Feingold will vote against Mukasey
By John Amato Saturday Nov 03, 2007 5:30pmWill somebody please wake Dianne Feinstein up...Here's Feingold's statement:
I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation.
At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward.
The nation's top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country's history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.
Login or Register to post comments.
Wow. Who got to her?
Obama/Feingold in 2008!
shit. I mix those two names up. Bad kitty! bad bad kity!
I want to coin a new term:
Noture. ("notchure")
1) Not torture. "If done just right, waterboarding is noture."
-- Little Davey --
No surprize here...Feingold is the only one with nuts in that party...a shame he isn't running for President
miss_kitty @ 3:
You're not the only one. Someone posted a comment earlier today "DiFi changes mind of voting for Mukasey!" on a thread and it sent hordes of people scrambling the nets looking to back that up, only to figure out they must have made the same mistake. She was on CNN Late Ed and she's definitely going to vote for him, saying she feels he's better than someone Bush could stick in there with a recess appointment if he wanted to.
When our next AG doesn't know what torture is.....When our next AG doesn't stand up for the Rule of Law in the face of an overreaching president, is there any reason to even vote on him? Just give Gonzo a call to come back. We've obviously decided that what he was doing was OK.
If Guiliani wins the election - he has a perfect AG in place to carry on Bush's Legacy. Aren't the two very close? This makes it more important than ever that we don't let the Electoral vote in California be split and allow Republicans to take the White House again.
Good. He had me worried. And there would go one of the last people up in there I felt had some real integrity.
Does it matter at this point?
With Charles and Lady DiFi going over to the dark side, Feingold's decision isn't of much consequence. Nice statement, though.
No surprises with Russ Feingold, he's truly a progressive congressman with a matching voting record.
Does anyone know if any of the Democratic candidates have disclosed their position on the matter? Are they voting for or against him?
A little late but he always does the right thing.
The dems like DiFi will cave to the corruption Edwards is talking about. You can bet on it.
Feingold should get on board to override w's veto on the water bill for the Gulf Coast.
It's not a question of waking Feinstein up. She's a right-winger on these issues.
She didn't cave or decide to support Mukasey only after a deep soul-seaching.
She was a lock to vote for him from the moment he was nominated.
The people of California have much to answer for...
John West @ 7:
Isn't the job of Attorney General essentially that of the top government lawyer? Isn't it his job to represent the government of the day?
Feingold is true blue, there's no doubt about it. Too bad this gets no notice from the predictable International Zionist Conspiracy theorists or the knee-jerk "I've had it with Democrats, I'm voting third party" drones. It just doesn't fit their simple black and white narratives so they choose to ignore it.
Lisa @ 11:
What I read earlier this week, was that Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Biden are all voting against.
(that is, if Obama can find his way to the Senate to cast a vote.)
Lieberstein!
don @ 5:
I wish Feingold would just form a Progressive Democratic Party in opposition to the DLC.
I really dislike Feinstein but I have to say Shummer made a comment that sadly I have to agree with. He said if congress doesn't agree to Mukasey Bush will wind up appointing an interim AG and god knows what we'll be dealing with there. Bush has a history of doing this and it would be no problem for him to stall until the holiday recess. It galls me to say it but I think Shummer's right - better the devil you know than the one you don't know.
This just goes to show how far off the rails this country has gone to consider this kind of compromise.
Sen Feingold is one of the few sane voices in the Senate. My dream ticket was Gore/Feingold.
Peace.
miss_kitty @ 3:
Use this mnemonic: Senator FeinSTAIN.
miss_kitty @ 3:
LOL
Unless he tries to put a hold on Mukasey or filibusters, this is just a meaningless gesture.
Paul @ 19 "Shummer made a comment that sadly I have to agree with. He said if congress doesn't agree to Mukasey Bush will wind up appointing an interim AG and god knows what we'll be dealing with there."
Could not be worse than Mukasey, who is a top-level neocon.
Mukasey is their SECOND choice, after Gonzales. Their first choice had to give up the post in favor of being Gonzales' attorney in his upcoming incarceration trials.
This coup has a VERY small group of key players. It can only be good to knock down as many as we can. Any 'interim' appointee would be a third or fourth stringer, and their bench gets REALLY thin if you get out to those levels.
Schumer is screwing us, make no mistake about it.
Jelperman @ 23:
It is not meaningless to oppose, even verbally.
The Senate is not a dog collar and a chain. Very often a fine person like Feingold can only speak out against the injustice, even if that is not success politically.
