vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

10.22.2007

Mukasey won't get Sanders vote

Sen. Patrick Leahy's Judiciary Committee seems unlikely to block attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey's confirmation. Sen. Bernie Sanders isn't quite so content with Mukasey.

Sanders put out word today that he will vote against Mukasey's confirmation.

President Bush’s choice to head the Justice Department holds views on the sweeping powers of the presidency that are at odds with what the framers of our Constitution intended, Sanders said in a news release. The nominee also demonstrated at Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings a disregard for civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, he said.

He also said:

“We need an attorney general who does not believe the president has unlimited
power. We need an attorney general who understands that torture is not what this
country is about, and we need an attorney general who clearly understands the
separation of powers inherent in our Constitution. Unfortunately, it is clear
that Mr. Mukasey is not that person.”

"Mukasey, a former federal judge
from New York, testified that Congress may be powerless to bar the president
from conducting some surveillance without warrants. He incredibly claimed to be
unfamiliar with the technique known as waterboarding, and refused to say whether
or not it was torture."

The Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to vote on Mukasey. Committee members are expected to ask Mukasey written questions. The committee vote is unlikely to happen before next week.

Leahy had indicated he felt pretty good about Mukasey, right up until the second day of the committee's hearings with Mukasey, when the nominee hedged on waterboarding, among other issues, as Sanders indicated.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 2:58 PM |

Comments:

Are you really surprised? It's the popular thing to do and will play well in VT.

At the end of the day however, who cares? Bernie is a non-event in Washington.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:02 PM, October 22, 2007

the USA tortures. Does god really bless torturers?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:26 PM, October 22, 2007

Terrorists are sub-humans that will kill anyone including children. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all of the blubbering Burlington lefties would each "adopt" a Guantanamo terrorist? Sort of like a progressive "fresh air" fund. Just lock up your kitchen knives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:58 PM, October 22, 2007

I could give a rat's ass about Bernie.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:35 AM, October 23, 2007

Hear, hear!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:48 AM, October 23, 2007

It's sad that the guy that is against torture is the guy that people disparage.

I never thought I'd see the day when America would be debating the issue of torture. Sad. Very sad.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:01 AM, October 23, 2007

"It's sad that the guy that is against torture is the guy that people disparage."

Then Bernie needs to explain to the terrorists it is impolite not to answer a question when asked.

Obviously no one stands for torture but it's a cruel world and the other guys are clearly not concerned about playing by the rules. A little persausion when it can save a few of our troops lives may not be a bad thing.

Bernie is living in la la land...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:11 PM, October 23, 2007

la la land.......Burlington, Vt.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:31 PM, October 23, 2007

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:16 PM, October 23, 2007

Gee, I guess this whole torture stuff must have started with FDR during WWII when we burned Jap soldiers alive on Iwo Jima or bombed the hell out of civilians in Dresden! If we had only had ACLU lawyers back then to read Tojo or Hitler their Miranda rights!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:29 AM, October 24, 2007

Don't you wonder why FDR never resorted to torturing people in the custody of the US military?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:22 AM, October 24, 2007

No but I do wonder what made Truman drop the atomic bomb

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:27 AM, October 24, 2007

We can't prevent Truman from dropping the bomb. It already happened.

We can prevent our government from torturing people.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:33 PM, October 24, 2007

Good thing we didn't have Vermonters deciding how we conducted WWII. My grandfather served in the pacific and lost a leg. The A-bomb ended the war.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:32 PM, October 24, 2007

Iraqis didn't do this. Saudis did and George W. Bush still literally held hand with them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:25 PM, October 24, 2007

"It's stupid to "fight terrorism" by shreading the constitution."

What do you propose? Should we invite them over for tea and a stern talking to?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:56 AM, October 25, 2007

Civilians gave up a lot during WWII - gas, sugar, meat, in many cases their husbands or wives. Not to mention what our military gave up. And now we have a bunch of spoiled, petulant, foot-stomping pathetic little brats camped out at Welch's office or standing around holding up stupid signs in front of the post offices. Or maybe whining because it takes a little longer to cross the border. What a bunch of losers!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:03 AM, October 25, 2007

I propose what we did in WWII.

I propose the same thing John McCain proposes.

Torture isn't a reliable way of getting accurate information and it is against the US Constitution.

We haven't needed it in almost 250 years of soverignty. We don't need it now.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:00 AM, October 25, 2007

In WWII, citizens had good reason to sacrifice. The current war in Iraq is unjust and illegal; as such, citizens have a perfect right to protest it to those responsible for engaging in it.
(Recall that 9/11 was caused by Saudis, not Iraqis and even Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction nor did he support those who attacked us.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:27 AM, October 25, 2007

Just to remind you it's not the Iragis that are the problem. It's all the terrorist interlopers that have chosen to make Iraq a bigger battlefield than it already was.

Illegal? Didn't everyone approve it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:30 PM, October 25, 2007

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:31 PM, October 25, 2007

It's the Iraqis who are getting killed for something they had nothing to do with.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:26 PM, October 25, 2007

"Everyone" didn't approve it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:27 PM, October 25, 2007

Isn't that the truth!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:45 PM, October 25, 2007

""Everyone" didn't approve it."

I understand you didn't but I think the Congress did. At least Hillary thinks she did.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:25 PM, October 25, 2007

Everyone in Congress didn't approve it and some of those who did were sold a bill of goods by the administration whose "evidence" was, to be kind, "inaccurate."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:11 PM, October 25, 2007

It seems to me we live in a democracy (after all we don't want to shred the Constitution). That means abiding by the will of the majority. It seems the majority said yes. If the majority said yes, how is it illegal?

