Schumer Finds A Wingman

Chuck Schumer had pressed the Bush administration to nominate Michael Mukasey as Attorney General after the departure of Alberto Gonzales, only to see his fellow Democrats rip Mukasey apart over waterboarding. With leading Democrats insisting that they would oppose Mukasey, everyone waited to see whether Schumer would disavow the man on whom he had insisted, or find the courage to stand on his own to support the man he championed. In the end, Schumer found a third way — by finding a wingman:

The nomination fight over attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey effectively came to an end yesterday, as two key Senate Democrats parted from their colleagues and announced their support for the former judge despite his controversial statements on torture.
The orchestrated announcements by Sens. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) virtually guarantee that Mukasey will be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, to be followed by his likely confirmation in the full Senate later in the month.
The developments mark an important political victory for President Bush, who mounted a spirited and aggressive defense of Mukasey in recent days. They also underscore the pitfalls facing Democrats as the party struggles to stake out an independent policy on national security issues during a presidential campaign season. …
Schumer — a Democratic stalwart who had recommended Mukasey to the White House as a consensus candidate — said Mukasey told him in a private meeting yesterday that he would enforce any anti-waterboarding law passed by Congress. Current law explicitly bans the practice within the Defense Department but not elsewhere.

Schumer had kept his own counsel of late on Mukasey. He did not choose to defend the former judge during the controversy over the waterboarding technique, even when an obvious defense presented itself. Schumer chose to use it only after finding Dianne Feinstein and convincing her to serve as his wingman — to share the criticism he would receive from his base in supporting Mukasey.
It’s less than courageous, but at least it gets this important post filled. Schumer came within an ace of making an ass out of himself, after shooting off his mouth about Mukasey not once but twice as a “consensus” nominee. Schumer also tried to get Mukasey nominated for the Supreme Court when Bush nominated Samuel Alito. It would have been pretty hard to explain how Schumer would have endorsed Mukasey for a lifetime appointment on the highest court but not supported him for a 16-month gig as Attorney General.
It also puts the onus for waterboarding back on Congress. Mukasey had it exactly correct when he told the Judiciary Committee that he would have to wait and see whether any interrogative techniques broke the law as Congress wrote it. If Congress wants to make that technique illegal, they have the power to do so. Where it is explicitly illegal and used anyway, then Mukasey has already said he would pursue charges. The AG doesn’t make the law, Congress does, and the spectacle of the Judiciary Committee demanding from an AG nominee an interpretation that they themselves did not choose to make explicit in the law is nothing short of pathetic.
By mid-week, Mukasey will assume his new duties at the Department of Justice. Perhaps now we can ask Congress to do the same, and to quit passing the buck.

11 thoughts on “Schumer Finds A Wingman”

  1. pretty hard to refute any of that analysis. there is nothing this dem congress won’t politicize. look at all the bills passed that have zero chance of success. all for political theatre. getting nothing done the whole time. its so bad they are falling over each other. sheer incompentence. no wonder their approval ratings are the lowest ever in modern history.

  2. I’m embarrassed.
    When Whittaker Chambers joined the Right, he thought he was joining the losing side. As I’m finding myself lurching ever leftwards due to conservative incompetence, war-mongering and anti-intellectualism, I’m getting the same feeling.
    The Democratic Congress can’t even get an AG nominee to completely renounce the concentrated drowning of suspects — this is like having a discussion about whether the rack or the thumbscrew is torture. Whenever pressed, the Democrats gives what Bush wants.
    For its trouble, its not getting respect — it rightly earns contempt from conservatives as well as voters.
    Pelosi and Reid are unusually weak and timid leaders facing a weak but shameless president. The result is the present cynicism.
    DU

  3. The AG doesn’t make the law, Congress does, and the spectacle of the Judiciary Committee demanding from an AG nominee an interpretation that they themselves did not choose to make explicit in the law is nothing short of pathetic.

    That’s pretty much it in a nutshell, isn’t it?

