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 I hope that this post will help some of you understand why this nomination must be supported until it is either withdrawn or it succeeds in gaining Senate confirmation.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 won’t 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 can’t really blame the Democrats, because they are who they are. We know their tactics and should be better prepared for them. You can’t 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 you’ve 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 don’t 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 that’s 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, I’m standing with President Bush.
Maybe the better analogy is that those same Freepers would have tossed Eisenhower overboard without considering that that the alternative was MONTY!
Nah, after Sicily, the alternative was Marshall. There was no way Montgomery, who at the time commanded Br. 8th Army, was going to get the jump to Supreme Commander.
... Then again, stranger things have happened. Like a batallion commander jumping to Supreme Commander.
Win or lose, I’m standing with President Bush.
All these people bleating on about how she isn't the right
choice have lost sight of the ONE IMPORTANT THING.
SHE IS BUSH'S CHOICE, we have trusted our nation and
our future to him and he has not let us down as yet,
how can some of these folks not realize that the
democrats are laughing behind their hands at the self destructive behavour shown by this shoddy tantrum.
It's time to put up or shut up, stay in the trench or
go over the top with the rest of us.
There can be only ONE, and George Bush is THAT MAN.
Would some have preferred President Kerry? Gore???
I think NOT, so now is the time to get on board,
and quit telling the captain which way to steer.
Good post Pd.
Well, if Eisenhower had gotten the boot in Spring '44, or even say in June, Monty might have gotten it because it would have taken too long for Marshall to get into the loop. Monty's competition probably would have been Bradley at that point.
But hey, at least we're thinking about the alternatives before giving Ike the heave-ho. The rapid anti Bush-Miers crowd is willing to commit mass hara-kiri without thinking about the consequences.
So keep working to improve the side that we expect to be in favor of small government; it's absurd to simply concede the field.
For the record, we're doing OK with Arnold and he was panned as a liberal big time.
Why wouldn't the logic of your "we're at war" argument apply equally well to, for exmaple, President Bush pusing a plan to "reform" Social Security by eliminating the tax cap but not eliminating the payment cap?
I am controlling what I do. The president and the president alone is responsible for this problem. If Miers is approved and if (as I suspect likely) she doesn't answer specific questions in the hearings that make it totally clear that she is a committed constitutional conservative who is qualified for this position, then I will hold President Bush and the Republican party accountable.
Great. Then that comment was not aimed at you.
However, I think you do vastly simplify the challenges the President faces...especially when you consider there may have been many people who either did not qualify or asked not to be considered.
Of course, that is speculation on my part. I just think things always look easier from here.
Thanks for your response.
Why is this your last vanity post? Don't you enjoy making them?
No one questions your vanity. After all, it is all about you. But I digress.
Weren't you on a self imposed exile or something?
PING...If you didn't get it via private reply.
Absolutely! Right, left or in-between intellectuals are always trying to prove their superiority by finding something in things that no one else but they can see. We need that on the SC like a refinery needs to rent space to a match factory.
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.