This is a Fein mess you've gotten us into now, Miss Kitty.
ConcernedCanuck @ 14 "Isn't the job of Attorney General essentially that of the top government lawyer?"
The AG is specifically NOT that.
The AG is the top law enforcement officer in the country. He is specifically not the President's lawyer, or the government's lawyer (which is otherwise known as the Federal Prosecutor).
"Isn't it his job to represent the government of the day?"
The AG's job is to uphold the Constitution, first and foremost, while carrying forward the LEGAL agenda of the President as a Cabinet officer. It's a balancing act (except during a coup).
"At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward."
If the idiots in the White House ignore the laws passed by Congress, there is a procedure in place to act on this - it is called "IMPEACHMENT". These democrats continue to have no COURAGE when it comes to BUSH. It is all talk.
Paul in LA @ 27:
I guess someone at Wikipedia posted the wrong definition then, because it doesn't mention that at all. Check it out.
Paul in LA @ 24:
Paul,
Why not get that levin gentlemen in there, obviously he under stood t rule of law enough to gee what waterboarding was about ,
if not him, then the gentlemen that tried to run interference for ashcroft when he was hospitalized.. (Gonzoles was going to ashcroft to get him to sign a document suspending warrentless searches?)
Terrific!
Feingold goes back into my good books.
HELLO DIANE... Earth to Diane... Show us you've got some BALLS!
The Attorney General is considered to be the chief lawyer of the US government. The Attorney General serves as a member of the President's Cabinet, but is the only cabinet department head who is not given the title Secretary.The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the Supreme Court in cases of exceptional importance.
Canuck, the AG job is NOT as a lawyer, he is the top law officer.
"The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government."
That much is correct.
"The Attorney General is considered to be the chief lawyer of the US government."
This is badly worded, but in any case, NOT the President's personal lawyer.
ConcernedCanuck @ 14:
This is the oath of office taken by all federal employees including the Attorney General. They swear to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the current administration.
"The original duties of this officer were “to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned,"
Which is the function of the Federal Prosecutor, these days.
"and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."
That doesn't make him the top government attorney, in the sense of an criminal attorney who represents his clients regardless of their guilt. The AG's primary 'client' is the Constitution and the US statutes. The AG is not supposed to be an advocate for illegal Executive policies.
Carmikl1 @ 34:
That is so odd. Should they not swear to defend the people, and NOT a piece of paper? No really, it sounds stupid, but I mean, what the hell? And, hey, it's an oath. So is marriage supposedly, and we all know how that works out, so why so much anger when politicians fail in their allegiance to a piece of paper. Or, "I swear allegiance to the flag..." I mean, good grief, of all the lame oaths to take!!
Paul in LA @ 35:
But every AG has been for how long now? I mean they aren't elected, but selected by the President. They are appointed. So of course they are not going to be loyal to anyone but the guy that gave them the job.
Specter Says He Will Back AG Nominee
Was there ever any doubt about which way Specter would go on this? Name me one time when he hasn't feinted left only to run right. It's all about grabbing the headlines from the Democrats and controlling the terms of the debate. At least he's being honest about why, he's protecting the Bush regime.
ConcernedCanuck @ 36:
That piece of paper is the difference between the rule of law, and the rule of man.
collaborator!
No matter what is said or how it is spun this man is not fit to be ag until he acknowledges what we all know to be true goddammit, waterboarding is torture, sleep deprivation is torture, purposeful exposure to cold is torture, stress positions are torture, anyone who disagrees should volunteer for a stint in some rendered prison and then spout their bullshit..methinks it would be a different tune.
Those that want can equivocate and parse their scrawny little asses off, it is still torture.
And
while we are at it let us impeach this president, it is imperative that we do so, Now.
Feinstein should retire. Too long inside the Beltway, too wealthy, too self-satisfied. Talks tough until she caves on votes like this. Precisely the Dems' problem: No priorities, no principles. It's critical to the country to very publicly kick some Bush butt -- and make clear why -- but Dianne is playing the wise old soul. Another opportunity blown. Clueless, dangerous.
YardApe @ 42:
JUST reelected (by a 22% margin), she will be 79 in 2012, and presumably will retire then.
Maddy @ 41 "let us impeach this president, it is imperative that we do so, Now."
If you mean convict and remove, you have the very reason why it's off the table in front of you with Schumer and Feinstain. NOT ENOUGH VOTES.
• We are something like 30 votes shy in the House for impeachment.
• We are something like 40 Senators votes shy for conviction.
