EmpressStarXVII Posted November 9, 2007 #1 Share Posted November 9, 2007 updated 12:56 a.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 9, 2007 WASHINGTON - The Senate confirmed retired judge Michael Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night to replace Alberto Gonzales, who was forced from office in a scandal over his handling of the Justice Department. Mukasey was confirmed as the nation’s 81st attorney general after a sharp debate over his refusal to say whether the waterboarding interrogation technique is torture. President Bush thanked the Senate, even though the margin had been whittled down from nearly unanimous by a sharp debate over Mukasey’s refusal to say whether the waterboarding interrogation technique is torture. “He will be an outstanding attorney general,” Bush said in a statement from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Republicans were solidly behind President Bush’ nominee. Democrats said their votes were not so much for Mukasey as they were for restoring a leader to a Justice Department left adrift after Gonzales’ resignation in September. In the end, Mukasey was confirmed by a 53-40 vote. Source and Full article here Once again the democrats back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 9, 2007 #2 Share Posted November 9, 2007 this was predictable...the congress and senate just cant stand up too bush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #3 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Of course they were going to pass him. They can see in the tea-leaves that Democrats may be in the White House soon. They want them to be able to use the same tools that Bush was using to fight terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 9, 2007 #4 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #5 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Disgusting. I have a feeling that once Hillary is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, suddenly no one will care about waterboarding anymore... ...even as the practice continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 9, 2007 #6 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I have a feeling that once Hillary is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, suddenly no one will care about waterboarding anymore... ...even as the practice continues. Bruce, that is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted November 9, 2007 #7 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I have a feeling that once Hillary is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, suddenly no one will care about waterboarding anymore... ...even as the practice continues. and "more effective procedures" introduced, but never explained, it'll be all cheered for how "smart" she is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 9, 2007 #8 Share Posted November 9, 2007 You guys just don't get it. When it comes to being lied into War and Torture and illegal Wiretapping and Habeas Corpus These issues are beyond Partisan BS Wake Up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmpressStarXVII Posted November 9, 2007 Author #9 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I have a feeling that once Hillary is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, suddenly no one will care about waterboarding anymore... ...even as the practice continues. I just don't see how you could believe that. The thought of waterboarding being practiced under any president is cringing and abhorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt_Ripley Posted November 9, 2007 #10 Share Posted November 9, 2007 waterboarding is a crime. that's why we prosecuted others doing it during WWII. no arguement to the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt_Ripley Posted November 9, 2007 #11 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I have a feeling that once Hillary is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, suddenly no one will care about waterboarding anymore... ...even as the practice continues. your feelings brucie have no stance in reality .. Just like saying Bush hasn't broken any laws. but go on believing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #12 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I just don't see how you could believe that. The thought of waterboarding being practiced under any president is cringing and abhorrent. Because I know how politics work. Once Hillary is sitting in the Oval Office, those worried about waterboarding, from the Congress to the rank-and-file in the streets won't be making a fuss about it anymore, because it will be "their person" in the White House. Our memories tend to become very short and selective once "our person" gets into political office. And are you niave enough to believe that waterboarding is a new practice, that the CIA suddenly started using it after 9/11? It's been around, and used for a very long time, during the administrations is Democrat or Republican. Yet, no one really cared about it before it was "discovered" the CIA was using it under Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted November 9, 2007 #13 Share Posted November 9, 2007 These issues are beyond Partisan BS Wake Up! I agree. Which is why Bruce is right. Which is why I'm not Repbulican, or Democrat. But you're being just as blind as those you accuse of being asleep. Just shot myself in the foot with the "blind" comment (I expect a defensive attack ) but dunno how else to put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmpressStarXVII Posted November 9, 2007 Author #14 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Because I know how politics work. Once Hillary is sitting in the Oval Office, those worried about waterboarding, from the Congress to the rank-and-file in the streets won't be making a fuss about it anymore, because it will be "their person" in the White House. Our memories tend to become very short and selective once "our person" gets into political office. And are you niave enough to believe that waterboarding is a new practice, that the CIA suddenly started using it after 9/11? It's been around, and used for a very long time, during the administrations is Democrat or Republican. Yet, no one really cared about it before it was "discovered" the CIA was using it under Bush. Of course I'm not so naive to believe waterboarding is a new practice. Various grotesque forms of torture have been around forever. I still find it disturbing. I don't care whether it is deemed necessary or