The Next Supreme

[Shapley]

Here's the 'spin', if you want to call it that:

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

I guess the "executive priveledge" issue isnt' the hill she wanted to die on. Well enough. The fight, while a valid one, would delay confirmation, which is probably what the President's opponents hoped for.

Now, let's get a real conservative into the fray!

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

withdraw letter:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/miers_letter_102705.pdf

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Methinks the letter was ghost written by Herr Rove.

Kinda funny she's cutting and running completely, not even reverting to her former position.

So, if she's a wuss, unqualified, not conservative enough, whatever, why aren't we applying the same witch hunt logic we applied with regards to Clinton with Monica(i.e., if he's lying/wrong/showing poor judgemnet about "x", then that charactersitic would be persistent throughout his presidency), to President PetroProfits, especially when it comes to the proactive decision to get >2,000 of our troops killed(so far. and counting), not to mention the tens of thousands of other innocents? Why can Bush be so wrong about so much, yet still be right about something so life and death as this deadly, botched invasion?

For that matter, why ahould we trust him to nominate someone competent to the SC, after showing such abysmal judgement?

This level of stupidity is criminal.

[Shapley]

whip, whip, whip, Giddyap!

[Haggis@wk]

I don't think she's "cutting and running" I've seen nothing that would indicate that she won't remain White House Counsel. I fully expect her to be appointed to a federal judgeship somewhere.

Now the fun will really begin. I'm holding out for Luttig or one of the other guaranteed to give Kennedy and DiFi apoplexy.

<small>[ 10-27-2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Haggis@wk ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

That's right, I should just keep my mouth shut about my belief that people are being killed for no good reason, I forgot.

Nevertheless, you dodge the question: Why aren't we applying the same broad, anecdotal judgement on Bush that we did with Clinton?

As for Miers, "I am most grateful to have served your administration and this country." sounds an awful lot like past tense, i.e., she's not going to continue to serve the administration, doesn't it?

So yeah, it's cut and run.

<small>[ 10-27-2005, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[BigJon@Work]

At least she didn't get that wretched, childish staffer to write the withdraw letter.

OT, still calling him Pres PP without offering proof. No, no, no.

[Haggis@wk]

Well, OT, maybe, but I heard on the news this morning that she was going to help him with the next selection.

I hope Bush will forget about "diversity" and nominate the best person for the job. I'm not confident that he will forget about diversity, but I think he'll be much more careful about which woman or minority candidate he taps.

I've always been skeptical about claims that Bush selected Miers because other women turned down the job.

I think he selected Miers because he wanted to based on their close relationship and his confidence in her. So color me cautiously optimistic about the replacement pick.

I would expect an announcement as soon as tomorrow.

OT,

"That's right, I should just keep my mouth shut about my belief that people are being killed for no good reason, I forgot."

Of course not, please keep sounding your concerns; just don't expect me to join the chorus. I think we have done something in Iraq that most American will be proud of in 10 years or less; you apparently don't.

And I don't think the 2,000 death was pointless any more than the first one wasn't. If I had the opportunity I would like to be there with those guys.

Several of my retired friends are there working for KB&R doing everything from spraying pesticides, to running chow halls to running security forces. They all are enthusiastic about what they are doing and believe they are contributing to the first Islamic Republic in the world.

We will never get anywhere in the Islamic world until we can conclusively prove that they are capable of taking care of themselves without despots, religious hardliners and vicious dictators.

Personally, I think that goal is a hill "worth dieing on."

<small>[ 10-27-2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Haggis@wk ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

At this point, it's crystal clear we didn't invade Iraq for any of the stated reasons - none, zero, zilch, nada of it was true. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is it was done for money, and the most logical source for the money is Iraq's most abundant and precious natural resource: OIL. If there was tangible "proof", then the members of the administration would now be behind bars.

Now back to my original question....

[OperaTenor]

Hi Haggis,

That quote was from her withdrawl letter. If I said that to my employer, I'd expect him to interpret that as I was quitting.

Of course, with this administration,even resignation doesn't mean leaving the job. Hey, I just heard Michael Brown gets another month to investigate himself courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.



<small>[ 10-27-2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

OT,

RE:Why aren't we applying the same broad, anecdotal judgement on Bush that we did with Clinton?

I have no idea what broad, anecdotal judgement we did with Clinton, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't remember anyone saying that, because Clinton nominated Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, and Lani Guinier, all of whom withdrew their nominations, that he was somehow incompetent or "criminally stupid".

