Capitulating Democrats are giving Alberto Gonzales the nod for AG

[bobthedrummer]

and that gets on my nerves:bounce:

Alberto R. Gonzales-Memos to Bush--Judge for yourself
http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/headline.php?id=556

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Do you think it's time to vote in Democrats who will sign a contract for

the people?

[bobthedrummer]

2. I'm a Dennis Kucinich kind of guy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Perhaps he should run for the US Senate

That way he could oppose Bush nominees.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. That would be great

------------------------------------------------------
Join the new Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/index.htm#shopping

[yurbud]

31. Why not vote conscience if they are going to lose anyway?

[BrklynLiberal]

3. They will most definitely live to regret it.

[gulfcoastliberal]

4. With Dems like these, who needs enemies?

We are so doomed.

[spotbird]

6. The worst of it is when everything turns to shit

these are the people who will lead us out.

We're doomed.

[Dr Fate]

5. They care more about "swing voters" and the media than us real DEMS.

Perhaps they can get "swing voters" and Judy Fucking Woodrruff to do phone banks & knock on doors for them in 2006. Dont call Dr Fate though- he only works for REAL Democrats.

[Rose Siding]

7. Which dems will oppose?

I know I read Durbin was unconvinced last week.

Just read that Kennedy said he's "leaning against"

[shraby]

8. Just emailed Sen. Feingold

one more time urging him not to confirm the torture man.

[NVMojo]

9. sickening ....

[Selatius]

10. The party seems to be full of careerists at best, corporatists at worst

Careerists are simply in it for the chair they sit in and perhaps the pension plan. They won't rock the boat when its time to rock because it can jeopardize their power. Corporatists are in it just to get more power for themselves or those who bankroll them. Aside from Kucinich and some others, the rest of the Dems seem to be running out of fight. They're nutless. Perhaps, more disturbingly, they really don't find Gonzales that terribly objectionable.

[Carolab]

11. Sellouts. n/t

[bobthedrummer]

12. It's horrible to see these sell-outs.

[AP]

14. How many AG nominees have been blocked and why?

What's the tradeoff? What do you gain or lose when you try to block a nominee?

[Rockerdem]

16. Spoken like a true strategerist

Always looking for an angle instead of fighting the good fight. Not singling you out in particular, but what ever happened to standing up for principle?

Air in their sacks instead of stones.

[leyton]

17. You fight the fights you can win.

Gonzales can't be blocked and if he were the next guy would be no better; there are 55 Republicans in the Senate. We questioned the guy during the hearings, which will ultimately do more than protest votes. Besides, the public only has so much appetite for blocking nominees and protest votes and such. Why waste it here?

[AP]

18. Is it a good fight though? Is the good fight a no vote on everything

if in the end it makes you look like you care only about obstructing everything that doesn't conform 100% to your world view?

Whomever Bush nominates for the AG will be someone who does something really bad for the future of America.

But you know what was good, from my perspective? When the Dems blocked those four really awful fed court nominees and were able to do it by saying that 4 out of the 200 or so that they didn't block was evidence that there was something really wrong with those four.

[Robbien]

24. If a congressman doesn't vote no on torture

in my opinion they are souless. A yea vote for Gonzales validates his giving the nod to Bush on torture thereby making the congressman (and us as an extension) an enabler of the torture.

[Wind Dancer]

26. Bingo!

I will not support the members of the Democratic Party who say yes to torture.

[TankLV]

67. You said exactly what I feel.

Just when is "enough is enough"?

We compromise on this guiding principal for the future of humanity, then why fight any other battles - they are all lessor.

We can never support or condone torture.

It's that simple.

How have we come to this sad state when we are force to argue the obvious and with some on this very board who support the indefensible?!?!

How low have we sunk as a nation when people just feel free to express their support of torture? We should maintain a climate where to even to THINK to UTTER such a belief would cause one to pause and reconsider!