not, I would never condone such an act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 9, 2007 #15 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) I agree. Which is why Bruce is right. Which is why I'm not Repbulican, or Democrat. But you're being just as blind as those you accuse of being asleep. Just shot myself in the foot with the "blind" comment (I expect a defensive attack ) but dunno how else to put it. No I am not. Look, Hillary isn't even in office. Why should we attack her now based on hypotheticals? Its ridiculous. And if the US has been torturing as long as Bruce says we have.......... Then the media has not been doing their job. But mind you this: People are going to protest torture no matter who is in office. Just as we would have and do protest this War. Hillary got slammed by the antiwar left for her vote and she continues to get slammed for her Iran posturing. Edited November 9, 2007 by Bob26003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #16 Share Posted November 9, 2007 your feelings brucie have no stance in reality .. Just like saying Bush hasn't broken any laws. but go on believing. Really now? When one of you sheep bleating about waterboarding makes one pip about in about a year and a half, then I'll be proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #17 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) But mind you this: People are going to protest torture no matter who is in office. Just as we would have and do protest this War. Just like when you protested the Kosovo War. Oh right, the "anti-war" left couldn't be bothered with that. Because "their guy" was in office. Funny how war is wrong in 2007...but in '99...it was okay. What changed, other than who was sitting in the Oval Office? Edited November 9, 2007 by BrucePrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 9, 2007 #18 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Just like when you protested the Kosovo War. Oh right, the "anti-war" left couldn't be bothered with that. Because "their guy" was in office. Srry Bruce, but a hell of alot of people did protest that. especially when all that civilian infrastructure was bombed. Grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #19 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Srry Bruce, but a hell of alot of people did protest that. especially when all that civilian infrastructure was bombed. Grow up. Really now? Where were they again? Where were the mass protests? Outside of fellow travelers like Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, and ANSWER no one could be bothered. Funny that. "Grow up" What the hell is that supposed to mean? "Ummm...you don't agree with me! Grow up! You don't agree with me, that is so immature!" Edited November 9, 2007 by BrucePrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt_Ripley Posted November 9, 2007 #20 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Just like when you protested the Kosovo War. Oh right, the "anti-war" left couldn't be bothered with that. Because "their guy" was in office. Funny how war is wrong in 2007...but in '99...it was okay. What changed, other than who was sitting in the Oval Office? you mean like this ? got salt for that crow ? Edited November 9, 2007 by Lt_Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 9, 2007 #21 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Really now? Where were they again? Where were the mass protests? "Grow up" What the hell is that supposed to mean? "Ummm...you don't agree with me! Grow up! You don't agree with me, that is so immature!" Well , for one , it was not a War. For two , it was NATO , not just us. For three , it was minor in comparison to Iraq. and most importantly. Most people actually believed we were there for a reason. Edited November 9, 2007 by Bob26003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #22 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Well , for one , it was not a War. For two , it was NATO , not just us. For three , it was minor in comparison to Iraq. and most importantly. Most people actually believed we were there for a reason. The classification of it doesn't matter...bombs rained for 10 weeks, innocent people died. Whether one person dies or a million people die, if you believe war is wrong, then all wars are wrong. Oh, so it's was okay, because people believed in it? Well, people believed in the Iraq War in the beginning; did it make it okay then? Keep doing that dance. But don't try to convince us you are anti-war anymore. You aren't anti-war...you are anti-war when the wrong people are in the White House. Edited November 9, 2007 by BrucePrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #23 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) you mean like this ? got salt for that crow ? Ripley is trying to fool you. We are talking about American politics. How Americans have very short and selective memories once "their person" is in office. And the above picture Ripley the Liar posted is from...Drum roll please!...the UK. But really...how many of these protests were there? How big were they? There weren't many, and they weren't very big...because those "true believers" who are so anti-war now couldn't be bothered. I'll believe you care about "waterboarding" once you sheep start bleating about it when a Democrat is in office. Edited November 9, 2007 by BrucePrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 9, 2007 #24 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Bruce , your posts have deteriorated into the realm of absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 9, 2007 #25 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Bruce , your posts have deteriorated into the realm of absurdity. Yes...it is quite absurd you tell us you are anti-war...yet find ways to justify a war (oh, I'm sorry...dropping bombs on someone for 10 weeks isn't war, that's right) when your boy is in office...a "war" that even your idol Noam Chomsky was against. Of course, Noam Chomsky isn't really anti-war either is he. After all, he justified the Japanese conquest of Asia and the murder of millions as beneficial to the Asian people, and even blamed atrocities the Imperial Japanese committed on those resisting occuption; not to mention supporting war and death worldwide, as long as those committing the murder and war were nice communists or socialists opposing the West. Sounds really familiar...doesn't it? Edited November 9, 2007 by BrucePrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now