcing the law of the land.

[cali]

7. According to most of the legal analysis

no prospective AG chosen by this admin would have declared that. He's certainly not worse than gonzo.

Hope costs me nothing. It's not the same as having expectations.

[Marr]

12. No, the Bush Administration wouldn't have chosen a nominee who

would actually enforce the law as it applies to the members of the Bush Administration, this is true. It's a very damning point, and worth shoving their noses in for the remainder of Bush's term, if necessary. They shouldn't have compromised on this, because the only thing people will see is complicity.

[MrModerate]

3. However, if he is unable or unwilling to define waterboarding as torture . . .

Then he is, by definition, incompetent. And not just incompetent as in "lousy at his job" but incompetent as in "so crazy he can't be allowed to run loose."

And Schumer and Feinstein have just handed him the keys to the torture cell.

Because they're *still* too cowardly to oppose this criminal gang in the White House.

Mukasey can't do as bad a job as Gonzales? That's the optimist in you coming out.

[Mojorabbit]

4. They cleared him then?

I just got back from the neurologist and am trying to catch up.

[spanone]

6. first thing, now they're bullshiting about it....a little ass-backward to me

[Atman]

5. The ONLY substantive difference between Gonzo and Mukasy:

Gonzo was a "made man" at BushCo. He had no experience outside of being Bush's long-time consigliere, and owed his entire career to Bush. Therefore, he was completely incapable of rendering an independent decision.

OTOH, Mukasy is a respected judge with a distinguished career with no direct connection to the president, and at least the appearance of being independent.

But in the end, there is otherwise no difference if Mukasy, like Gonzo, refuses to reign in Bush's powers and tell him his illegal actions are, indeed, illegal. And it appears that that is exactly what we've got, a distinction without a difference. In the end, Bush gets what he wants and America gets fucked. That we've been fucked with the help of a distinguished judge makes it no less of a fucking.

.

[cali]

8. That's a difference.

And who knows? Mukasey may surprise us. I'm not expecting that to happen, but stranger things have. Hell, I never would have predicted Ashcroft standing up to bush.

[Greyhound]

9. Is half of a shit sandwich really better than nothing? n/t

[cali]

10. Are stupid non-sequiturs better than shit on buttered toast with

sprinkles on top?

[Greyhound]

33. Ooo, I'm so cut.

Typical crap from you, evade or avoid, then attack.

You're such a tool.:rofl:

[MadHound]

11. You can hope in one hand. . .

Really now, do you honestly think that with his ass on the line, trying to slide out of office without getting arrested, that Bush would push through anybody but another sychophant who would look the other way, shred the Constitution and disregard the rule of law? Sorry, but Mukasey is nothing but a stealth nominee, one who looks clean but who in reality is just another part of the Bushco crime family.

Hope is a fine thing, I hope to win the lottery someday. But I also prefer to deal on the level of reality, and the reality in this case is that Mukasey is no better than Gonzo, and possibly worse.

[cali]

13. As I said, I have no expectations

hope costs nothing. It doesn't result in disappointment if it's unaccompanied by expectation, and it's healthy. I don't know what he'll do.

I didn't expect Ashcroft to stand up to bushco. I'd always loathed him.

All I'm saying is sometimes people surprise you.

[mmonk]

14. I will fight fascism in my country until I no longer can.

[cali]

19. I'm sorry, I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.

I certainly didn't say I wasn't going to fight what's going on in this country. I'm not sure what you've done, but I know what I've done, and expressing hope isn't caving to anything.

[mmonk]

29. I was making a statement.

Hope for the best sounds like acceptance.

[cali]

31. now that's just damn sad.

and, unsurprisingly, you're dead wrong. Hope is not the same thing as acceptance- unless you mean the acceptance of the FACT that Mukasey will be the next AG. And no, I don't consider rejection of facts as commendable.

[Fredda Weinberg]

15. There are good arguments on the Dem side n/t

[lapfog_1]

16. Problem is... we've been doing that for 7 looong years now

When the repukes nominated GW, some people hoped for the best should he win.
When he choose Cheney as his VP, people said "Good, someone with some experience to steady a young W." and hoped for the best.
When he named Colin Powell as SecState, people said "that shows some wisdom, a respected moderate foreign policy guy!" and people hoped for the best.

When he used illegal tactics to steal the election and a chosen goon squad of rethuglicans to stop the Florida recount, the supremes installed him, and people hoped for the best.

When 9/11 happened, and we saw him with that "deer in the headlights" look, frozen in the classroom, people really hoped for the best.

(I could go on and on, but you get the drift).

Frankly, I don't "hope for the best" anymore, I expect the worst.

I remember when Ashcroft resigned and we got Gonzo... there were a *lot* of folks that thought that NOBODY could be worse than Ashcroft... only it wasn't true, not by a long shot.

[CoffeeCat]

17. I think we can all assume that...

...anyone who Bush nominates will be a living nightmare and
a proponent of treating the Constitution like a rag.

The problem is...we're now a nation of waterboarding. We're
actually DEBATING whether or not our nation should waterboard.

The proper response to even asking the waterboarding question is, "What
in the fuck are you talking about, you sadistic freak?" Jaws should
be dropped and tears shed. Instead, we debate the legitimacy of
madness.

And now we have an AG candidate who won't state that the
madness is indeed, madness.

