Oh, My! What's This?

I confess to rarely reading the Washington Post these days. I have enough problems without adding elevated blood pressure and agida to the mix. Still, I did find time to make a brief foray onto their on-line publication today, and I'm glad I did. The first article to catch my attention was this one, which seemed to imply that at least one Democratic senator enjoyed his summer recess.

The Senate majority leader said yesterday that Democrats would block former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson from becoming attorney general, kicking off a spirited nomination debate even before the White House has named a candidate.

"Ted Olson will not be confirmed," Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement. "I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general."

Well, imagine that. Mr. Reid has finally decided to dig his heels on a nomination, even though the nomination has not yet been made. It's a nice message to the White House, though. After all, Mr. Olson is not exactly the ideal candidate, but beyond pointing out that he gave some assistance to a group determined to topple the last president by innuendo, the article didn't give us much information on Mr. Olson's qualifications.

But wait, there's more. Apparently some other Democrats are feeling their oats when it comes to presidential nominations, according to another WaPo article.

Members of the Senate intelligence committee have requested the withdrawal of the Bush administration's choice for CIA general counsel, acknowledging that John Rizzo's nomination has stalled because of concerns about his views on the treatment of terrorism suspects.

The decision followed a private meeting this week in which committee leaders concluded that the troubled nomination could not overcome opposition among Democratic members. It comes less than a month after a key member, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), announced his intention to block the nomination indefinitely.

Rizzo, a career CIA lawyer, has drawn fire from Democrats and human rights groups because of his support for Bush administration legal doctrines permitting "enhanced interrogation" of terrorism detainees in CIA custody. ...

During his confirmation hearing in June, Rizzo testified that he did not object to an administration memo in 2002 that deemed legal some extremely harsh interrogation techniques for CIA detainees. According to the memo, a technique was not considered to be torture unless it inflicted pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of body function, or even death." Rizzo testified that the legal opinion "on the whole was a reasonable one."

At least this article sets forth some pretty solid reasoning as to why Mr. Rizzo is just not the right man for this job. One wonders if there is any job he should be trusted with, but that's another issue. It's nice to see that Sen. Wyden not only spotted the problem but also made it clear that this confirmation just wasn't going to happen.

Or will it? Unfortunately, we've been treated to nearly seven long years of Democratic posturing when it comes to promising to block nominations, but then the hearings come and the votes are taken and we are stuck with yet more scoundrels in important positions.

We'll see soon enough.