..but at last I had almost forgotten the ol' conspiracy theory. But then again if those that were fooled had done their due diligence they would have uncovered this massive fraud. Am I to assume Pelosi, Hillary, Harry Reid and Bernie S were all asleep at the wheel. I wish they had have raised this to the country's attention upfront rather than after the fact.

Hindsight is pretty cool isn't it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:32 PM, October 25, 2007

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:32 PM, October 25, 2007

That's what happens when deliberately deception people lie about their reasons for going to war--people are fooled initially, then the truth comes out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:37 PM, October 25, 2007

Among the 150 or so legislators who voted "NAY" were Jim Jeffords, Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:43 PM, October 25, 2007

You really don't get it.

What makes this country great is it is okay for you to voice your opinion as you have. The problem is the ones you want to protect and coddle(Al Queda, et.al.) want to destroy you and take away your freedoms so you can live under their unforgiving and not very democratic laws.

Why do you feel so compelled to support and protect them and diss the country that has given you this freedom? Try living a year in Kabul and see if you have the same perspective when you return.

You have lived isolated from the real world in backwoods VT too long.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:59 PM, October 25, 2007

We began this war; we attacked them without good reason.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:32 PM, October 25, 2007

It isn't.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:32 PM, October 25, 2007

Kabul, last time I checked a map, was in Afghanistan. What has that to do with the Iraq War?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:56 PM, October 25, 2007

"Kabul, last time I checked a map"

I'm glad to see you can use a map. I too know where Kabul is. Try living there, Basra, Baghdad or any other city with a significant radical Muslim element. It may help you understand exactly how compassionate they are to you and those who don't agree with them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:16 AM, October 26, 2007

I assume you have lived in those diverse places and know first hand how different they are?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:02 AM, October 26, 2007

To compare Baghdad prior to the invasion and Kabul really shows a lack of knowledge of the countries involved. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:05 AM, October 26, 2007

You are so right...Baghdad was the hub of personal freedom and Saddam a champion of free speech and human rights.

C'mon. Who is showing a lack of knowledge?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:47 AM, October 26, 2007

I actually know and work with a dozen or so Iraqis, Iranians and Pakastanis that have fled their countries for the turmoil and lack of human rights that existed ....pre-war. I assume that is something none of us have had to do.

It is interesting. Across the board they are huge supporters of the U.S. and George Bush and can not say enough good things for what he has tried to do for their countries... In fact they don't understand why we are so divided on something so clearly obvious to them.

It's interesting and maybe a little shameful when immigrants understand the cost of freedom better than us and are more patriotic than we are.

Just a different perspective but I am sure you can debunk this too.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:00 AM, October 26, 2007

Immigrants haven't been taught in NEA-union schools.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:19 AM, October 26, 2007

Notice that the people you know and work with are here, not being killed in Iraq. No one questions that Saddam was a dictator--many other countries have dictators also and somehow we dont feel the need to invade them to "liberate" their people. No one said that Iraq was a model of free speech, centainly not found in the posts above,just that Kabul and Baghdad were not comparable in their adherence to religious hatred. Iraq was a secular state and Baghdad a sophisticated city with educated citizenry and a decent economy in contrast to Kabul. The point was that all Islamic states are not backwaters--as you tend to lump them all together--just as all Western countries are not absolutely alike. Over-generalization are simplistic and not valid, is the point.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:49 AM, October 26, 2007

It is not unpatriotic to speak out when you think your country has acted in error.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:29 AM, October 26, 2007

Why didn't we act at the time? This was hardly the administration's reason for going into Iraq.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:45 AM, October 26, 2007

Iraq more a threat? What? With all the non-existent weapons of mass destruction?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:46 AM, October 26, 2007

"Notice that the people you know and work with are here, not being killed in Iraq."

Thank you for clarifying the situation without having a single fact to have done this. I trust by your knowledgeable insights you have talked to my associates and have heard their points of view, know their family experiences and understand what they have encountered first hand.

This is what makes me crazy about reading these posts. You have no facts so you make them up to pretend to have all the answers to debunk anything that isn't your self-biased point of view. I am quickly concluding facts don't enter into the VT thought process. It is a mere inbred hatred for anything that (a) doesn't spew from the Dems or the Progs; (b) anything seemlying tied to the propgation of a free market; (c) anything achieved based on hard work, taking a risk and merit or (d) anything that that comes from someone who has reached a point of success in their careers.

Little minds lead to little success....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:44 PM, October 26, 2007

What is more hateful than your post?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:02 PM, October 26, 2007

You know nothing about the success or lack of it of any other poster on this blog.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:03 PM, October 26, 2007

I believe the Kurdish tragedy occurred in the Spring of 1988 during Reagan's last year in office and just before George Bush's presidency. That is a fact. Do you really propose this as a reason for the current war in Iraq?

Who lacks the facts and to use your term "spews" animosity?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:13 PM, October 26, 2007

Why waste your time on a Vermont blog if you live elsewhere and despise Vermonters as you indicate you do?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:15 PM, October 26, 2007

"Why waste your time on a Vermont blog if you live elsewhere and despise Vermonters as you indicate you do?"

Why do you imply I live else (more baseless speculation)? I live here and like Vermonters. I am just surprised at the number of unfounded statements and disdain displayed towards those who don't share a very liberal agenda. I thought we were a more civilized lot.

And before you speculate, I am a fairly liberal guy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:56 PM, October 26, 2007

taxes

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:58 PM, October 26, 2007

"Facts don't enter into the Vermont thought process." Yeah, you love us like a brother.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:00 PM, October 26, 2007

Our elected officials should end this occupation by ending funding for it. Thats how we got out of Viet Nam.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:13 AM, October 27, 2007

Yawn!