[cali]

22. I think that torture and our use of it, which has been going on

for friggin' years now, should be talkied about openly. In that sense this is a positive thing. And the people on the sane/humane side of the issue, aren't debating it, they're using this as an opportunity- a teaching moment, if you will.

[MissDeeds]

18. Wish I could be optimistic

But with Mukasey in, I am looking ahead and wondering what the Dems will do next to disappoint us. They have folded like cheap tin foil time and time again and I am beyond disgusted and angry. Yes, we have several who dig their heels in and stand up for the Constitution, but the horde who gives in to this despotic administration is culpable in its crimes. Just my opinion.

[Spazito]

20. That's one hell of a set of rose-colored glasses you are sporting...

Mukasey refused to say water-boarding is torture and was very quick to say the President can be above the law. How is he different from Gonzales again? Did you read the transcript of his testimony? I must assume not given the content of your OP. Here is some of what he said:


Consider the nominee’s suggestion that the president can ignore any law, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, if he and his lawyers determine that the law impinges on his authority as commander in chief during wartime.

“The president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law,” Mukasey explained, with a response that employed legalese at levels not heard in Washington since Richard Nixon boarded that last plane for San Clemente. “The president doesn’t stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/05/5034/

You might want to read this, it may remove those rose-colored glasses you are wearing, I don't hold out much hope of that but, still, it is worth a try.

[cali]

26. No. I haven't read his testimony.

but here's the deal one more time: I have no expectations that he'll be an improvement on Gonzales. I hope he will be. That's all. I won't be shocked or disappointed if he continues to politicize the JD, or covers for bushco, or anything else. It costs me nothing to hope that he's an improvement.

[Spazito]

28. Actually, accepting the decision has been made and merely hoping

he isn't as bad or worse than gonzales does cost you, imo. Instead of lobbying your Senators to work on getting over 40 votes against him or putting a hold on this, you are resigned to what has not yet happened yet, in reality, and aren't going to do a damn thing except "hope".

I find it interesting you "won't be shocked or disappointed", will you be enraged, shouldn't you be enraged at this further insult to your Constitution? I guess not.

[cali]

30. Actually, I've contacted both my Senators

asking them to support a filibuster or put a hold on the nom. But I know that's not gonna happen. So I've done all I can. I've repeatedly contacted Leahy and Sanders. You might have asked me that first, but you were so determined to think ill of me, and jump to the worst conclusion, that you didn't. That says something about YOU.

Yes. I'll continue to outraged about what's happened to the Constitution. Sometimes to the annoyance of my friends and family, but I do try and reach some peace about the things I can't do anything about, and I don't see hope as something dirty as you seem to.

[Spazito]

34. Hmmm, after reading your OP stating "now that it is over"

why would I not assume you have accepted this and moved on "hoping for the best". There was nothing in your OP encouraging anyone to contact their Senators to oppose Mukasy in the upcoming vote or stating you were continuing to oppose his confirmation.

When someone says "Now that it's over, I'm going to hope for the best." it infers no further action beyond "hope" is going to occur with that person.

It is unfortunate you see something "dirty" in fighting to the end, I do not, I guess that is what differentiates your perspective on many issues versus mine.

[cali]

35. lol

as I said, you're determined to think ill of me and see to have no compunction twisting things so that you can comfortably do so. have at your petty pursuit.

[Oilwellian]

21. Here's to hoping for...

a big steaming pile of shit that will erode our Constitution even further. :toast:

[countingbluecars]

23. Bush is laughing

while you're hoping.

[bbgrunt]

24. good luck with that.

[Marrah_G]

25. I am truly disappointed today

And frankly very,very angry ( as I think our senators are) at Finestein and Shumer. I don't know why they voted as they did. They told all their colleges to fuck off and they backed a POS like this guy? It makes no sense.

I have always been a huge supporter of the Dem Party here on DU, but today I find myself wondering what the hell is going on. Diane I can almost understand...but Chuck?

This seems like an easy no brainer win for the Dems....yet again Bush wins.

I have to admit: Today I lost a chunk my faith and my hope.

[KharmaTrain]

27. I Can See Some Serious Conflicts Ahead

Bushco wanted Ted Olson or some other lackey for this job. This may turn out that this regime didn't do its "due diligence" on this guy and could be in for a surprise.

As you point out, he's not like Gonzo or Rove...a member of the texas cabal. He's also not part of cheney's "cone o' silence" world either. He could be a third wheel in a machine that has been falling apart for the past two years. Yes, he was pressured to give this regime cover, but I see him being a problem down the road. Most specifically when it comes to bumping heads with cheney/addington. Most important I see him possibly being a champion for the career prosecutors in the department rather than the political hacks from the Pat Robertson law school. He could easily bump heads with the regime when he sides against them...or looks the other way (like Janet Reno did) as various investigations into this regime's criminality ramp up.

He'll also have to make decision in the growing list of subpoenas and future contempt citations on regime members...will he allow materials to be turned over and investigations to proceede. Stay tuned.

While I am not defending Schumer for his vote, he has developed some interesting conections within the DOJ. An example is his relationship with Paul McNulty that helped break the DOJ firings into high gear. Maybe Mukasey will be another mole as the career prosecutors attempt to restore some integrity to their division.

[The Stranger]

32. Translation: Cali never really opposed this nomination but tries to appear as if she opposes(d) it.

Let's just be up front about it.

[Richard Steele]

36. She was supporting it last week, and bashing anyone who wanted to fight it. nm