Leahy vs. Mukasey

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced his decision on whether he will support President Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General at his Burlington office on Wednesday afternoon.

Mukasey, a former federal judge in New York, had been considered a shoe-in when he was nominated to fill the vacancy of Bush’s political ally, A.G. Alberto Gonzales, who resigned under a dark cloud of bipartisan criticism.

But the tide turned on Mukasey’s second day before Leahy’s Judiciary Committee when the Bush nominee declined to declare that the form of torture known as "waterboarding" was, in fact, illegal and a violation of US Law. In fact, he said he didn't know if waterboarding was "torture." Said St. Patrick:

When it comes to our core values, the things that make our country great, that define America’s place in the world, these values do not waiver or change from president to president. They are America’s values. They are not values that are owned by any president, or any administration or any Congress or any attorney general. They are the values of a great and good country.

America should continue to stand against torture.

Leahy told reporters in response to a question that he has asked Mukasey both publicly and privately to reconsider and take a public position on "waterboarding," but Mukasey, he said , has firmly declined.

I wish I could support his nomination, but I cannot. America needs to be  certain and confidant of the bedrock principle deeply embedded in our laws and our values that no, no one in our country  is above the law.

So when the Judiciary Committee meets on Tuesday morning, I will vote “no” on the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States.

Asked to respond to President George W. Bush’s criticism made  before the right-wing Heritage Foundation Thursday that the nation is at war and in desperate need of having an attorney general in office, Leahy told reporters “In some ways the nation has been without an attorney general since Alberto Gonzales was installed.”

Ouch!

It was the big political story of Friday afternoon as Democrats divulged how they'd vote. A freelance TV crew was there to feed CNN. Dave Gram was in from Montpeculiar's Associated Press Bureau - here he is letting the world know on the sidewalk outside. And a crew from the new local Fox News operation, too. They're expected to hit the local airwaves shortly.

Can't wait.

Comments

[JPC]

What a loon Leahy is. He has publically stated over and over that we need an AG that will not bow to Bush. I guess that means that he has to stand up to Bush but he can't stand up to King Pat. He has to be the Dems man. What happened to someone who would restore integrity. I would rather have him say "I don't know, I need to look into it" then "Whatever you want me to think Pat" Isn't going to support him because he won't declare waterboarding a form of torture, and then has the gall to ask him to rethink his opinion. That is a BULLY ( got that Freyne, Leahy is nothing but a bully) and since he won't Pat's not going to play with him anymore. Hey Pat, go read the definition of torture from the UN charter, you will find that is unlikely that waterboarding could be consider torture, pulling your fingernails out with a pair of pliers yes, but not waterboarding. The only person Leahy will support is himself and I am not even sure he would then. This guy is an embarassment to VTer's

[bigbadbrad]

More of the same from Jpc. What a surprize.

[jcarter]

yeah, lessons from GMP and Bubba have really paid off.

[JPC]

More of the same from bbb, always there with a quip, just never has anything of substance to say.

[bigbadbrad]

What do I need to engage with you about? You repat the same nonsense ad nausem, It is tedious and redundant. Argueing with you is like spearing fish in a barrel, where's the sport? Keep brattling on, I'm so sure someone out there thinks your funny. You are going to chuckles, right? Cause you are a laugh riot!

[bigbadbrad]

What do I need to engage with you about? You repeat the same nonsense ad nausem. Frankly, it is tedious and redundant. Argueing with you is like taking on a one legged man in a ass-kicking contest, where's the sport in that? Keep brattling on, I'm so sure someone out there thinks you're hilarious. You are going for chuckles, right? Cause you are a laugh riot! I hope for your sake because if your trying to be profoundor insightful, you are sadly mistaken, partner.

[Doug Hoffer]

Most means of mass communication in this society have already been demeaned or co-opted by corporate interests or ideologues (or both). This one is supposed to be different. Is this the best we can do?

Is it any wonder so few people participate? Why would they when it's likely they will be insulted? And since much of the "content" is not substantive, there is little to respond to even if they were so inclined.

You guys are free to say what you like, but you really are turning people off. Give it a rest.

[ItsNotTheNewYorkerHere]

"This one is supposed to be different."

I have no idea where you get that. Did someone tell you that this blog is *supposed* to be an erudite exchange of high-minded comments and ideas? Is that written somewhere?

I wish that it were so, but I think you're misinformed. In the months that I've been reading this blog, most of the comments are either inane, or just insulting, or both. And that also goes for a lot of the blog entries that inspire the comments as well.

[Peter Joes]

Doug doesn't quite get it.

Some folks use this as a form of entertainment. A venue where you can anonymously be the person you can't otherwise be.

Other participants want a moderated forum where real ideas can be discussed, modified, improved, and maybe something worthwhile will result. Junk or insulting postings would never appear on the forum because they would be tossed in the round file by the moderator.

This would be different from this blog.