  4. I was not at all surprised by the loaded question presented to Mukasey. The Committee seems to have expected Mukasey to shoot from the hip and render a determination based on what? His feelings?
    Unlike the hype about waterboarding, with so many calling it drowning, and inimating that is is pervasive and widespread throughout the military and intel services, two things come to the fore. One, how many “waterboardings” have been conducted since 9-11 and what were the results? (About three or four, from published reports, and the results were successful, according to that same reporting.) Second, what is the precise procedure utilized in waterboarding? If one is on the side of Malcolm Nance, then the waterboarding as described by Nance is nothing less than drowning, or attempts at drowning, something the Kempei Tai was notorious for, as were a number of Soviets and Soviet allies for many many years. But, that is not the procedure utilized, at least by us. There are NO pints and pints of water being forced into the lungs. Not with SERE training, not with our intel services, and certianly not within our military. I have to hold back a laugh or two when I see a member of Congress hold up a military field manual on interrogation and then address an issue about the Agency’s alleged use of a technique. Shows how well they have been paying attention.
    IF Mukasey had shot from the hip, and stated, without evidence and facts and the law in front of him, that “waterboarding,” regardless of the definition and techniques utilized, was torure, I’d have to come to the conclusion that he was unfit to be AG. Why? An AG who shoots from the hip without regard for law, and facts, and evidence, will do none of us any good over the long haul. But that is what a number of members of the Committee fully expected him to do for no other reason than to get yet another jab at Bush on the record.
    Is Mukasey my most favored candidate to be AG? No. He is in the top tier. But we have done better in the past, and can do better in the future. The bottom line is that little thing called rule of law…something that seems to be selectively applied time and time again at the highest levels, and mocked and twisted time and again at the lower levels. If Congress realized that the nomination of a new AG is not about Bush and not about Gonzalez, but of far more importance and duration, maybe, just maybe, they’d do a lot less grandstanding and get down to the people’s business and soon.

  7. “concentrated drowning of suspects ”
    What the heck is that?
    Just add water?
    And simmer for 30 minutes until tender. Best served warm with a touch of salt.

  8. Please take a moment, and let me explain a circus act, to ya.
    The bigger fear for the Bonkeys was that the senate soon goes home. To take a dump on a nice-religious-Jewish fella, didn’t serve a single purpose to the hard headedness of politics.
    Enough just to wound him. So Bush gets to have his “selection.” Who goes in with less than a rosy picture.
    This also means, if Ruth Bader Ginsberg falls out of her Supreme Court seat. Or Stevens, who is 88, retires … Bush can’t use MuKasey as a “filler.” Because he’s not popular “enough.”
    That’s what I mean by a “circus act,” wounding the man. Where he gets to be AG, until the tables turn in January 20, 2009.
    And, Bush?
    Whatever he had been betting at the table; including that the democrats would make the mistake; he lost.
    He’s got his man.
    NOT Ted Olson.
    Which could give you pause, if you’re wondering, should Mukasey have failed … what Bush could have done with a “recess appointment.” Given they last, I think 18 months. And, Bush is out in less time.
    How do actors play roles on stage? Well, they assume characters; many of them are not. And, they spew their lines. With the goal of keeping you entertained. Perhaps, even riveted in your seats? While nobody is on stage all the time. And, no one hogs the limelight so that others can’t be in their dressing rooms “preparing.” Or even taking a nap.
    If you had a score card? You’d be rating these things the way you rate a close boxing match. Punch by punch. Blow by blow. While, sometimes? You don’t even know who won! The bell GONGS. And, the referees discuss the points.
    Who are the referees in this case? American voters.
    You can talk for yourself. Ditto, me the same.
    We can’t talk for ALL. That’s only gonna happen on November 4, 2008.
    And, in the meantime? The slug fest continues.

  10. NRO’s Rich Lowry quotes Feinstein’s statement in part re her support of Mukasey as AG: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjE4OWYzZmM1OTI1YzFmODVhZjNmNDg0NmM1Y2QyMWI=
    The remarks sound reasoned and objective to me.
    “”I will vote to confirm Michael Mukasey to be our next Attorney General.
    “First and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales. Rather, he has forged an independent life path as a practitioner of the law and a federal judge in the Southern District of New York.
    “In this capacity, he has presided over 1,600 cases over 19 years.
    “He has developed extensive experience on national security issues.
    “And he has presided over a dozen national security cases – including United States v. Rahman (1994), Padilla v. Bush (2002), and In re Application of the United States for a Material Witness Warrant (2002) — and 10 defendants from the Rahman case were given prison sentences ranging from 25 years to life.
    “Judge Mukasey’s answers to hundreds of questions, both in our confirmation hearing and in writing, were crisp and succinct, and demonstrated a strong, informed, and independent mind.
    “I truly believe he will be a strong Attorney General and will represent the best interests of the American people…”

  11. AD: I read The Hill link you provided after I had posted. I had forgotten those details about Feinstein’s role in procuring lucrative contracts and her connections with the players. Apparently, the Dems are expecting that most voters will have dumped this data down the memory hole, too, if they were ever aware of it.
    What amazes me is that so many of the now-vocal opponents of our engagement in Iraq, notably Congressional leaders like Murtha and Feinstein, actually appeared to profiteer from it. Makes one smell a ‘cRat, doesn’t it?

Comments are closed.