Those facts change, so might our options. But the option of floating this impeachment in desperation is off the table. It would empower your enemies, and give Bushco a second mandate, and help Giuliani (aka "Bushco II") take power next year.
Feinstein telling the Democan'ts she's going to vote for Mukasey ~~
*
Carmikl1 @ 39:
That piece of paper for those unaware of its history was penned under threat of death, if any of the signers were caught by the british, and that piece of paper is the only thing that protects us from the likes of people like george, dick and those who back them. Without it we would not be a democracy.
ConcernedCanuck @ 37 "I mean they aren't elected, but selected by the President. They are appointed. So of course they are not going to be loyal to anyone but the guy that gave them the job."
They are nominated, not appointed (though the rightwing prefers the suggestion of royal power and uses 'appointed' whenever they can).
The independence of the AG is, of course, variable.
There are MANY instance of independent AG action in US history.
Paul in LA @ 44:
You are correct but it should be introduced anyway. They must be held accountable. I don't pretend to know all the rules but can it not be introduced again if it fails? educate me please.
I'm proud to have voted Russ into office during his first run in Wisconsin in 1992. This guy is turning into everything I voted him in for.
He's our last line of defense in that Senate. I mean that, too. That's not a joke.
Feinstein's vote was expected, but many of us are disappointed because the founding fathers created a robust system that included checks and balances, so that even an incompetent, corrupt president would be limited in the damage that could be done.
The sheer idiocy of the arguments that special powers are accrued in a time of war is ridiculous, as is the 'fourth branch' nonsense spouted by Dick Cheney. Imagine a baseball game where, because it is playoff season, a manager decides to allow corked bats or performance-enhancing drugs.
But the damage is not being done by Bush alone, but by our elected representatives - the embodiment of those self-same checks and balances - refusing to exercise their authority. You can't stop a runaway train by not applying the brakes. And it simply does not make sense that 'waiting for the next election' is the best solution for a president who gets giggle fits at the thought of World War III and demonstrates the overall emotional maturity of a three year-old.
I screwed up, confused Feingold with Feinstein. Sorry, and I should know better, went to hear Feingold speak when he came to VT.
Maybe Feinstein will see it and get confused and vote against the coming Torture Enabler.
One can only hope.
Paul @ 19:
The problem with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat.
I say let the little whining brat make his recess appointment and show the American people exactly what kind of man he is. Make him designate someone who approves of torture, and then Congress can shake their heads sadly and say, "Well, we tried to work with him, but he chose to waste his time instead of doing what's best for the country."
But don't knuckle under to the same old 'weak on national security' comedy routine. Even an eight year-old kid eventually figures out Uncle Mike ain't really pulling quarters out of their ear.
On Schumer:
When Mukasey turns out, in six months, to be Gonzo II, how will you respond to those who say "well, then why did you support him?"
See, again with the fucking DNC. Look, it's REALLY simple: do. not. support. things. you. oppose. unless. you. are. getting. something. in. return.
When someone is bullying you, you PUSH BACK even (and this is the thing no one seems to get) if it does more harm than capitulating in the short run.
Why?
Because you'll be forced, in the long run, to capitulate time and time again.
Let Bush appoint some interim Liberty University yahoo...at least you'll be able to look the American people squarely in the eye and say: "I never voted for that motherfucker."
I do it all the time with Lieberman.
Four Judge Advocate Generals (the top military lawyers) have said WRT waterboarding: "It's inhumane, it's torture and it's illegal."
No idea why Mukasey has a problem w/ that concept. As doctors say in concluding medical dictations: Period. End.
No surprise here. Schumer is stuck because he suggested Mukasey (still no excuse). Feinstein is the quickest folder in the Senate! She has been for quite some time!
To ConcernedCanuck:
The US Constitution is not a piece of paper. It is a legal construct, a statement of what our country is and how it is to work. It defines our nation. It is the framework on which all US law rests, however well or poorly crafted those laws may be. It is our foundation and our guidepost. And in times such as these it is our shield against those who would harm our nation from within. But in and of itself it does not protect us. We must pick up and use that shield, and fight to protect our rights and our nation if we want it to remain *our* nation.
let bush appoint
another gonzales
but don't cave in
to the repug thugs
ever again
heh...
Maddy @ 48 "You are correct but it should be introduced anyway. They must be held accountable."
Not succeeding would not hold accountable.
"I don't pretend to know all the rules but can it not be introduced again if it fails?"
Theoretically, bills of impeachment could be filed daily. The Senate trial could be repeated endlessly as well, if politics were not a fundamental part of the Congress of the United States.