Maybe a separate issues discussion forum.

People would have to identify themselves. This would stifle certain communication. Maybe there is a way to have it moderated where certain postings, with the approval of the moderator can be posted anonymously.

For instance, if a police officer wanted to post that as a police officer he or she thinks the laws against marijuana are counter-productive, they may not want their name used.

Just a thought.

PJ

[Fair_Is_Fair]

No. Anonymity for all, or for none.

[Doug Hoffer]

"I have no idea where you get that. Did someone tell you that this blog is *supposed* to be an erudite exchange of high-minded comments and ideas? Is that written somewhere?"

I didn't say "erudite" or "high-minded". I said different.

I understood blogs to be free of the corporate filter that determines most of what we see & hear. That people could speak their minds freely. Those two criteria are met.

But I didn't expect this level of personal antagonism, anger or pettiness.

[jcarter]

"But I didn't expect this level of personal antagonism, anger or pettiness."

You should check out the BFP forums. The bfp blog is bad enough, but the forums are just a real class act. Unfortunately, the same players lurk at all three places and basically cause everyone with real arguments, issues, concerns to drop off due to the unpleasantness. I've been watching this for a while. New posters offer relatively good arguments. They get chastised (that's a gentle description) and then nicknamed for even having that view. The new posters hang on for a while offering rebuttle, but then eventually shoot back a few grenades and then drop off and spend their time elsewhere. Funny thing is that is not all of the story. I've also noticed that those who enter the conversation who are aligned with the abrasive posters eventually become abrasive posters themselves, and adopt the same tactics to discourage any input from a differing viewpoint.

I'm sure there is some type of PhD internet Community study on this, or maybe somebody is working on one right now.

At any rate, the abrasiveness is not likely to change. With temporary email ID's and such and no real personal identification, one can post anonymously. Anonymous posting always degrades to nothing without strict moderation. The BFP forums could be cleaned up and more would particpate. BFP blogs and this one are a free for all in their present state. These could be cleaned up some if the owners required reusable ID's and moderated the comments, perhaps by deputizing some responsible posters (if any can be found).

But even then, these blogs/forums may still be wasteland. Spend some time on FreeRepublic and check out some of the freepers and you'll see what I mean.

[bigbadbrad]

JCarter, I hope your not talking about me. I'd take some personal inventory if I where you. JPC says Waterboarding is not torture when in fact we imprisoned Japanese soldiers for war crimes for doing the very same thing. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Look, The Guy says the same nonsense over and over. It is the same post ad nauseum. "Freyne is Sanders and Leahy's personal bootlick, Sander's and leahy are bullies and loons, blah blah, blah...." It's dog-gone tedious. If someone is so diametricly opposed to someone's blog, then why do you read the darn thing?

[Pot_Is_Black]

"Look, The Guy says the same nonsense over and over. It is the same post ad nauseum."

BBB, I'd look in the mirror and take "some personal inventory" yourself. Your posts are repetitive insults against JPC.

[JPC]

BBB, if the shoe fits.....

I don't believe waterboarding fits the definition of torture. If that is the only reason we imprisoned Japanese Soilders is for waterboarding the we were wrong. I suspect that isn't the case though.

As for Sanders and Leahy, I used to like Pat, then his head swelled and he turned into a bully who wastes his position of power to engage in pissing matches with the administration. Sanders I don't believe is a bully, he is just useless. Until people realize it they will continue to elect him. I read the blog, because Peter does a wonderful job of reporting the political going on's in the state. I post because his point of view is very biased and it the other side of the story helps discussion. I don't claim to know everything and like to hear what the other side is, as long as it is a thought out, logical and reasoned argument. Maybe I will learn something, and maybe somebody else reading the blog will too. However one thing jcarter is right about is unfortunately the adolescent nature of some of the posters has dragged down other well meaning posters. Myself included. See, Brad after reading you insults and attacks constantly it is very hard not to just insult you back, or actually read what you posted. Instead of telling my why you don't think Leahy is a bully his remarks to the nominee you just say its the same old nonsense. If you don't agree then make a point otherwise your just be useless. And, jcarter, using someone else's ID is worse then just calling them a name, you complain about the conduct on these boards, but engage in the same thing.

[jcarter]

no, observations not complaints.

I did enjoy the downtime of the "usual suspects" and observed that during that period there have been other posters who have posted reasonable comments.

btw, I thought you switched your ID?

[bigbadbrad]

"I post because his point of view is very biased" ... Groan, It's his blog! Start your own, for heavens sakes.

it is very hard not to just insult you back - That's is rich. How is life in that glass house, anyway. What do you use for heat?

PAt leahy doesn't need me to defend him, your the voice in the wilderness saying these baseless accusations about him. Why should I waste my time trying to debunk a nonisse?

And Jcarter, good for you, friend. Pot is black, OH, you are so right, I'm an awful, awful human being. Please kill me now.