That's the kind of climate of dialog I want to return to!

I am speechless that there are some on this very board who feel no unease or uncomfortableness for even HARBORING such thoughts, let alone speaking them aloud or even worse, trying to defend such beliefs and thoughts!

[AP]

27. I hate that "pass the buck" mentality. Bush is responsible for Bush's

policies. But that's another matter altogether.

(A no vote on Gonzalez is not a no vote on torture. Bush would have had the same policy regarding torture with or without Gonzalez.)

I reitierate all my questions in my last post.

[Robbien]

34. What is pass the buck about it?

You support an individual because you approve of his capabilities and his history. Gonzales has a record of supporting Bush policies even when those policies are against world and humane laws. A vote of support for the man is a vote of support for his actions.

You say it is okay to support for Gonzales even if he does not agree 100% with my world view. I have read many of the historical articles on the man and have found that in not one instance does his actions agree with my world view. He supports pollution to the benefit of corporations. He supports loss of personal liberty to the benefit of governmental investigation. He supports non-investigation of government corruption. Plus, he supports torture.

But you feel it appropriate to support his being in charge of our justice system just so we will not be labelled "obstructionist".

[AP]

36. Bush wouldn't have endorsed a torturing policy if not for Gonzalez's

memo? And now it's going to be the Democrats' fault for not making the symbolic gesture of voting no on Gonzalez?

A yes vote doesn't always mean support. Often it's one part of process that delivers something that you don't even realize until months later.

If legislating is like making sausage, I c are about the sausage that comes out at the end and not the symbolic gestures that occur in the processing stage.

[Robbien]

38. Bush wanted torture and said to Gonzales "make it happen"

Gonzales said okay.

What kind of sausage are you expecting to come out in the end. The Patriot Act is horrendous, but temporary. What kind of patriot act do you believe Gonzales will generate in his sausage factory? Bush wants what the corporate elites want with the general population paying the tab. Gonzales will say okay.

Really what kind of sausage are you expecting here? If Democrats are labelled obstructionists, how much different will the law making process be? They currently aren't asked to head any committees, they are not invited into the meetings when House and Senate bills are being reconciled, none of their bills go to the floor for a vote. They are being cursed and made fun of on the floor and in the press.

So putting one more label on them is going to change things how?

[AP]

39. Any AG is going to do exactly what Bush wants. If you're just going to

make a symbolic no vote on Gonzalez, why ever stop?

If the Democrats are only known as obstructionists, people like you might like them, but people in the middle are going to start voting for people who are perceived as making things happen, ie, non-obstructionist, cooperative Republicans.

[Robbien]

40. Where do you get the idea that people in the middle like torture?

Where do you get the idea that people in the middle like the patriot act?
Where do you get the idea that people in the middle like corporate greed to the detriment of public good?

Many of these "people in the middle" are people who are not paying attention to the process. The people who will be put off by Democrats making objections to corporate greed and inhumane laws are already voting for the Bush Regime. Those "people in the middle" will be going to the polls and casting their vote based on their own personal situation at the time of the polls. If they are happy with the way things are, they will vote for the people in office. If they are unhappy with their situation, they will vote against the people in office.

So Democrats will lose the votes of people like me who will not support their yea votes.

[AP]

41. Where do you get the idea that people in the middle will perceive...

...obstructing a Gonzalez vote as a no vote on torture?

Polls already showed that people blame the military for the torture in those prisons. They don't blame Bush. They don't blame the White House. And they won't blame the lawyer who wrote Bush a legal opinion on the issue.

And I'm not sure, as a Democrat, I'd want to make a big argument about Gonzalez making him responsible for the torture. That just helps Bush's "the buck doesn't stop here" avoidance of responsibility for everything he does wrong.

[Robbien]

43. Your argument is circular

You do not want an argument on Gonzales and torture because you post you feel it will take away from Bush's responsibility. But then you post "They" don't blame Bush. "They" think it is the military's responsibility.

