Posted on 10/13/2005 8:19:30 AM PDT by Checkers
France, Germany and not a few Democrats opposed the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry and many of his political allies opposed the June 28th, 2004 handover of power from Paul Bremer's control to that of the Iraqi provisional government headed up by Prime Minister Allawi. Many voices were raised against holding the Iraqi elections last January. Throughout the spring and summer, many on the left demanded a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. Never once did George Bush waver in his resolve concerning Iraq.
On September 12, 2002, President Bush addressed the United Nations and announced his plan for turning Saddam's Iraq into a democratic country:
Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.
On Saturday, despite the same fear and danger they faced in January, Iraqis will again vote in a free and open election. It appears as though the new constitution will pass, and that new elections for the first government under that constitution will follow. There will still be terrorists, and there will still be enormous problems. But the road on which George Bush set out three years ago will have reached one of its most improtant goals --the establishment of a free and representative government in Iraq.
Given the president's refusal to depart from his original plan for Iraq in the face of so many voices demanding so many different things from him, it is more amusing than anything else to read in John Fund's piece this morning that:
Several large GOP donors in Texas have met to discuss spending large sums to run ads calling on Ms. Miers to withdraw.
I asked Justice Hecht about this yesterday:
HH: Any doubt in your mind that she will persevere through to those hearings, and then on to confirmation?
NH: None.
HH: I want to repeat that, because of course, a lot of people, including some friends of mine, have said she would do the president a favor by withdrawing. I disagree with that calculation, but I just want to get your practical sense. Any possibility of that happening?
NH: Absolutely not. And the president has given no indication that he wants her to. He seems even more determined than ever.
I think there is near zero chance of Harriet Miers withdrawing her nomination or of the president asking her to do so. I think there is near zero chance of her being defeated in the Committee or on the floor. But let's imagine what would happen if she did:
Senator Patrick Leahy, on the Miers withdrawal:
"I think what we saw today was proof --proof beyond any reasonable doubt-- that the White House is in the control of a powerful band of judicial ideolouges who will accept nothing less --nothing!-- than a young Bork for the SCOTUS. And America doesn't want that. They don't want to turn back the clock. Look at who Harriet Miers is --five years an aide to this president! First woman ever to run the Texas Bar. Managing partner of her large law firm. Picked all these conservative judges. But she wasn't good enough. Not good enough for the far right wing that forced the president to surrender a conservative nominee with the backing of James Dobson! Can you imagine, not conservative enough!
We know what is coming now, and it is extraordinary circumstances. We know he isn't going to send up another mainstream conservative. We know that. We know that he's obliged, committed to sending us an ideolouge of fixed and permanent opinions, bought and sold, reliable in the way his far right wing handlers demand.
Well, we are going to fight. We are going to take this to the people in 2006. We are not turning the clock back on freedom in America, and the far right wing doesn't run America. Can you imagine? Endorsed by James Dobson and Ken Starr and Lino Gralia, and not conservatve enough?
On the other hand, lets flash forward past the Miers confirmation, to the next East Room introduction of the next nominee:
President Bush: Good evening. It gives me great pleasure tonight to introduce Judge [Michael Luttig/Michael McConnell] as my nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. As you know, I have done this twice before, and each time there were immediate critics of the choice, sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right. No doubt there will be critics of Judge ___. Let me say a few words about him. [insert brief bio]
Now just as Harriet Miers was attacked for not being conservative enough and not having a paper trail, Judge ___ is certain to be attacked for being too conservative and having too much of a paper trail. I expect that the Senate hearings will unfold just as they unfolded with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Miers --a fair America will judge fairly, and that confirmation will follow quickly. Americans don't like cheap shots and anonymous sources, and they don't like attacks on nominees before those nominees can address the Senate. Justices Roberts and Miers put up with a lot of heat before their hearings, and so will Judge ___. I am confident, though, that the American people will judge him, as they judged them, on the basis of who he is and what he says, not on the basis of what others say about him.
From the moment I announced my decision to seek this office, I have been asked about the Supreme Court. I have always said the same thing. I want qualified people who will interpet the law, not make it. I want justices who will study the facts of the case before them, study the Constution, and come to the decision the law requires. It's about the rule of law, not a justice's personal philosophy. And I believe Judge ____ believes this.
