Mensch tracht, und Gott lacht

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Kathy Piles On

Sorry, Sam, but I must stand with Ben and Hunter on this one. This nomination is one of the worst moves Bush has made so far, and I'm not a Republican cheerleader who has overlooked and excused his previous miscues.

I realize that people are reaching back into history to find nominations similar to Miers's, and to reassure themselves that some of those (Rehnquist, for example) turned out not so badly. I think this is misguided, for the simple reason that the Court today represents a power that it has never represented in the past, and thus demands a type of legal mind -- one that is philosophically committed to undoing its usurpation of that power -- that was never a requirement in the past.

I am not in any way reassured by these reverse arguments from silence. Elite lawyers, like any other professionals, make decisions about what is important to them and these are reflected in the kind of law they practice. Sunny smilers like Hugh Hewitt seem to think that it's just happenstance that Harriet Miers has never spent much time visibly engaged with constitutional law. Horsefeathers. She hasn't spent time becoming a constitutional scholar because it wasn't important to her, in the way it was important to fifty other conservative legal minds I could name off the top of my head, including a dozen women.

I am also not being won over by Bush's increasingly petulant manner when defending his nominee. It suggests to me that he did not anticipate the level of conservative disappointment he was courting, which suggests that he's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, which suggests that the argument that we should trust him is somewhat misplaced.

12 comments:

Hunter Baker said...

T-man, the problem is that we haven't seen the Republican we really like since Reagan. BUT, you give us a choice between Johnny GOP and Bill DEM, then we gotta go GOP. The DEMS strike me as supremely soft-headed in most of their policy ideas. Clinton was an exception, as was the whole New Democrat thing, but he just didn't govern that way until forced by a GOP majority Congress.

Barry Vanhoff said...

In my opinion, the DEMS could've run just about any moderate against BUSH and won. Of course this is hindsight, knowing how close the elections were.

It was sheer lunacy for the DEMS to run KERRY in '04. I've been scratching my head on that one for, well, two years now.

Hunter Baker said...

Interesting you bring up the Bush-McCain thing. I was in favor of McCain in 2000 until he started attacking conservative evangelicals. I'm pretty sure in hindsight that it was the idea of his lame adviser Mike Murphy. If he runs again, I hope Murphy gets "Left Behind." (Did you like that, Jay?)

Evanston2 said...

tlaloc, if you re-read Kathy's comment, it starts with Bush's assessment of his conservative Base (whether we would back him on another "stealth" nominee). She believes Bush has mis-read the Base, and then questions whether we should trust Bush's assessment of a person, Ms. Miers. She links these 2 issues by questioning his intellect. While you chime in and mention his lack of reading and watching the news, those qualities reflect on his "book smarts." Bush's error in this case is one regarding "people smarts" (since he has mis-read the Base, how do we trust his assessment of Ms. Miers) and while I believe he has made a tactical error with Miers, it is difficult to make the case that his "wattage" is generally "low" with people. He has made enough connections and won enough elections to think otherwise. His error in this case is in prematurely compromising to people like...you. We'd rather have him nominate a genuine conservative and lose a nomination battle before compromising, and most conservatives are convinced we have the numbers and won't lose. You need your own "moment of clarity." The people who run The Reform Club are thinkers. I've read your posts on several occasions and you need to boost the "wattage." You have only demonstrated the ability to insult others and make sweeping generalizations (such as "His policies have been uniformly disasterous (sic) on every major issue"). Please take the time to stake out an argument with facts, or take your thoughtless comments elsewhere.

Evanston2 said...

Let’s review the so-called “Abyssmal (sic)” failures:
-Osama? Used to run an entire country (via the Taliban). Now scared to take a crap without getting his butt shot off. Has he attacked U.S. again? No. Are you even sure he’s still alive? No. Who has failed? Looks like Osama!
-Anthrax mailer? Hasn’t done a thing since 9-11. Either running scared or incapacitated (ran out of supplies, dead).
-Afghanistan? Was (past tense) controlled by violent warlords. Who are now scrambling to get “on board” in a legitimate democracy. Has always had drug problems. Did Bush promise you to make Afghanistan drug-free overnight? Sorry, I missed it. You are “moving the goalposts” that define “success” so you can claim he has failed.
-Iraq? Have you been there? I have. You are out of touch. Keep going to your links and keep abreast of Cindy Sheehan news shows and other infotainment. They will continue to keep you misinformed as they did most recently on Katrina. Hey, I’ll make a “date” with you. Please return in October, 2006 to comment on how “we’re losing Baghdad to the insurgents.” By then Baghdad should be “lost” right? While you’re claiming Iraq is an abysmal failure, please define what would be a “success.” Democracy is being introduced in Iraq for the first time, and across the Middle East. If this is “destabilizing” then I’ll accept it, just as I believe that destabilizing Saddam was/is a good thing. Democracy means that people get to work out their tensions in public instead of getting thrown into a wood chipper when they disagree with a dictator. This is progress.
-Social Security? If, as you say, “Bush has given up on this one” then how is that an abysmal failure? You have what you want, the same bankrupt system as before. THAT is the abysmal failure, that Bush has not succeeded in fixing the system created and neglected by Democrats over our lifetimes.
Homeland security? Gee, FEMA, the big government solution, fails after Louisiana Democrats find out that crossing their fingers and hoping that Katrina would go away didn’t work. Whose abysmal failure is this? These are examples of classic liberal failures. Bush created Homeland Security as an umbrella agency to oversee FEMA, INS, Customs, etc. with national security in mind (that is, first priority was to prevent/mitigate terrorist incidents). Can you honestly tell me that Clinton or Kerry would have done better? I missed their campaign promises to “fix FEMA” and “fix incompetence and corruption in Louisiana.”
- Budget took a record surplus and turned it into a huge deficit? Hey, 9-11 had serious economic consequences. And overall it is laughable that you are a “budget hawk.” See your question about Social Security.
-Any other major presidential policies we should address? I truly do not mean to be insulting, but do you know what the word “abysmal” means? It is certainly arguable that Bush could have done better on loads of issues, but you’re saying that he could hardly have done worse. If you want to be taken seriously, back off on the alarmist rhetoric and also offer some SOLUTIONS, that is, what would “tlaloc” do???