How the heck do you think it will put the responsibility of torture on Bush's desk if the subject is not discussed and "They" all think it is the military's responsibility.

Plus I find laughable your belief in the so called polls with all the "They"s coming down in favor of Bush. Half the country does not like Bush and he has done nothing but worsen the situation.

[AP]

44. It's not circular. People don't blame Bush for the torture, and making the

Gonzalez nomination a referendum on his responsibilty compounds the problem. You would be arguing that it is Gonzalez who gave the advice that Bush relied upon to make his decision, so it's all Gonzalez's fault. That's an uphill battle because people not only don't blame anyone in the WH, they've already picked their scapegoat: renegade soldiers like Graner.

You're beating your head over a symbolic argument that nobody will be inclined to put much weight on anyway.

I don't want Democrats blowing their political capital tilting at Windmills. There are much more productive ways to spend their limited political capital.

The thing to do with Gonzalez is to file ethical complaints with the state bars in which he's licensed to practice law and get him disbarred.

[Leilani]

48. "Tilting at Windmills"

Do you think this was the strategy used when Kerry/Edwards decided to vote aye on IWR? To not use their "limited political capital, tilting at windmills?"

And was this the strategy used when deciding not to make voting rights an issue?

If you have to strategize what to stand for, you stand for nothing.

And that's why Kerry/Edwards lost: people will respect those who take a stand, even if they're wrong because they have the courage of their convictions.

And your strategy, of avoiding the tough fights, is what is wrong with politics & politicians.

[AP]

51. Kerry/Edwards lost because Bush used fear to convince people

to vote against their best economic interests and because the ticket did not spend enough time and effort explaining to people why they shouldn't be afraid and why their best economic interests do lead to a safer and stronger America (which is what FDR did to win four elections at a time when there was a very real threat that American fascists would take the reigns of government).

I was convinced during the primaries that if John Edwards had been the nominee the ticket would have been able to make that argument convincingly to the America public because Edwards was the living, breathing embodiment of that message, and because he was doing a great job delivering that message and with it getting about (what?) 30% of the primary votes, and always increasing his popularity, and never having a downward trajectory.

The Democrats did not lose because they did or didn't tilt at windmills.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

53. Well, at least I confine my arguments to the message and not the

messenger.

And I still defend Blair when he deserves it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1155800

And by the way, I find it more than a little amusing that you're criticizing me for supporting liberals who win, and win more than once. Are you going to criticize for saying I like FDR and Clinton.

Are you going to criticize me for criticizing Jerry Brown, Mondale, and Dukakis?

[FubarFly]

37. What do you gain by voting yes?

Isn't restoring the trust and respect of a significant portion of your constituency a laudable enough goal?

Why not vote no?

Are we so fragile that we can't survive the heat generated by our principled opposition?

Perhaps our leadership could send a signal to demoralized Democrats that it's time to regroup, dig in, and fight.

[AP]

42. I want my congresspeople using their limited political capital where it...

...can make a difference, and I'm not sure it can make a difference with Gonzalez.

Like I said above, blaming Gonzalez for torture takes the blame off Bush.

[KnowerOfLogic]

56. Actually, voting no on Torture *gains* dems political capital; and

there's no reason we can't hold both Gonzales *and* Bush responsible. Geez, a no vote really isn't that hard, and it will accrue dems a little bit of credibility to build on.

[AP]

60. I know people believe that...

....but I really don't see it playing out that way.

To win that, you have to win too many other sub-debates (eg, the proper role of a lawyer; historically, whether this memo is a disqualifying action), and I think some of the arguments you'd have to make would shift the blame off Bush (eg, this memo is so bad because it made Bush act a way he would not have acted).

I have no problem with skewering the guy on this issue. I have no problem with people voting no on him. But I don't have a problem if some dems vote yes as part of some bigger project (eg, a trade on an issue that would actually make a difference in people's lives over the next four years, or as part of strategy that will cause more problems for Bush).