America's a big place, lots of ideas and people out there, but just one Constitution. The mainstream is pretty big as well, and Judge ___ is squarely within it as his opinions over the years have shown. His public service is admirable. It will continue on the Supreme Court. Judge ___, would you like to say a few words?"
I think all of our FRiends hope this will be the case, regardless of whether they support the Miers nomination or not.
I found Laura's arguments in this case, a bit lacking. Elitist definitely came to mind.
I turned off Laura I's radio show and feel that I may no longer even listen to her. She sounded like a snob and an elitist and that really turns me off. What was worse, though, was that she reminded me of the main stream media in that she tried to manipulate her callers to her point of view or if not, then put them down for being true to their President. I think the conservatives who have said the nomination was bad, needs to be pulled, etc have done a disservice by not waiting until the hearings atleast started before piling on their "views".
Agreed. I think the conservative masses are learning that our movement has it's elites as well. The fact that not everyone is following them off the cliff is a good sign that we are not all being led around by the nose, but rather we listened to them because we agreed with them. However, when they stop making sense, we part company, at least on those issues.
"He seems even more determined than ever"
To split the base and hand the Senate to the Dems next year. But what the hell, the Republocrats weren't using it anyway.
I love Laura, but I actually turned her off after the 2nd hour today. And I emailed her as to why.
There is no reason for us to be doing the moonbats' work for them. Miers deserves nothing less than a hearing and an up or down vote. I am willing to find out enough about her before making up my mind one way or the other.
It seems that others are not, and advocating removing her because they do not know her.
Becki
Seems to me Hewitt is gambling that there will be another vacancy. What if there isn't? What if Meiers turns out to be a Souter?
I don't suppose the koolaiders will admit making a mistake in defending her. Sure as hell Hugh Hewitt won't.
I agree.
Hugh Hewitt's ego will not allow him to admit his mistake in supporting Ms. Miers.
What's the gamble?
The President has known her for years.
Charges of elitism may be overused by the Left, but that doesn't mean it should not be used when it applies. As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits wear it". What is sad is that some think a nominee must have judicial experience to be on the Supreme Court, and that there is no benefit to having someone on the Court who is from the real world.
I am especially diappointed in Rush. Rush, do you know that my 69-year-old father prays for you DAILY. Every single day, Rush, he prays for your healing. Very few of your loyal listeners turned their backs on you when the word came out about your addiction. Most of us chose to believe the best of you. Rush, it seems you are first a man of politics and then, a man of faith. Same with my other favorite pundits (I love Hugh and Britt Hume, too, but they are not amongst these who have disappointed me). Limbaugh, Levin, Coulter, et al have not considered that perhaps, just MAYBE, President Bush prayed very, very long and hard about his choice, and that God directed him. God does promise to do that.
What then, Rush and Ms. Coulter (who I KNOW knows her Bible), of the story of Saul and David? All the Israelites were calmored for Saul as King--why not, he was tall, good looking, strong, very regal in stature. He looked like a king. God, however, chose the ruddy shepard boy, David. Do we learn nothing from that. God's ways are not our ways. I would rather, any day, have the SCOTUS populated with godly men and women then to have it populated with statesman who denied that God was the foundation of the law.
I think President Bush stepped out in faith to put forward Ms. Miers. And his brothers and sisters in faith and in party have said horrible things about him and Ms. Miers. That is, to me, a very disturbing thing.
It goes to show me that even the most brilliant are not infallible.
Nobody's perfect.
"Dr. Rice is a disaster. Worse than Powell. She is an arabist, and only believes in punishing terrorists when they are 'terrorists' against Americans. She is anti-Semitic, and a disciple of Brent Scrowcroft - another disaster."
I think your comments are inane and over-the-top.
I assume your view is held by a small, small minority of Freepers.
Given your warped view of Secretary Rice, why would anyone ever listen to your opinion on anything?
"I found Laura's arguments in this case, a bit lacking. Elitist definitely came to mind."
I haven't been listening to her show lately.
What is Laura's "argument?"
"He's known Vicente Fox for years too. Have you seen the southern border of this country?"
Did you vote for W?
Yes or No.
"I love Laura, but I actually turned her off after the 2nd hour today. And I emailed her as to why."
I haven't been listening to her lately.
What is her point?
He's not going to do it.
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.