Mukasey signals support for torture.
Mukasey signals support for torture.
Newsweek reports that in recent private meetings with “hard-liners,” Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey reassured conservatives that he was committed to the Bush administration’s right-wing ideology:
According to three sources, who asked not to be named discussing the private meetings, Mukasey said that he saw “significant problems” with shutting down Guantánamo Bay and that he understood the need for the CIA to use some “enhanced” interrogation techniques against Qaeda suspects. Mukasey also signaled reluctance with naming a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-administration misconduct, according to one participant.
One “well-connected” conservative who attended the meeting later observed, “Gosh, I’m a little worried that the Democrats might have problems with him.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:57 amEggplant Moussaka supports “torture”. So what else is new? Obviously, Bush intends to make him a AbuGonzo Redux.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:00 amNot to worry, Democrats will push him through.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:00 amTripmaster: Isn’t that the definition of “insanity”?? Repeating the same mistake and believing in another outcome??
September 24th, 2007 at 10:01 am#3 I don’t know what these spineless Dems are thinking.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:01 amThe dialogue in congress needs to be the outsouring of torture and the outsourcing of murder (Blackwater) right now.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:02 am“…three sources, who asked not to be named…â€= just as likely to be BS as true.
Comment by Vendetta — September 24, 2007 @ 10:01 am
What, because the sources were Republican and therefore probably experienced liars? You make a good point.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:06 amAnother bootlicker who thinks the Constitution is “quaint”. Why do conservatives hate Americans? First question that should be asked at the confirmation hearings:
“Mr. Mukasey, as the potential next Attorney General what do you feel should be the legal punishment for someone who swears to uphold the Constitution and upon confirmation follows this Administration down the dark road of ignoring the Constitution to justify it’s agenda?”
Thought so, NEXT!
September 24th, 2007 at 10:09 ama little worried? lol, dems should block every single goddamn thing bushco wants to do because if bush is for it, its BAD for the usa.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:12 amThe “Democrats might have problems with him”?
How about any conscience-driven American?
I want to see the Dems fight for principle, but I am not holding my breath.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:17 amthe repuke need not worry; the dems will roll over and welcome the new torture advocate with open arms.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:22 amFan of Man: The excuse the Dems are using is that they don’t want the rep of being “controversial” – frig that! It’s time they forget worrying about that kind of rep and begin worrying about the rep of being ignorant and out of touch with the american people.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:34 amHi Marie: Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the Dems “fight for principle”?? Don’t hold your breath. The word around the beltway to describe dems these days is “complicit” and not “principled”.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am“Abu-Mukasey” (translated AbuMoussaka) will be on greek restaurant menus tomorrow!
September 24th, 2007 at 10:36 amany private meetings with democrats?
this guy is only slightly better than gonzo
but the acting AG, in the meantime, is as bad…
there is a method to their madness…
September 24th, 2007 at 10:41 am.
Yeah, the significant problems with shutting down Gitmo are that those impisoned there might finally get to contest their detention and the world will learn what many of their captures have known for years: there is no reason for them to be there. Those damn facts, getting in the way of a good mind-f*ck brought to you by your fearless leader. And we have the nerve to lecture others about good manners and how to treat human beings.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:42 amShumer wants Mukasey, so he’s golden. Leahy will make a few mouth noises in the hearing & coin a few phrases, but the fix is in on this guy.
What I want to find out is what meager “tit” did the Dems get for the “tat” of this nominee…
September 24th, 2007 at 10:43 ami totally agree Veritas.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:45 amCowardly and spineless Democrats will play dead. This guy is a shoo in because the Democrats are scared of the Bush Facists.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:46 amOne would have to call into question Chuck Shumer’s support of Mukasey. What is the history behind Shumer’s relationship with Mukasay?
September 24th, 2007 at 10:48 amNo doubt Ace would know something about this. Hey Ace…where are you when we need you?
September 24th, 2007 at 10:49 amThese days when anyone comes to the fore to laud a candidate or heap praise on him, we have to look behind the secret curtain and see that which is less than obvious. Shumer/Mukasey = Strange Bedfellows. What is their critical connection? You know there HAS to be one.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:50 amWe can always hope that the Dems will grow spines sometime
September 24th, 2007 at 10:50 amsoon but I’m not holding my breath
He must be looking for a supreme court nomination.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:54 amEggplant Moussaka supports “tortureâ€. So what else is new? Obviously, Bush intends to make him a AbuGonzo Redux.
Comment by Veritas — September 24, 2007 @ 10:00 am
I’ll thank you not to hate on eggplant moussaka like that – it’s really quite good if it’s made well, and eggplant is an excellent source of vitamins.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:04 amWhen Mukasey was first announced as the probable nominee, I didn’t trust the early reports of him being acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans. They hyped his “Moderate” positions, but were mum on anything current.
Then Bill Kristol endorsed him, and any outrage by the Right was non-existent. I knew then he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Can’t trust a damn thing this WH says or does.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:05 amAlthough Schumer may honestly see Mukasey as a moderate when compared to the rest of the potential nominees, remember Leahy has said he will hold up the Mukasey nomination until the White House agrees to give him the emails, memos and witnesses he’s requested regarding spy programs and attorney firings. That’s the obvious tit for tat – we will give you Mukasey if you give us what we want. Mukasey may be the least bad choice. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Leahy will carry through on this.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:09 amMukasey may indeed be the least bad choice. I can hear the bargaining session now- Hey, @ least it’s not Ted Olson.
I wish I could be optimistic about your tit for tat scenario, Candyce, but Leahy has been all bark so far in the SJC hearings. SJC won’t get anything from the WH w/out a much stronger crowbar than hanging up Mukasey’s nom, which they’re not going to do anyway. Enforce those subpoenas, dammit…
September 24th, 2007 at 11:21 amif true, he must not be confirmed…
September 24th, 2007 at 11:26 amGosh! I’m a lot worried that another Bush yes man is going to be the chief law enforcement officer in the land…
September 24th, 2007 at 11:27 amGot Gitmo?
Damn, first we had a gonzo the glutton to distroy the constitution now we are going to get a muck-assey…..What doe’s that give us?…Yikes!..Blesings we realy need them.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:31 amDemos will have 3 problems with Mukasey: (1) How fast can he provide the names of replacement Justice cronies so they can approve them without complaint; (2) How soon can he provide new tools to curtail more our civil liberties so they can rubber stamp them (3) And finally they will want to verify that he will continue to impede investigations and support the ignoring of any subpoenas they might send out of committs.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:39 am“Gosh, I’m a little worried that the Democrats might have problems with him.†– The America People should have a problem with him.
Ignore the “it”
Buck Fush
September 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pmLet’s see the Repukes at first found this guy unacceptable because of his independence.Now the are saying he is darn good because he is not independent, afterall he is down with Bush on torture.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pmCan you say a whole lot of BS is being floated by Repukes to appeaze the lunatic 20% ?
Just like the Soup Nazi; no, no AG for you – next!
September 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pmWould he be considered for AG if he didn’t support torture???
September 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pmThanks for clearing that up, sasquatch – we were all wondering what the “blind follower caucus” had to say.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pmMukasey also signaled reluctance with naming a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-administration misconduct, according to one participant.
Unacceptable. Schumer had better be paying attention to this.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pm#38 O. Bigfoot
Since the United States does not use “tortureâ€, nor support the use of “tortureâ€, this point is moot.
Because Bush said so? Please, let’s not be silly now.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:14 pm