Yesterday was one example as to why people are faulting the Democrats for talking the talk but not walking the walk.
John A. Rizzo faced confirmation in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday. During a 2-hour session, few of the Senators on the Committee asked pointed questions about what he knew and when he knew it. That would be fine if Rizzo was vying to be WH dog catcher (or assistant deputy director of the Departmant of Agriculture--hmmm, maybe not.)
But Rizzo is a 31-year veteran of the CIA. He's been their top lawyer for the past 6 years. He had a central role in the CIA detention and interrogation of prisoners in secret jails abroad, and he interpreted the amended laws on torture drawn up by Gonzales, et al. Yesterday, in front of the Senate under oath, he faced confirmation for the position of General Counsel of the CIA.
Even when he was feebly questioned, he answered in vague, general terms.
My questions are: Why didn't the Democrats on the Committe tear him apart, or at least question him sharply? The Senate Judiciary Committee was tougher on Kyle Sampson. Are the Dems intimidated by Rizzo? Didn't they read Sy Hersh's articles in the New Yorker on Abu Ghraib and realize that "interrogation" techniques were being duplicated globally?
Donh't give me that, "if you crticize the Democrats, you're helping George W. Bush." The Democrats have been ragging on the Republicans for not getting information about the CIA secret prisons, and yesterday was their golden opportunity. Whassup?