Furthermore, I'd rather have an AG with weaknesses than one without -- the Democrats might be better off having Gonzalez than someone without any blots in his or her copy book.

[Donna Zen]

45. Clinton's

First two...

Reno was the third choice.

The republicans didn't hesitate and their base appreciated. In this case the military has written asking The Torture Guy to be rejected.

[AP]

52. They weren't blocked, IIRC. They were withdrawn because of nanny

problems by Clinton.

I doubt they would have been rejected. But always having to address the issue of whether the AG was a tax-evading, illegal immigrant-hiring ne'er do well would have been an unwelcomed distration.

In fact, the Republicans would have probably made sure those AGs had enough votes to pass so that they could talk about those things constantly. (Hint.)

[rfkrfk]

15. attn: shrub Democrats ... your days are numbered n/t

no text

[bread_and_roses]

19. Some here saying a NO vote is wasted? Wasted???

Voting against a PROPONENT of TORTURE is wasted? Here the Democrats have an opportunity to stand against the violations of US and International Law perpetuated by this administration, to make a statement about the rule of law, to oppose the "above the law" stance of the occupant of the WH and his handlers, to tell the world that not all Americans support torture, and to serve notice that they stand in OPPOSITION to WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY - so that is a "wasted" vote???? If he is confirmed, let him be confirmed by Republicans only: let them stand forth as the crypto-Nazis they are.

Anyone who thinks this is a "wasted" vote please tell me where and when the line should be drawn? At what point do the Democrats become an opposition party?

[TankLV]

69. And still some wonder how the German people could let the nazi's win.

They just don't get it.

And it because of the "strategizing" and "scheming" to "win" instead of "fighting the good fight" even if it means LOSING!

At least we will be on the GOOD side!

But that doesn't matter to a lot of people.

And that is why they have lost me as a supporter of a party that puts "strategy" and "marketing" and "study groups" and "schemeing to win" ahead of PRINCIPALS, IDEALS, & WHAT IS JUST PLAIN RIGHT VERSUS WRONG!

[Mitt Chovick]

20. Oh the Humanity

How the f**k did this happen?

It's going to be a long four years. Maybe I'll just get drunk and stay that way.

[hopein08]

21. Kennedy may vote against Gonzales

According to the Washington Post. It's a registration required site so I don't quite know how to post the link. If you search under Yahoo! News for Kennedy/Gonzalesm the story will come up. (Plus, I don't know how many of you have accounts there.)

Anyway, here are some small snips from the article...hope I do this right...

"On Gonzales, Kennedy Breaks With Colleagues

By Mike Allen and Brian Faler"

...snip...

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) broke with his colleagues yesterday and said on television that he is "leaning against" supporting Gonzales at the moment."

...snip...

"Kennedy said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he had not been satisfied with the nominee's answers at his Jan. 6 confirmation hearing, where Gonzales said the administration will not tolerate torture but defended his conclusion that the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to alleged terrorists."

...

Go Ted Kennedy!

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. Leaning against??

When Ted Kennedy is merely "leaning against" confirming a fucking fascist war criminal as attorney general, that is very telling of how low Senate Democrats have fallen.

Teddy should be leading the fight against this piece of shit. What is there to debate, Ted? What is there to consider? The son of a fucking bitch told the Chimp how to loophole TORTURE, for fucks sake!

How does anyone with a brain and a conscience merely "lean against" that???

[KoKo]

22. Be careful, the "swat team" here will come after you for "attacking" Dems.

We can't say anything negative about any Dems who vote for Gonzales..
Because they are just doing their job and won't accomplish anything by going against what Bush wants. ;-)

[yurbud]

32. Their job is to represent us--not make Bush's life easier

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"....Ein Partei

I remember a time when opposition parties actually opposed. But, I guess that's "too liberal" now.

