swimming freestyle

Mukasey, Mukasey, Mukasey....

Two points before Tuesdays vote on Mukasey by the Senate Judiciary Committee:

1.  Mukasey, in his written reply to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, referred to the question of waterboarding as "hypothetical".  Waterboarding has been deemed torture in the U.S. Military Code of Conduct since it was written and the U.S. prosecuted and sentenced World War II Japanese military officers to death for subjecting detainees to waterboarding.  It has also been widely reported waterboarding was used by U.S. forces during the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Administration statements indicate waterboarding, while no longer authorized for use by military forces is, in fact, still being practiced by the C.I.A.  Waterboarding is not hypothetical.

2.  Conservative media and commentators, in response to the Mukasey controversy, are arguing Congress should take a stand and declare waterboarding torture, settling the matter once and for all.  This is a smokescreen to distract from Mukasey's mysterious inability to unequivocally declare waterboarding torture and there are a couple problems with their proposal.  First, as noted above, waterboarding has been deemed torture by the United States since the beginnings of the Republic and it is only during the Bush Administration when it has been authorized.  It is also impractical, after years of a tacit understanding by U.S. military forces, to expect Congress to write legislation to outlaw every specific technique that has been considered torture all along.  Secondly, the Republican Congress passed, after a concerted effort by the White House to kill it, an anemic John McCain sponsored "ban" on torture in 2006.  The amendment was included in a Pentagon authorization bill and signed by the President with an accompanying "signing statement" allowing the President, as Commander in Chief, the authority to ignore the law whenever he sees fit.  So the statute the commentators and media claim they want has already been passed and the President, when signing it, sent a big "fuck you" to Congress.

Another Perspective on Obama

From Andrew Sullivan:

"Maybe I was wrong. Maybe my desire for knock-out punches is misreading the public mood. Maybe people want calm, clarity and decency in a candidate? This Luntz focus group must have Clinton worried. The respondents overwhelmingly backed Obama as the winner. The phrase: "grace under pressure." Yes, he has grace. And boy is his country under pressure. It certainly wouldn't be the first time my first impressions were off-base. You live and learn:"

The Iraqi Army

Iraqi army recruits being trained by U.S. forces.  This video just about says it all.

The Debate

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Brian Williams of NBC News opened the Democratic Presidential debate last night with a question for Barack Obama about his recent interview with the New York Times.  In the interview Obama promised he would now be taking the gloves off and vigorously highlighting the difference between his and her campaigns.  With his question, Williams damn near held Clinton's arms behind her back and held her for Obama to land a knockout punch.

Obama chose not to charge Clinton, but in his measured (sometimes frustratingly measured) manner he jabbed instead.  In the end, he effectively made the point that Clinton's policies are not principle based but, instead, political calculations that she amends as audiences and polling changes and her public statements and voting record read like a Republican resume.   But it was not the energized takedown that had been widely anticipated.

Clinton responded to the attacks predictably.  That is, she didn't directly respond to the attacks, instead boasting she is discussed so often in Republican Presidential debates because she has so steadfastly opposed their efforts and represents such a formidible foe ("and Democrats know that").

Diden (my combination of Chris Dodd and Joe Biden - both smart, thoughtful guys with great experience and absolutely no chance of becoming President) brought up Clinton's "electability".  Finally, someone mentioned that big elephant over in the corner: Clinton, fairly or not, is disliked by a significant number of voters who will not, under any circumstances, vote for her to be President.  Diden argued the Democratic nominee should be the candidate that has the best chance of beating a Republican, and nominating a candidate that 50% of voters refuse to consider is not a very smart starting point.  Obama and Edwards suggested the reason the Republicans talk about Clinton so much is because they are very comfortable with and looking forward to a fight they believe they can win. 

John Edwards doesn't have alot to lose by being aggressive and made the most of his opportunities to call Clinton out.  He was assertive and tenacious, and took every opportunity to levy blows to Ms. Clinton.  Edwards very effectively put Clinton on the defensive, and continued to do so throughout the debate.

In bigtime professional bicycle racing, particularly on long mountainous legs, riders will challenge one another, accelerating slightly then slowing, looking for a sign of weakness, a tell, some evidence that if they are able to gather up some last bit of strength they will be able to finally "crack" their rival and prevail.

After so many debates where Ms. Clinton dominated, deflecting every punch thrown by the other candidates, Clinton finally "cracked" last night.  Clinton's was asked about her public statements in favor of New York state's plan to offer drivers licenses to illegal aliens.  When Diden was asked the same question and disagreed with the proposal, Clinton looked panic struck.  Firstly, that someone would outflank her on her right (she presumes she has a lock on that) and secondly, that she would now have to finesse an answer that would be somehow both for and against the licenses for aliens.  Offering a particularly tortured explanation that she "understood the reasons for" but "didn't necessarily agree" with the plan, it was obvious she had "cracked" and both Edwards and Obama took advantage of the moment, pointing out Clinton's verbal gymnastics and calling it symptomatic of her candidacy.

