Of course CNN is going to ask this - it was supposed to be policy to rubber stamp this nominee and let Bush/Cheney get back to business as usual.  Since the media is in the tank for govt policy (see iraq, iran, etc), they will word things in such a way as to make the democrats look bad for properly vetting this guy.

the whole point of the neocons attacking the media as left-wing is only to gain ratings for themselves with other neocon sheep as well as to shield you to their own super pro-government stance

Too bad you can't keep your smarmyness in check for long enough to examine two simple reasons why those evil "neocons" aren't even at fault here:

1) Schumer was one of the driving forces behind this guy's nomination

2) ...and let's not forget what he said about water boarding: [link to podloc.andomedia.com] Schumer is a neocon, too? I guess, as Levin said last night, he should resign, for both the same reason they won't approve this new attorney general and for blatant hypocrisy. This is laughable.

I guess that link got messed up, so here it is:

http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=2824x[link to abcrad.vo.llnwd.net]

I have to question MMFA on this one.

The headline POLITICAL TORTURE does not suggest which side is being tortured in these confirmation proceedings. In my view the Democrats  have been tortured by the machinations of the Bush White House and its manipulation of these proceedings. They have been frustrated at each step of the way in attempting to obtain a valid response from the nominee with respect to the legality of waterboarding.

And reference to eaterboarding as a controversial interrogation technique is, in my opinion, a correct statement. Waterboarding is controversial...it is presently the subject of great controversy in these proceedings. That does not suggest CNN questions whether waterboarding is actually torture...it so plainly is torture that CNN would risk rebuke if it suggested otherwise.

At least that's how I'm reading these things...

CNN probably meant "torture" for people unfortunate enough to have watched the hearing.

It's just a headline play-on-words, and I think the torture reference was speaking to the frustration and grind of this hearing for both sides.

I think that Blitzer's use of "POLITICAL TORTURE" does imply that Democrats are doing the torturing in the hearings of Mukasey's nomination.  Many viewers would even take it further and believe anytime a Republican is grilled in Congress, it constitutes torture from Democrats. 

Remember, Democrats are such cads and they "tortured" Samuel Alito so much that they made his wife cry.

Who outside of Bush and his supporters think waterboarding is contrversial? Why would CNN frame the technique as controversial? If there is any frame it should be that it's been procecuted since the early days of the republic as torture. The press won't stand against it, the democrats are cowards and the people who would stand for what is right have no voice. What are we to do?

"controversial interrogation technique"

Crappy caption.

I am sure someone thought they were clever.

I am not sure I would have put this one on the site. Now if the site was just pointing out MSM stupidity -- then yeah it should be on the site.

I think the Democrat congress should stop torturing Mukasey and just waterboard him instead. ; )

Absolutely.  Congress should not confirm ANYONE who can't give a clear answer on whether or not W-Boardng is torture.  He doesn't deserve an up-or-down vote until this is answered; clearly and unequivocably.  PERIOD.

Then, the next question: (Assuming he gives the only reasonable answer which is "YES.")  Will you prosecute Bush & Co. if it is shown that they authorized/ordered it's use?

Can't give a strait answer to that one also? NO CONFIRMATION, NO UP-OR-DOWN VOTE.

Now... I'm not saying he has to answer "Yes" on the last one (or either one) but the Congress should know his position (on both points, really) before they cast their votes, and they should vote accordingly.  Otherwise it's a sham.

"It's just a headline play-on-words, and I think the torture reference was speaking to the frustration and grind of this hearing for both sides."

Tortured attempt at humor?

I think they should block Mukasey.  Bush will not put another person up.  We will be without an AG.  Then let's see what happens. 

REVIEW & OUTLOOK <!-- ID: SB119397016138980146.djm --><!-- LEVEL: normal --><!-- TYPE: Review & Outlook (U.S.) --><!-- DISPLAY-NAME: Review & Outlook --><!-- PUBLICATION: "The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition" --><!-- DATE: 2007-11-02 00:01 --><!-- COPY: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. --><!-- ORIG-ID: --><!-- article start -->

As for waterboarding, it is mostly a political sideshow. The CIA's view seems to be that some version of waterboarding is effective in breaking especially tough cases quickly. Press reports say it has been used only against a few high-value al Qaeda operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zubaydah. As former CIA Director George Tenet points out in his book "At the Center of the Storm," KSM and others never would have talked about "imminent threats against the American people" had they not been dealt with harshly. "I believe that none of these success would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal," he writes.

If Democrats want to strip the CIA of this tool, then they ought to legislate it openly, not make law under the table through the confirmation process. Congress has twice had the chance to ban or criminalize waterboarding, but it declined to do so in both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. And not for lack of trying: In debating the Military Commissions Act, Ted Kennedy offered a detailed amendment that specifically prohibited waterboarding, as well as other coercive interrogation methods; it lost on the Senate floor, 46-53.

The political calculation here is clear: Democrats want to pander to the antiwar war base of their party that doubts we are even in a war, and in any case wants to treat terrorist detainees no differently than a common street felon. Yet they don't want to be responsible for passing a statute that blocks CIA attempts to gain information that could prevent an imminent terrorist attack. So they dodge and employ ambiguous language that the Justice Department must then interpret. And then they try to run Judge Mukasey out of town because he won't do their political work for them.

==============================================

If we strip the CIA of an effective tool in the war the terrorists we are all less safe and secure.  Sometimes I wish that the left would be a little bit more concerned with defending America instead of constantly trying to score cheap political points.