[Donna Zen]

25. The view from crawling on their bellies.

It's a good thing that he paid his nanny and didn't wear a blue dress.

[Vinca]

29. They're all a bunch of Republicrats.

It's time for the party to elect new blood.

[NoPasaran]

30. Jeez. Maybe they can't block Gonzales

But can't they at least vote against the scumbag? A vote for Gonzales is a vote that condones torture.

[Nothing Without Hope]

33. We need to make it clear that their vote on this will be remembered

This is NOT invisible. It is vital. Gonzales is part of B*'s strategy to remake the government to suit his wishes and totally bypass any Congressional control. (The latest aspect to come to light is the explosive Seymour Hersch story of the secret Iran missions to target sites for an invasion -- read the full story here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2962328) to get the meta-story, the hollowing out of the CIA to remove any protest to Bush's whims.)

We need to bombard ALL members of Congress with the message that this vote is enormously important, that their vote will be recorded and publicized, and that we will continue to publicize it when they come up for reelection. There is no compromise here that is ethical. A vote to confirm Gonzales as AG is both cowardly and totally immoral.

[Donna Zen]

46. A timely message:

For those who you who believe that voting for The Torture Guy is somehow "okay."

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Cha]

58. Very Good message from

Dr King..and so true. Too bad it's in the minority.

[USA_1]

47. "capitulating Democrats"

Precisely why I am NOT a Democrat.

As an independent voter, I condemn Democrats for repeatedly ass wiping ReSUCKplicans and by rubber stamping every bit of legislation demanded by Bush.

He wants a war, he gets it. More corporate welfare, he gets it. Anti-FDR reich wing bureaucratic radicals in office, he gets each of them approved. When he makes the State of the Union address, the Democrats stand up and applaud his bullshit proposals and self praise with greater relish than Republicans do.

Bush is fucking up the USA. But he cannot do it alone. If it wasn't for the Democrats repeatedly kissing up to him as they do, he would NEVER have fucked up Social Security, our environment, our economy, our international reputation, and everything else.

[Donna Zen]

49. Yes!

Wrapping my mind around the notion that any American could support having a Torture Guy for attorney general...attorney general of this country...is somehow acceptable, somehow excusable, somehow the politcally correct thing to do, makes me want to puke.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Does it really matter who Bush's Attorney General is?

Alberto Gonzales happens to have a record of allowing torture. If he isn't confirmed don't you think that they'll find some braindead puppet who is just like Gonzales without the record? The key is that the Attorney General, like all of the other cabinet members, serves at the pleasure of the President and thus the President should be held responsible for every single thing that he does. Democrats don't need to change how they act during the confirmation process, they need to change the way that leaders are held accountable. For example, Bush is truly the one to blame for Abu Ghreib and our troops not getting the body armor, not just Rumsfeld.

[Leilani]

55. Perhaps, by challenging Gonzales

they can stand up for what's right & what's wrong?

And by holding Gonzales responsible, they can also hold Bush & Rumsfeld accountable?

Is that to much to ask of the opposition party?

[Skip Intro]

57. I agree, but would be more upset if they let the wacko judges pass

This is madness.

[Leilani]

59. They can oppose Gonzales & the Judges

It doesn't have to be either, or.

[Skip Intro]

62. Yes, they can. I agree.

You'd think the torture thing would have even the slutty repukes voting against him.

I agree.

[Donna Zen]

61. Wacko judges?

The republicans opposed dozens of Clinton's judges...dozens and dozens.

The blocked confirmation of 2 Attorney Generals before accepting the third, although they then spent eight years riding her ass.

Torture is bad.

Breaking International law is bad.

Endangering the troops is bad.

And accepting this man makes one just as bad. We should not become a party to the crimes. Have we no self respect? Do we stand for nothing?

Make it an issue. bush will always claim deniability, they learned from Nixon. This is as close as you are going to get to the brain of the beast.

