JUAN COLE'S "MUST READ" ON WHY CHAS. FREEMAN WAS THREAT TO AIPAC

Juan Cole at Informed Comment has a "must-read" posting on why and how Obama called it quits on Charles Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Cole says that Sen. Chuck Schumer called Rahm Emanuel to complain about Freeman, thus doing the bidding of those who cannot tolerate a U.S. foreign policy that wants to play fair with both Palestinians and Israelis. The knock against Freeman was that he was too pro-Palestinian.

Writes Cole:

"What happened to Freeman is further evidence for the resilience of the Israel lobbies and their enormous power in US politics. The Neoconservatives were roundly defeated on the budget, and even had to swallow George Mitchell as a special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But they still have the power to exclude a Washington Arabist such as Freeman even from an appointive position.

"Israeli Apartheid will continue unabated under Obama."

WHY DID THE SENATE CONFIRM MUKASEY?

Why the U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General by 53 to 40 is still an enigma. Especially the votes of Senators Schumer and Feinstein. I have read their op-eds justifying their votes. They fail to convince, especially when they try to say that Mukasey would be better than some recess appointment or acting AG appointed by Bush without Senate confirmation.

Mukasey is not sure that waterboarding is torture. Nevertheless the Senate confirms him as head law enforcement officer of the United States. It is all too improbable. There must be some other reason why Feinstein and Schumer voted for his confirmation, and unfortunately we are not getting the underlying real reason from the main stream media.

Furthermore, what happened to Sen. Harry Reid? As majority leader, he could have and should have threatened a filibuster. In which case, Mukasey would need 60 votes to have the Senate vote on him. The Republicans do this all the time, witness the vote on S-CHIP in which Democrats obtained a majority but not enough to stop the Republican filibuster. So why did Harry Reid allow the Mukasey confirmation vote to go forward without a veto? Again, this explanation is not something that we are getting from most newspapers and TV.

MUKASEY AFFAIRE SHOWS THAT SOME SENATORS CONDONE WATERBOARDING

I received this e-mail today from a friend on the Mukasey affaire. The author has given me permission to share it with my blog readers:

"Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, has refused to say whether waterboarding is torture. This guy was a federal judge (a life time appointment) and he says he doesn't know what waterboarding is and therefore he can't say whether it's torture or not. If we assume that he is being honest, i.e., he doesn't know what waterboarding, that leaves a lot to be desired in a "jurist." Even a high school student, without the benefit of knowledge of history, who has watched TV or read any newspapers over the past few years, is very likely to know what waterboarding is. And if Mukasey doesn't know that, then should we have an Attorney General who is that ignorant of the current issues.

"Of course, it's hard for me to believe that Mukasey doesn't know, it is more likely that he is covering for the Bush team who is perhaps afraid that this legal minutiae could at a later date save them from criminal prosecutions. Whatever his motives, it doesn't bode well for our society when have a nominee for Attorney General who doesn't know anything to replace an Attorney General who just couldn't remember anything.

"However, what is even more alarming than Bush nominating Mukasey is that democratic Senators Schumer and Feinstein have thrown their weight behind his confirmation. Senator Schumer said, "the best we can hope for is someone who will rebuild the Justice Department and remain independent, even when pressured by this Administration." Rebuild the Justice Department to do what?—Condone waterboarding, so we can now tell the world that our highest law enforcement official doesn't think waterboarding is torture and thus sending a signal to the torturers that it is not illegal, at least, not under his leadership at the Justice Department.

"Senator Schumer has put his own ego (he had suggested Mukasey to Bush) and in a face saving exercise condoned waterboarding. So much for checks from democrats on Executive power, and so much for standing up for what is right.

"Let's all tell Senators Schumer and Feinstein that waterboarding is torture, and torture is not an American or human value. Phone numbers for the Senators are: Feinstein: (202) 224-3841 and Schumer (202) 224-8542."

SCHUMER AND FEINSTEIN SUPPORT MUKASEY AS A.G.

It's hard to know where to begin on the sordid Mukasey/Schumer/Feinstein affaire. Mukasey refuses to say whether he believes waterboarding is torture. Yet Feinstein and Schumer announce their support for him as AG.

We might as well support the medieval church inquisitors and all the other torturers throughout the ages. I had thought that the French Enlightenment once and for all established the intellectual condemnation and prohibition of torture in all its cruel manifestations. I guess I was wrong.

And these torturers are not merely limited to George Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. Read the statements of some of the Republican candidates, such as Giuliani, Romney and Thompson, supporting these methods of "interrogation" and in Romney's case, Guantanamo. We can gauge how medieval and thwarted their Republican attitude towards life and "democracy" really is.

Surely the Mukasey affaire is not one of America's finest hours.