I think President Clinton was a competent and intelligent liar, even if he was ethically challenged.

Nor did I suggest that you should remain silent about your beliefs. I just think it is a case of attempting to motivate a long-deceased equine beast in a futile manner that you drag them into every discussion concerning this President. You seize every opportunity to refer to Mr. Rove as "Herr Rove", to refer to this President as "President Petro Profits" and tie every discussion to the war in Iraq, even if there is not the slightest connection between the topic of discussion and those people or issues. It detracts from your ability to make a serious point on the issues, as the derogatory and repetitive tone taints whatever information follows.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

The software engineer in the next office space has posted a picture of her aunt and uncle, holding up their purple-stained fingers, and smiling.

It's possible that the engineer thinks that's a good reason.

[Haggis@wk]

This really WAS all about the oil!! Or more precisely, the money the oil brought.

” "2,000 firms 'paid oil-for-food kickbacks:'"
Preferential treatment was given to companies from France, Russia and China, the report says, all permanent members of the Security Council, who were more favorable to lifting the 1990 sanctions than the America and Britain.
The independent inquiry committee, which began its work in 2004, said in an earlier report that the program became deeply corrupted as Saddam arranged for surcharges and kickbacks while an overwhelmed UN headquarters failed to exert administrative control over the program.”

Hmmm, could it be that most of the objections to us going into Iraq were simply because the “International Consensus” against action was bought and paid for by Saddam??

[jmfryar]

<small>[ 11-25-2005, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: jmfryar ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

Top Oil Importers to the U.S.

OT, you’re getting kinda of scary and seem to be leaning into the “tin foil” hat area, making claims that are false and completely refutable.

You’re not normally like that and I’d like to think you are capable of studying the facts and come back into the “light.”


Look at the numbers. The top five exporting countries accounted for 68 percent of United States crude oil imports in August 05 and Iraq ain't in the top five and is only 7th in the top 10.

It’s not about the oil. We import almost as much crude oil from the United Kingdom as we import from Iraq. And we do import more petroleum from the UK than Iraq.

All told, Iraq provides less than 3% of our daily consumption; not a great candidate for “It’s all about the oil” scare.

And yes, search around the above link, it also includes what we pay each country for the oil.

[Haggis@wk]

jmfryar
"All wars are about money...there hasn't been one yet that wasn't. WWII was no more about saving Jews than the Civil War was about freeing slaves"

Whatever caused you to believe that WWII was about saving the Jews? We're (as a population) weren't even aware of the Holocaust until the waning months of WWII. And no, it wasn't about commerce. If that's what you learned in school then you were short changed.

[jmfryar]

<small>[ 11-25-2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: jmfryar ]</small>

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is it was done for money, and the most logical source for the money is Iraq's most abundant and precious natural resource: OIL. If there was tangible "proof", then the members of the administration would now be behind bars.

You state it is the only logical conclusion yet you fail to show the logic or anything that resembles a valid argument. This is another fallacy called the false dilemma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma You assert that if A is wrong, B must be correct, when there are a whole spectrum of other possible conclusions. I gave you my opinion and you haven't even responded to it.

I could accept it if you called him President White Hat.

[piqaboo]

originally posted by haggis:
I fully expect her to be appointed to a federal judgeship somewhere.

Me too. And then when she's got a year or two under her belt, Bush will be praying for another SC justice to retire, so he can try again w Ms Miers.

Considering our already extant alliances in Europe, we'd have had a hard time backing Hitler as an official ally. That whole conflict-of-interest, first-come-first-served thing.

[Haggis@wk]

Piq,

I’m hoping that Sandra Day O’Connor will set an example for other Justices in the future. While she is apparently retiring mainly because of her desire to care for her ill husband, her example of stepping down at age 75 is one worth remembering and copying.

Regardless of leanings, having Justices serve into their eighties and even nineties is a highly questionable practice. Now that Rehnquist is dead, many eyes are on Justice John Paul Stevens (age 85). No one's stamina and mental acuity will be as great at these advanced ages, no matter how gifted a legal mind they may have.

Jan 2009 is a long time off and who knows? Maybe Harriet could put a few years on a federal bench somewhere and convince me and others that’s she’s ready for the big league - I doubt it, but I never thought the White Sox could win a World Series either!!!