[Skip Intro]

64. You're right.

My thinking was that the judges are the last word.

The AG is subject to law. Judges are usually the last word on law. That's why I was thinking judges moreso. Keep strong the final safety net of democracy.

But you're right. Torture is inexcusable, and I agree totally with you.

Its almost as if the Dems voting for confirmation are sanctioning the torture.

It is disgusting.

And its just one little bit of the hell bush has visited upon the nation of Iraq.

God forgive us.

[Donna Zen]

65. Once they say "yea"

....then they lose the right to hold bush accountable because if it was okay for Torture Guy then the memos breaking the law meant nothing.

BTW, the bastards are complaining about what? the blocking of 10 judges after they held Clinton's judges over the fire. Didn't even bring them up for a hearing. Dozens. That moved held open many seats that are now filled with knuckle draggers all vetted by the corporate Federalist Society.

[TankLV]

70. You just don't get it, do you?

How can we try to convince you of something so very basic?

You are truely a lost cause if you really believe the crap you are spewing.

Have you no shame?

Why do anything because they'll find someone else or he'll get in anyway?

Are you really that jaded and corrupted?

I feel very sorry for you.

You are truly a lost soul.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. If we fillibuster their attorney general

They'll find a reason to do it with ours when we get a democratic president. ANY reason. That's what I'm afraid of. I understand the logic behind fighting his confirmation and I'm just as frustrated as you are. These Repukes are evil and we have very few weapons that we can use against them. I just think that maybe we should consider giving this one up and lived to fight another day (SCOTUS appointments). Granted I'm not suggesting that democratic senators vote for this slime, but I'm just not sure that this is a battle we want to fight.

[TankLV]

74. Then just what would be a battle you'd want to fight if not this!

For god's sake, man - you really don't have a clue, do you!

When we DON'T do anything with this one, THEY WILL STILL BLOCK EVERY FUCKING THING WE MIGHT DO AT SOME FUTURE DATE!

This is what they have done in the past!

They already have done it! Get it?!?!?!

GET A CLUE!

You are certainly NOT as frustrated as "we" are! Not by a long shot!

We are talking about MR. TORTURE PERSONAFIED HERE! THE GUY IS MAKEING EXCUSES FOR TORTURE - SEEING HOW FAR WE CAN GODDAMN GO BEFORE HE CAN BE CHARGED WITH TORTURE! That is about as far away from the spirit of the law as one can get!

You really don't get it at all!

[Hippo_Tron]

75. They didn't block Clinton's cabinet appointments

As mentioned above, some of them withdrew their names. Cabinet officials serve at the pleasure of the President. Perhaps we should use more scrutiny when confirming cabinet appointments, perhaps there should be no precedent of senatorial courtesy. But the fact is that, that very precedent exists right now and if we break it, it will give the GOP more footing to end fillibusters for confirmation so that we can't use it when it really counts which is SCOTUS appointments.

[TankLV]

76. Clinton withdrew them because of repuke opposition.

They were SO GOOD AT BLOCKING ALL DECENT PEOPLE, THAT SOME HAD THEIR NAMES WITHDRAWN RATHER THAN FIGHT. This is a shining example of repuke fair play.

THIS PROVES MY POINT!

The repukes blocked and obstructed EVERYTHING and they succeeded beyond their wildist dreams so effectively, that eventually the dems were afraid to even submit some people!

They control EVERYTHING now!

Dems better learn how to play by repuke rules fast or we will be even worse off than we are now!

[Contrary1]

63. When I first saw the title

of this thread, I thought it said "Copulating Democrats".
Maybe that wasn't so far off the mark after all.

