Even after the whole waterboarding controversy, why did the Senate approve Mukasey's nomination for attorney general?
2007-11-12 06:41:56 · 11 answers · asked by Prameet K 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He doesn't seem to be a party hack as Gonzo was. Other than the waterboarding thing, which he wasn't familiar with, there was very little to object to. His tenure will be short, just over a year, so I doubt he will do much damage. Bush should have appointed him over Gonzo in the first place. There would certainly be less chance of scandal.
2007-11-12 07:02:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only shot they had at stopping him was at the Committee, if it went down party lines, the 9 Democrats would have voted him down and he wouldn't have gone to the Senate for confirmation. But Sens. Fienstein (D-CA) and Schumer (D-NY) voted for him putting him through comittee. If he went to the full Senate moderate Democrats were expected to join with Republicans to get enough votes to confirm him, and that's what happened.
Some factors that contributed to this were that Pres. Bush had threatened not to send anyone else to comittee if Mukasey was rejected by the Judiciary comittee, and the acting Attorney General would not be subject to Senate hearings. Also, Schumer recommended Mukasey to the President and spoke highly of him, and it was embarassing for Schumer personally, who is moving up in the Senate leadership, that he encountered so much Democratic opposition, and it would have been more embarassing for him if he was rejected, so he voted to confirm.
2007-11-12 14:46:44 · answer #2 · answered by Super Tuesday 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Basically, despite their mandate, Democrats are weak-willed and aren't courageous enough to uphold the Constitution and stand up to bush and his immoral administration.
If waterboarding is legal, does that mean it's not a crime to advocate that bush and cheney should have it done to them?
2007-11-12 14:51:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because he assured congress that he would enforce all laws. Even if they decided to pass a law forbidding waterboarding.
2007-11-12 14:48:04 · answer #4 · answered by libaki 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It wasn't because he is the best man for the job. That's for sure.
2007-11-12 14:53:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Just to make the left squeal like a little pig
2007-11-12 14:46:06 · answer #6 · answered by CFB 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Because he is the best man for the job. I know him personally and can vouch for that.
2007-11-12 14:44:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Dems decided to support Torture
2007-11-12 14:45:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Why not. Peace
2007-11-12 14:44:18 · answer #9 · answered by PARVFAN 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Why not? He was well qualified.
2007-11-12 14:46:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