Bush's AG nominee

Something just has to be said, and this blog seems as good of place as any. Normally, I've been pretty anti-democrat thinking recently, with their constant stream of "whaa, whaa, Iraq bad, whaa" bs and their constant "spend more" "solutions" to every ill facing America. But, in this case, it's the Republican's who are looking retarded.

Normally, I'd be chiding Congress for wasting time blocking nominations, wasting time passing "statement" legislation, wasting time loading up bills with pork barrel spending, wasting time grandstanding, and generally just being asses. Not that they have stopped doing any of those things (see their approval rating), but for the AG hearings, surprisingly, they have a good point. The AD nominee should be able to state, clearly, for the record, if certain practices legally constitute torture or not; period, full stop.

Sure, if you say it is torture, Congress is going to demand you (as AG) put an end to it (which you should do with this answer), and/or investigate the Executive (which you should refuse to do, unless it continues in your tenure). Sure, if you say it's not, the Democrats are going to paint you as a torture supporter who's catering to Bush's interpretation of the laws, and may not support you. Yes, it's a lose/lose proposition to answer it clearly. But... THAT'S YOUR GD JOB! Someone who can't clearly answer that, or any other clearly explained legal question, has no business being the Attorney General for the United States. The job where you dodge all the questions with malleable answers is in the press secretary area.

I hate to say it, but Congress, in the case, is in the right. Send this guy to the press room, and make Bush produce someone with the testicles (actual or effective, his choice).