Not having the votes is the entire game, though. And running with bills that cannot pass is counter-political. Rather than weaken the Dems, it would be better to continue to document the crimes and work to reestablish the Justice system. Which is why Mukasey -- who has already said he will not allow special prosecutors to be named -- is such a disaster.
Shadowgm @ 50:
I agree with you. Why not take the high road for principle for once instead of copping out? Let Chimpy and his gang of mutants swim in the sewer.
Schumer's argument was worse and not even very political: he was worried that the Shrub would appoint someone worse if they turned Mukasey down. The more likely result is that Woody would give Mukasey a recess appointment; by giving a recess appointment to someone else the Shrub wouldn't be sticking his finger in their eyes quite so much---next to pulling the wings of flies and stealing candy from babies (or insurance?), nothing gives the sadist-in-chief as much fun as spitting in the faces of his enemies (or anyone else for that matter).
58
Paul in LA Says:
Point taken, but would it not be better to try, we are on the tipping point of our democracy, holding their feet to the fire might start a groundswell of support. Things have a way of working out if you have intent and right now is the time to use it.
I refuse to succumb totally to my cynicism.
I dearly wish that Russ Feingold and others who oppose Mukaskey would go down to Schumer's and Feinstein's offices and bitch-slap both of these idiots up alongside the head!
Schumer is my Senator, and he pissed me off with his backing Lieberman in the Connecticut primary against Ned Lamont. This gives me a another reason to question WHY I voted for him in the first place. What a fucking mook. He's already gotten a nasty e-mail from me, and he can kiss my ass for any more campaign contributions as long as he continues to play footsie with the White House.
leslie @ 16:
Or if Obama can take time off from touring around with a homophobic preacher.
Feinstein is contantly voting with the Repugs--she should come out already as one of them and be done with it.
I will definitely vote for any Democratic challenger to Diane Feinstein. As far as I am concerned she has become the California verson of Joe Lieberman.
I'll see how long this lasts. Pardon me for being skeptical, but the last time a Dem stood up and spoke his mind and made sense, he was shouted down by his own party and he apologized. I will wait and see.
justabill @ 6:
But didn't Chimpy promise Reid that he wouldn't make any more recess appointments? We know Chimpy keeps his promises don't we?
Another thing, if they're so afraid that Bush will make a recess appointment then the Dems stay in DC so he can't do it. Now I know you boys and girls like your time off but you know, this is our country we're talking about, this is the only way to keep this criminal in check then so be it.
Heaven forbid that Congress didn't get their 200 days a year off....
kudos to Russ. I wish he could talk sense into Schumer and Feinstein
Feinstein... another Joe Lieberman. Way to go, you witch!
Anyone see the documentary "Rules of Engagement" about the Waco Branch Davidian siege? Schumer comes off as a real Nazi in that film. I totally lost all respect for him as he acted as the government enforcer/excuse maker in the deaths of the children that were burned (most likely) by the FBI.
Look, the cops, FBI, ATF and politicians in this country are brutal bastards, most of them. That is why they are so comfortable with the Patriot Act and its "enhancements" against "domestic terrorists" (us). They're rotten, brutal bastards. We see it every day.
And that is why they go after ELF, PETA, Greenpeace, etc., because besides being brutal bastards, they are cowards. So are the CIA. That is why they enjoy torture.
We need a revolution in this country. Peaceful civil disobedience (which will guarantee heads being bashed in, Burma style) or otherwise, we definitely need a revolution. We need to retire the Feinsteins, Schumers, Liebermans and Sensenbrenners who are destroying our country. Every day there is another horror from these barbarians.
No surprise, Feingold is the Party's finest. It's too bad he doesn't want to run for President.
little davey @ 4:
Hol @ 65:
I would like to coin a new term.
TraitorousBitch or just TB for short.
1) That DiFi is one nasty TB.
BTW, she's either been actively supporting or passively not resisting darth and chimpy for 7 years. I think she's got darths claw marks on her back, if you know what I mean.
If she really said she's voting for MuKrazey because she's afraid of someone worse, well that sure is pathetic. Worse, like maybe the creature on Alien for A.G.?
I think it is pretty clear that Schumer and Feinstein have no principles. They are lobby money whores who made the mistake of opening their mouths with oppinions on Mukasey before one question or one word was uttered in his confirmation. So knowing that they screwed up they decided to try to save their political careers at the expense of the country. Yep thats it in a nutshell. They have weighed their interests and have decided the best damage control is to vote for Mukasey whether it is good for the country or not. Obviously their political careers are very important. Much more important than American credibility in the world.