While Barack Obama was not as assertive as promised, he was able to step up his game and did, ultimately, raise legitimate issues about a Clinton Presidential candidacy.  There is another debate in two weeks.  It will be interesting to watch how, if at all, Obama's strategy will be shaped by last nights debate.

More Clinton on Mukasey

Hillary Clinton offered another statement today regarding the nomination of Michael Mukasey:

"The Attorney General is the chief defender of the rule of law in our country. After Alberto Gonzales's troubled tenure, we cannot send a signal that the next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law. When we leave any doubt about our nation’s policy on torture, we send a terrible message to the rest of the world. Judge Mukasey has been given ample opportunity – both at his confirmation hearings and in his subsequent submission to the Judiciary Committee – to clarify his answers and categorically oppose the unacceptable interrogation techniques employed by this Administration. His failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose his nomination."

Better late than never.

Mukasey Punts

Per Think Progress

"In a written response to questions from Senate Democrats today, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey refused to explicitly say whether he believed waterboarding to be torture. In the four-page letter, Mukasey called the interrogation technique “over the line” and “repugnant” on “a personal basis,” but added that he would need the “actual facts and circumstances” to strike a “legal opinion”:

"Hypotheticals are different from real life and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical" wrote Mukasey.

Mukasey volunteered to study the issue:

"If, after such a review, I determine that any technique is unlawful, I will not hesitate to so advise the president and will rescind or correct any legal opinion of the Department of Justice that supports the use of the technique," Mukasey wrote to the committee's 10 Democrats.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee later said:

"Based on an initial review of his response to the letter, I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States."

We deserve so much better than this.  We've come to expect the President to offer up shameless sycophants for critical and high ranking positions in his Administration and the Judiciary and Mr. Mukasey, unfortunately, does not seem an exception.  Given Mukasey's toe the line expansive view of Executive Branch power and his continued inability to provide a straightforward condemnation of torture, Mukasey does not represent traditional American ideals and his conduct during the Senate confirmation hearings was evasive and contemptuous of Congress.

The Senate Judiciary Committee should vote to reject Mukasey's confirmation.  Mukasey is unfit to serve as Attorney General of the United States.

                                                                                                                                                      

Clinton Preps for Debate

Anticipating attacks from her rivals for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination in tonights MSNBC debate, Hillary Clinton has levied a preemptive strike, hoping to head them off at the pass.

Clinton seems most concerned about attacks from Obama, and has charged Obama with abandoning the "politics of hope" whenever he has taken a shot at her.  To date, his blows have been glancing and had little effect.  It is now thought, being stuck in second place in the polls, Obama needs to be more forceful in his criticism and more specific in the differences between his and her candidacies.  The debate tonight offers Obama an opportunity to land some heavy blows.

I would like to see Obama call Clinton out tonight on her use of deflection as a tactic to avoid criticism.  It is not "dirty politics" to outline differences between candidates and their policies, and I would like to see Obama make some clear distinctions from Clinton tonight.

Perhaps he could say rather than abandoning hope, he's firmly clinging to the hope Senator Clinton might be honest with Americans about her positions and especially hopeful she will finally share her plans for a Clinton presidency.

Just In Case..........

Just in case you believe you understand what makes people tick:

"Hotel workers in England stumbled on a shocking sight when they caught a man naked from the         waist down humping a bicycle in his room. Robert Stewart pled guilty to sexual breach of the peace and now has to remain on the registered sex offender list as he awaits sentencing. Interestingly, Stewart will not be the first man tried for knockin’ boots with an inanimate object — the courts jailed an electrician after he engaged in sex with pavement."

Clinton on Mukasey

With all the clarity and honesty we would expect from Senator Clinton comes her statement on Michael Mukasey's confirmation to Attorney General:

"Senator Clinton is deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey's unwillingness to clearly state his views on torture and unchecked executive power," a spokesman for her Senate office, Philippe Reines, told the Sun in an e-mail yesterday.

Mr. Reines refused to say whether that meant that Mrs. Clinton intended to oppose Judge Mukasey or even whether she has made a final decision..."

Immunity for Blackwater

From the New York Times:

"State Department investigators offered Blackwater security guards immunity during an inquiry into last month’s deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, government officials said today, calling it a potentially serious investigative misstep that could complicate efforts to prosecute the company’s employees involved in the episode."

Is anyone surprised by this?  Does anyone in the Bush Administration ever take responsibility; is anyone ever held accountable for their actions?  Why is it, in the real world, most people are remorseful when they err and have to atone for their sins, but this group never seems to believe it has done anything wrong or is so insulated they believe they're not answerable for their actions?