Posted on 10/20/2005 1:15:35 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
The army is not properly equipped for an invasion of an enemy's territory. It lacks much of the material of war, is feeble in transportation, the animals being much reduced, and the men are poorly provided with clothes, and in thousands of instances are destitute of shoes. Still we cannot afford to be idle, and though weaker than our opponents in men and military equipments, must endeavor to harass, if we cannot destroy them. I am aware that the movement is attended with much risk, yet I do not consider success impossible, and shall endeavor to guard it from loss. Robert E. Lee (September 3, 1862 Letter to Jefferson Davis)
Last week, with considerable difficulty, I posted that I had changed my mind and decided to support the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I hope that this post will help some of you understand why this nomination must be supported until it is either withdrawn or it succeeds in gaining Senate confirmation.
I make no bones about the fact that I believe that the nomination of Harriet Miers is a very, very large mistake by the Bush administration, probably the biggest mistake that they have made in office. I believe the choice to have been one made in the heat of battle, under duress and strain over the surprise decline of prior selections, against the goal of completing Senate confirmation before the end of November. A selection of a willing candidate had to be made, and the President mis-stepped in rushing to select Harriet Miers without proper vetting.
So, in light of that, (which is all true) why am I now suggesting that Harriet Miers should be supported?
Because this is war.
We Conservatives are at the brink of victory, where the enemy is most dangerous. Just as you have seen in Iraq, at the time of nearing victory is exactly the time when the enemy becomes more violent and deadly in their attacks. It is not because we are losing the war, that we find our leaders either attacked in the media, or worse; the continued attempts to criminalize Conservatives through the legal system. It is happening because we are winning.
We are winning in spite of the fact that our Conservative Army is in very, very bad condition after years of battle against our Liberal opponent. Our leadership in the Senate consists mostly of tired, beaten, scared members, most of them unwilling to take the fight to the enemy for fear of losing the ground they have gained.
In any war, it is always a goal to destroy leadership first. You target and attack the enemies Generals as a common early tactic. Our enemies have never been able to defeat the likes of Tom Delay or Karl Rove on the battlefield of ideas, so they now seek to remove them from the war altogether through continued attempts to remove them from their winning positions. The enemy if successful can weaken our leader by removing his warriors from the fight. Our enemies understand the unfortunate truth that there are only a few true warriors left in our political army, and if they can get to them (through our failure to protect their flank) they can then gain ground simply by limiting our ability to attack them. No war is won on the defense, and on the defense is where we are. We are not on the defense because of the decisions of one George W. Bush; we are on the defense because his Army is tired and weak, and also there are phony among them.
Anyone who believes that an Arlen Specter or a John McCain is going to fight to the death for Conservative principles is an absolute fool. If you think that Trent Lott or Orrin Hatch wont sell your Conservatism down the river for another 6 years feeding at the public troth then respectfully, you are dumber than dirt.
In war, you must have no weak areas for the enemy to attack, and we have a lot of them. We attack Bush for signing Campaign Finance reform much more than we attack John McCain for creating it. We attack Bill Frist for not going Nuclear; instead of attacking the RINOs who would have obviously defeated the measure had Frist tried it.
In the Miers nomination, I believe the President looked at his situation, and the conditions of his troops, and took the path of Robert E. Lee; choosing not to lose, when faced with a situation where the condition of his troops made it impossible for him to win. In doing so, he repeated a mistake that many, many leaders have made before him. He made a decision from weakness, and that cannot be denied.
We can (and should) attack George Bush when he makes poor decisions from a weak position, but now is the time to attack those who put him in the weak position to begin with. You cant really blame the Democrats, because they are who they are. We know their tactics and should be better prepared for them. You cant blame the RINOs for the same reason. If you know your enemy, then there is no excuse for allowing him victories against you.
So where does that leave us?
As has been made clear before; You go to war with the Army youve got, not the one you want. That is where we are. Right now, we may not feel so great about our Army, but are we going to let them be defeated because we dont agree with their tactics and methods? Sure, we can stand back and wait, or leap from the train because we are mad at the conductor, or we can dance with the one who brought us, people.
Now, forgive my over-use of clichés, but thats the best I can do at the moment.
We voted for the man, we stood with him and defeated our enemies at every turn. Victory is near, and our enemy has ramped up their attacks, hoping we will shrink from the fight.
Let us stay the course, and stay on the side of President Bush. He is not a perfect man, but he is our man. In war, sometimes that just has to be enough. Now can we lower our voices enough to remember what side we are on in this fight? Every one of us has the right to criticize the general direction our leadership is taking at the moment. Whether it is spending, the borders, Miers, Iraq, whatever. We should never forget that those in Washington work for us, and are subject to our approval. That does not mean however, that we should help our enemies defeat us by handing over our leaders at gunpoint.
I believe the debate can only strengthen us, but we should keep it as debate and not open warfare against our side. The war for Conservative ideas will not be won during the term of our current President, but I think if we want more and better Generals down the road, we need to stand with this one.
Win or lose, Im standing with President Bush.
There is also civilian leadership of the military -- Donald Rumsfeld. He appoints who he wants.
Lando
If Miers is defeated, it will be at the hands of conservatives who decide that the country deserves a better choice. If Bush decides to choose someone more liberal than Miers, curse Bush-- not the conservatives-- because Bush would be acting out of spite. If Bush nominated a conservative who was defeated by liberals, then, you'd have a point. But, that's not the case-- so you don't.
I'm not sure all of the opponents were up to that. Take Ann Coulter (please!) -- the only time she stops throwing bombs is when she straps on (poor choice of words there) a flamethrower and torches indiscriminently.
Fact is that many of the components of the Republican Party think and act like outsiders rather than insiders. By blasting the President mercilessly, people don't seem to realize that it makes it much LESS likely that he's going to listen to what they have to say.
I agree
I have heard some compelling arguments that this was the plan all along. Bush the poker player. A Rope-a-dope on the Dims. He's done it before.
If it does not, we have much more to lose standing against Bush than standing with him.
Amen to that!
Why? Laura isn't a conservative. Neither are Bush's parents. Maybe (Probably?) his daughters. Even Bush's committment is suspect. It's perfectly reasonable to say that he could be acting in concert with the wishes of his loved ones when faced with the chance to replace Sandy with a reliable movement conservative.
Say it ain't so Joe!
PD is a Bushbot. I'm not sure Britney is. She could be inclined to believe that regardless of who is in office.
"Pragmatism and victory"
Pragmatism = victory
....Like it, or not.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
You might not like my answer, but here it is:
George W. Bush loves God. I have no reason to believe that in his heart, he would not stand against what he knows to be wrong.
Unfortunately, the eventual deal we got was even WORSE than the deal Newt & friends voted down.
Fact is that if Harriet Miers is voted down with at least some Senators on the RIGHT voting Nay, then that will give the Gang of 14 and the 'Rats an excuse to filibuster Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, etc. The President will be politically weaker and any chance to go "nucular" will be over. THEN we'll end up with some mushy candidate in the O'Connor / Kennedy mold as the only way to get a nominee through.
Kool-Aid? No thanks.
Win or lose, I'm standing with conservative principles.
I was a conservative before Bush and will be after. The sun will rise tomorrow whether something stupid Bush does is allowed to stand or not. So, I'll fight for what is worth fighting for. I won't fight for the idea that Bush is infallible.
PD thinks we should be enablers. I decline. We need an intervention, FR!
I don't recall that he promised to appoint judges and Justices who are "movement conservatives". Frankly, that's not what we need on the bench anyway. We need appointees who above all will respect the LIMITED role of the Courts and not try to rule over us like a super-legislature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.