Paul in LA @ 21:
So, can I say Sentaor FineGOLD?
I sent the "stain" a letter on the weekend.
Maddy @ 61:
haha no... don't be ridiculous! It's better for the Dems to continue refusing to vote for what is right. To do otherwise would risk their incredible popularity during a time of war.
Maddy @ 61 "Point taken, but would it not be better to try, we are on the tipping point of our democracy, holding their feet to the fire might start a groundswell of support."
This is a coup. The support is either there, or it isn't. You are not going to convert ANY of those R block voters and the DINOs won't flip back (if even they ever could) without a collapse of R support for these crimes and these criminals. There is no doubt we are in grave danger, but we are bigger than they are. We don't lose our nerve, and we shouldn't -- things have been worse -- and this too will pass, not with a bang but a whimper.
"Things have a way of working out if you have intent and right now is the time to use it. I refuse to succumb totally to my cynicism."
I fought hard for impeachment between 2002 and 2004 on a daily basis. I consider it a stunt, but it is or can be a useful stunt. For instance, the stunt of impeaching Clinton helped install Bushco. I refuse to put my hopes in such a POLITICAL hope for justice. I put my hope in the actual legal system, not the Congress. I believe we need an independent prosecutor panel, and in the interim, only public pressure can get us the special prosecutors we deserve.
Until the R public turns on their chosen representatives and demands impeachment, it is off the table. And rightfully so, because the stunt can backfire.
tiger cub @ 76:
As tiny cub drowns in a lake of blood.
Is this the first crack in the Mukasey/AIPAC pact?
What's next, Lieberman voting to reduce Israel's foreign aid...and thus his pension?
Because Fiengold (my senator) has both BALLS and a BRAIN...
Not to mention a heart...
Imagine....a senator married to a military contractor...... said senator's personal fortune estimated at 90 million dollars going along with a president who obviously wants eternal war.
Golly, what a silly idea.
Talk about San Francisco values.
BTW, don't bother writing to senator lieberstein....i made that mistake and got a form letter that had absolutely nothing to do with my original e-mail concerning Mukasey.
Paul in LA @ 78:
Wow. You go along with the Bush regime while accusing others of drowning in a lake of blood.
"At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward."
And, what a nice change it would be if the Congress would do the same!!!!!
Did AIPAC get to her? Did AIPAC get to Schumer? Makes one pause...
Clintonius @ 84:
Why would AIPAC want to install Mukasey?
This is totally predictable by Feinstain, and it has nothing to do with AIPAC. They simply do not stop anyone with a halfway decent resume -- mainly because they don't take seriously the danger of installing another top-level neocon at AG after we worked so hard to remove the other sonofabitch. It just doesn't light up her radar.
tiger cub @ 82 "Wow. You go along with the Bush regime while accusing others of drowning in a lake of blood."
Sorry, I took this: "It’s better for the Dems to continue refusing to vote for what is right." to be support for Bush's programs.
As for the idea that I go along with the Bush regime, did YOU get maced protesting this war? Did you get put into handcuffs? Did you face off on eight assholes who got out of their cars one after another (thankfully) to have fistfights with me on the night the war started? No?
I support the loyal Democrats, not Bushco.
I get Goldstein and Steingold mixed up, too.
Which one wears the merkin, which one wears the beanie?
Paul in LA @ 85:
AIPAC wants another rubber stamp for the unitary executive, just as Gonzo was. This is about so much more than waterboarding. This is about giving cover for a criminal pReznit and misadministration so they can continue to shred the Constitution and wage wars at will. All without any consequences. A war with Iran would be a war for Israel.
Paul in LA @ 86:
It was sarcasm. It is also what I see as being Pelosi's guiding principle. You are knowledgable of matters, so if you would, tell me what you consider to be the result of Pelosi's effort to make Murtha the Whip. How has this early Speaker experience affected her?
My sincere apologies to you since what I wrote had to be taken as a personal offense; given that you had me drowning in a pool of blood perhaps I was offended a bit to begin with; though mostly I think I was baffled. Anyway, I believe very strongly Pelosi's/your approach of bringing issues to the floor for vote only when victory is assured is indeed going along with the Bush regime. I believe too that the war has expanded since that time the democrats gained the majority of both houses. It is now the Bush/Democrat war.
And I don't mean that in the sense that they're actually fighting one another, of course.