[Swamp Rat]

66. I understand your feelings, but they'd just find another lizard anyway.

[progressiveright]

68. thats fucked up

they gotta make a stand somewhere. im not sure how cabinet nominations work, is it just a senate majority vote? at least say that you are against the man who bent law to authorise torture and hold that position even if you lose, what is this 'capitulating' ?!!!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. I don't care about "he's going to be confirmed anyway"

Since when do Democrats have to go along with the crowd without making a statement? If they stick together against Gonzales, they may even be able to get some of the more reasonable Republicans to go along with them. They might even (gasp!) stand for something.

Let's see now, how many attorney general candidates of Clinton's did the Republicanites get rid of?

[bobthedrummer]

73. Rumor has it that Gonzales is a Dominionist in his private life.

:argh:

[Clarkie1]

77. Alberto Gonzales is "unfit for the job" - Wes Clark (transcript here)

Let me ask you about Alberto Gonzales, the president‘s counsel. He‘s up for—the president has put him up for attorney general. He‘s the man that laid out the guidelines, if you would call them guidelines, on torture of prisoners and the power of the presidency during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think he‘s fit for the job?

CLARK: No.

How can the American people have confidence in a man like Gonzales after what he‘s written for the president of the United States? He‘s basically said the Geneva Convention was irrelevant. He basically said that torture is something that‘s very limited, that you could be in terrible pain and that you still wouldn‘t be being tortured.

MATTHEWS: Yes. He said we could have cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners.

CLARK: And not have it be torture.

MATTHEWS: Right.

CLARK: And Mr. Gonzales has basically said the power of the presidency is unlimited and he can do anything he wants.

How can we feel confident as Americans that we‘re living under the rule of law when the attorney general has violated what we believe to be the law?

MATTHEWS: Well, let‘s just get this straight, so we don‘t sound like we‘re goody-two-shoes here. You‘re a military man. You‘ve commanded troops, many of them. You‘ve been in combat in Europe. What are the limits of interrogation, as you understand it to be?

CLARK: Geneva Convention, no question about it.

I mean, we would never have violated the Geneva Convention. You don‘t shoot prisoners. You don‘t do false—trick executions. You don‘t rough them up and beat them up.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Did we threaten to throw people out of helicopters in Vietnam?

CLARK: I have heard those rumors. I never saw it. And if it was ever done, I hope it was punished.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Did we hose people with hoses in their mouths until they talked?

CLARK: Not in any of my commands that I know of.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CLARK: And I‘ll tell you this.

In 1999, when we had three Americans captured by the Serbs at the start of the Kosovo campaign, they were put on television and one of them had a big black eye and looked like he was beaten up. We were outraged.

MATTHEWS: Right.

CLARK: And...

MATTHEWS: So you don‘t think water-boarding, as it‘s called, where you basically threaten a guy with drowning, you make him think he‘s going to drown, is acceptable?

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: Absolutely not.

MATTHEWS: So Gonzales is not your man.

CLARK: I think strict Geneva Convention, strict adherence to the law.

MATTHEWS: Thank you.

CLARK: We put that law in place to protect our soldiers.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You can‘t officially do it anymore, but—you‘re retired. But do you think a lot of military men of your rank, flag rank, do you think that‘s a common view? McCaffrey certainly had it last night. Is this a general view you hear from military men?

CLARK: This is what we believe in.

We—look, we fought for the Geneva Convention. It was put in place to protect our soldiers, our values and our institutions.

MATTHEWS: Right.

CLARK: We can‘t win the war on terror if we give up what we stand for as the American people.

MATTHEWS: Would you testify against Gonzales on the Hill if they asked you?

CLARK: Well, I would testify against anybody who wrote those kinds of things. I don‘t know Gonzales personally. But how he could have written these documents is outrageous.

MATTHEWS: Strong words. Thank you, Wesley Clark.

You going to run for president again?

CLARK: Rule nothing out.

MATTHEWS: I love it.

Anyway, thank you very much, General Wesley Clark, still in the mix.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6790643/

[leesa]

78. Isn't that nice. Will the cowering, quivering Dems even voice a tiny

objection?