TPM Reader RM on Mukasey ...

It's probably true that the Mukasey nomination could have been blocked, but surely that's not the same as "should have." I don't know, obviously it is disgusting to have an AG who won't say that waterboarding = torture. But it's not like the Democrats' choice was between Michael Mukasey and Patrick Fitzgerald, or Michael Mukasey and David Iglesias. Wasn't the real choice pretty much Michael Mukasey and Acting AG Peter Keisler? Is it crazy to think Mukasey will do a better job overall of beginning to pick up the pieces at Justice?

It's the Schumer line, I guess, but it is a real option: Dems should pass a bill that explicitly bans waterboarding while not implicitly allowing other forms of torture.

This is a very good point and one I've given a lot of thought to. I don't think there's any question that President Bush will not allow an AG to be seated during his administration who will not at least tacitly okay the use of torture. If he didn't get Mukasey we more than likely would have stuck with the even worse choice of Keisler. The contrary argument would be that the Senate did not need to affirm lawlessness in principle as it arguably now has.

The other issue though is that I'm surprised and disheartened that insisting on the appointment of a special prosecutor as a condition of confirmation went by the wayside with the water-boarding issue. I can't help thinking this would have been a better ground on which to approach the vote in as much as it may well have yielded a more productive, more practical result.