ConcernedCanuck @ 37:
This is why they have congressional confirmation. It's called checks and balances. This is also why Feinstein's cave-in is such a betrayal of that very system.
Another proud Wisconsin Constituent moment.
:) I voted for him in '98, '04, and can't wait until his presidential run in '08 or '12 :)
I hope Feinstein runs for another term when her current term is up just so I can campaign and vote against her. She has been a big disappointment these past few years. She has yet to stand up to Bush on anything. She talks a big game but doesn't follow through.
Feinstein needs to be targeted in the next election and taken down in the primaries. She is a bushdog.
Bill @ 93:
See you in 2012.
tiger cub @ 89 "It was sarcasm."
I see. Sarcasm in writing is often opaque.
"tell me what you consider to be the result of Pelosi's effort to make Murtha the Whip. How has this early Speaker experience affected her?"
In what way do you mean? She tried to put Murtha in so the antiwar effort would be more powerful. No such luck. She also stripped wardog Rep. Harman of her committee assignments for the same reason.
"Anyway, I believe very strongly Pelosi's/your approach of bringing issues to the floor for vote only when victory is assured is indeed going along with the Bush regime."
You are entitled to your opinion, but that opinion is slander. Your presumption of her motivations is ignorant.
"I believe too that the war has expanded since that time the democrats gained the majority of both houses. It is now the Bush/Democrat war."
That's also nonsense. The war continues to be the brainchild and product of Republican complicity with a president who didn't win election either time. We SHOULD have Democratic presidents, but this is a coup.
Maybe you should put the Amerithrax attempted assassinations back into your morning cereal, and chew again.
LanceThruster @ 88 "AIPAC wants another rubber stamp for the unitary executive, just as Gonzo was"
Bushco's main ally is SAUDI ARABIA.
Leftists think it is Israel, because they bought the idea that Bush was a fundamentalist Christian -- which is HILARIOUS.
Bushco has pretty much destroyed Israel already. His intention is not Israel running the Arabian peninsula -- it is a completely fragmented Middle East, and that includes Israel.
The main reason why Mukasey is going in is that he will block special prosecutors being named. PERIOD.
Oh, and Lance? Both Feinstain and Schumer are Jews representing large Jewish populations. They do not need AIPAC to 'get to them.' They are already representing that constituency.
Well that's all well and good... For all the good it will do... which is zip, nada..nothing. Piss on Murkasey and ALL the dems who caved on that... What I'd really get jazzed about is if Feingold signed on to be Kucinich's running mate.... Now maybe that ticket would shake the fuck out of the MSM and we'd see something other than some airhead asking about tongue studs or rings or whatever.....JD
Paul in LA @ 95:
I mean, this is an issue she fought for. How did its failure affect her?
It would be libel, not slander. I made no presumption of her motivations. That's actually what I'd like to learn. What is she so afraid of?
The brainchild of the republicans - certainly. A president who didn't win an election - irrelevant to this issue. The democratic congress continues to fund the war while Pelosi fights hardest against democrats who criticize Bush and Code Pink.
What?
tiger cub @ 99 "I mean, this is an issue she fought for. How did its failure affect her?"
What, do you think she was traumatized? That was LAST YEAR. I'm pretty sure she has too much work to do NOW than to think about it.
"It would be libel, not slander."
O'Reilly. Well, I consider it slander, because I am not in court, and btw, the term 'slander' is an adjective in common use since at least 1500.
"I made no presumption of her motivations. That's actually what I'd like to learn. What is she so afraid of?"
What makes you think she is afraid? WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES.
"The brainchild of the republicans - certainly. A president who didn't win an election - irrelevant to this issue."
A coup is hardly irrelevant as you claim.
"The democratic congress continues to fund the war while Pelosi fights hardest against democrats who criticize Bush and Code Pink."
I don't understand that statement, but in any case, the suggestion that a Congress can cut off funding when one whole party is in support of the policy is fallacious. THEY can introduce the spending bill and pass it with their majority. In Pelosi's case, she has taken supplemental funding off the table, and Chairman Obey has said no supplementals without withdrawal plans will pass his committee. You will also note that the 2008 military appropriations bill has not moved since before the summer, and doesn't appear likely to move any time soon.
"Maybe you should put the Amerithrax attempted assassinations back into your morning cereal, and chew again."
"What?"
The anthrax attacks on Daschle and Leahy in 2001, which the FBI calls 'Amerithrax.' No Republican was attacked. Hmm.
Bless Feingold and his noble heart.
Login or Register to post comments.