Bush:  "I believe that the questions he's been asked are unfair; he's not been read into a program -- he has been asked to give opinions of a program or techniques of a program on which he has not been briefed."

Isn't that the point of the hearings?  To ask him questions?  Learn his views?  See if the rest of the country wants him as Attorney General?

"Q Judge Mukasey is experienced in terrorism trials, he's been around. Why is it wrong for him -- or why will you not let him say whether he thinks that waterboarding is illegal torture? THE PRESIDENT: He has not been read in -- first of all, let me put this in perspective. The Congress did pass a law, the Detainee Detention Act [sic], that I signed into law. The techniques we use informed that law and members of the Senate and House -- select members of the Senate and House, both parties, have been briefed on the law. Secondly, he doesn't know whether we use that technique or not."

Use of  "water-boarding" has been confirmed in use.  It's a technique we picked up from the Spanish Inquisition, Pol Pot, and North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.  We KNOW what's involved.  It's been described, re-enacted on television, photos from previous wars, etc.  If that isn't enough for him to make a decision, and he's trust-worthy enough to be considered for Attorney General, give him clearance and let him see the papers he needs so that he can form an opinion and answer the question.  It's not that difficult.  The only reason for the current arguement is so he doesn't have to say if he approves or not and can defend the status quo, which would fail to get him approved by the Senate.  They don't want the status quo.  They want honesty, openness, and NO TORTURE.  It's not the huge request the administration makes it out to be. But since he can't answer it, how about someone who is cleared and briefed answer the question?

Q What is your own view about waterboarding? THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to talk about techniques.

Oh.............

Popularity: 1% [?]