While watching the congressional hearings into the appointment of Mr. Mukasey as the latest of King George II's Attorney general, one might wonder what is the big deal? Why are the Democrats raking this poor guy over the coals in regards to his personal feelings towards torture? Or the President being above the law? or how he feels about individual rights?
Well , to understand the liberals reticence to approve the nomination of Mr. Mukasey, lets take a look at the track record of the other Bush appointed hit men...
John Ashcroft, marked A.G.I for evidence, helped railroad undue restrictions of civil liberties through Congress after the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Ashcroft apparently had some red lines and later rebuffed the White House when it pushed him to endorse illegal wiretapping. Pushed him as in the White House counsel and Karl Rove showing up with legal documents to sign approving illegal wiretaps WHILE ASHCROFT WAS IN A HOSPITAL BED RECUPERATING FROM A SURGICAL PROCEDURE.
That ushered in one Alberto Gonzales, marked A.G. II for evidence. Mr. Gonzales, while he was White House counsel, helped to redefine torture, repudiate the Geneva Conventions and create illegal detention camps. As attorney general, Mr. Gonzales helped cover up the administration’s lawless behavior in anti-terrorist operations, helped revoke fundamental human rights for foreigners and turned the Justice Department into a branch of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Gonzales resigned after his extraordinary incompetence became too much for even the most loyal of conservatives.
So, when the A.G.III in waiting, Mr. Mukasey says he finds certain types of torture, including water boarding "repugnant", but stops short of saying it is indeed, torture, well, a few red flags go of in the committee chairman's head. Mukasey, a well respected judge and barrister who was presumed to have an easy path towards confirmation, stunned everyone during the confirmation process by saying he believes the president has the power to negate laws and by not committing himself to enforcing Congressional subpoenas. He also has suggested that he will not uphold standards of decency during wartime recognized by the civilized world for generations. It was made fairly obvious that Mr. Mukasey, like his predecessor Mr. Gonzales, would enable Mr. Bush’s lawless behavior and his imperial attitude toward Congress and the courts.
There seems to be little chance that Mr. Bush will appoint the sort of attorney general that the nation needs, a job that includes enforcing voting rights laws and civil rights laws and ensuring that criminal prosecutions are done fairly.
So, after another week of huffing and puffing by Senators Kennedy, Biden and committee chair (and fellow Vermonter) Senator Leahy, Mukasey will be in, and the past two weeks will be shown for the rediculous waste of time it truly has been.
My advice to the committee......nominate this guy. And stick to the fights you can win.
1 comment:
.
(Like shooting fish in a barrel)
...Now that Congress has taken an interest, the White House has begun to circle the wagons — and they’ve pulled an Antonio Gonzales maneuver to do it:
All in all, the “extensive review” appeared more of a sham review — an exercise designed to support a decision that had already been made. Nor has the White House been open about it. “Information provided to my staff by Mr. Eisen has been incomplete and misleading,” Republican Rep. Darrell Issa wrote in a July 1 letter to White House counsel Gregory Craig.
For its part, the White House is hinting broadly that it might invoke executive privilege to keep documents from Congress. “Your questions seek information about the White House’s internal decision-making process,” Craig wrote to Sen. Charles Grassley on June 30. “These questions implicate core executive branch confidentiality interests.” At another point, Craig pledged to cooperate “to the fullest extent possible consistent with constitutional and statutory obligations.”
Unlike the dismissal of US Attorneys, who work entirely at the pleasure of the President, the termination of an IG is not a matter of executive privilege. IGs do not report only to the executive branch, but also to Congress, and for good reason. The arrangement keeps them from feeling political pressure to either initiate investigations of a president’s political opponents or to stop investigations of a president’s political ally. Congress has to be consulted on terminations by law; the President cannot fire IGs at whim....
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/03/york-walpin-firing-a-railroad-job/
.
Post a Comment