James F. Elliott said...

Evanston, for the sake of my eyes, please learn to use the "enter" key. Yowza.

Evanston2 said...

Thank you for taking the time to answer me. Obviously you grant Bush credit for absolutely nothing, but I would like to know more about your “logic.”
- Osama/Al Qaeda: Osama has lost his ability to move, communicate, or act freely. The only visible form of Al Qaeda, in Iraq, is reduced to killing muslims and alienating the Iraqi people. Yet you say that since Osama is (presumably) still alive, we have failed. I am glad I did not serve under your leadership. If 90% of your force were destroyed, but you were still alive, evidently you would be proud of your “success.” Your standards are quite disproportionate, lopsided in favor of whoever opposes the U.S.
- Anthrax: Yes, I do have confidence in our capacity to catch future terrorists. Again, your standard for “success” (that the terrorist may still be breathing) is quite lopsided.
- Afghanistan: There are many articles on the Web regarding the Taliban and opium. One published in India is the most comprehensive in terms of satellite photography and its questions regarding UN methodology: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1919/19190660.htm
Recommend you “page down” to comments regarding the effect of the drought. And note that the Taliban relied on opium “taxes.” Even if you grant the benefit of the doubt to Karzai’s aide (that he retired due to lack of drug crackdown) it is clear that you expect instant success in suppressing opium. Your definition of “success” is unrealistic, and once again, lopsided.
-Iraq: Iraqi troops are now patrolling most neighborhoods of Baghdad. No, they are not everywhere all the time. Predicting the future of Baghdad is not “impossible.” The new Iraqi government will continue to consolidate its power. Al Qaeda will become the new IRA – a nuisance, but ineffectual against the Kurds and Shia, who have seen plenty of death in the “good ol’ days” of Saddam that people like you would have let continue…
- Thank you for your list of administration goals. It was fair, but not all have equal weight:
1) overthrow saddam (done). Easily the most important goal. Can Iraq invade or gas its neighbors any more (like it did in the 1980s and 1990s)? Can it develop any new WMD? No, it is no longer a national threat.
2) troops out within a few months (failed). Never promised. Recommend you re-read what Bush said before the war. Bush said it would take several years. Just give me one instance where he said we’d be out in months. Just one single quote by him, Rumsfeld, anybody in the administration. And don’t refer me to the “mission accomplished” photo op, which referred to point #1 (overthrow Saddam).
3) Iraq becomes a secure democracy (certainly not successful yet). Second most important goal. Ambitious given Iraq’s history, but worthwhile in permanently removing the threat. Also worthwhile if you care about human rights.
4) Iraq's oil revenues pay for most or all of reconstruction (failed). Agreed, I believe that the administration promised (or at least strongly suggested) that Iraq would be financially self-sufficient by now. Definitely critical to attaining goal #3 (democracy).
5) Democratic Iraq becomes center point of transformation of middle east (sort of succeeding but in the bad way). Please elaborate on “the bad way.” If you’re a dictator in Syria (ruling Lebanon by proxy), Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, even Kuwait, you’ve already made democratic changes. The transformation is good. If you expect instantaneous success, you are not a student of history/democracy.
6) Remove WMD from unstable country (failed). Just for laughs, are you claiming that the WMD were there when the war began? I’d love to hear your answer. FYI, Iraq had WMD – used on Iran and its own people. Only question is whether Saddam destroyed, removed, or hid WMD so well that even his agents can’t find and use them against the U.S. If they could, they would.
- Regarding violence: Yes, Iraqis are dying today but now for something more than Saddam’s greater glory. They have hope for a democracy. Does that mean anything to you?
- DUH back atcha regarding Social Security: You allege that Bush’s policies were an “abysmal failure.” You now confuse a “political” failure with a “policy” failure. Bush never implemented his policy so you cannot judge it. He failed politically, so far. The irony is that people like you want things the way they are. The failure is on the part of those who do nothing, who offer no solutions.
- FEMA: At what level did Clinton re-staff FEMA? Please link to an article. Looks like his “professionals” did not incorporate the sort of procedures, fund the types of equipment, make the levee upgrades needed to deal with Katrina. Clinton had 8 years. But I guess it is “immaterial” unless you can say something positive about “your guy.”
- Budget: If you are indeed a budget hawk, you are absolutely correct on all points. From that perspective, Bush has blown the budget.
Overall, you will never give Bush positive credit for anything so it is a waste of my time to discuss his merits further. But regarding your own merit:
SOLUTIONS: Why not offer a solution or actionable alternative the next time you criticize someone in a post? Or is that too much to ask?

Jay D. Homnick said...

Evanston, you're fabulous. Please visit often and keep writing.

Hunter, I liked the gag. And calling Murphy "lame" is not something I get worked up about; he treated me rather rudely on the Weekly Standard cruise.

James F. Elliott said...

"There's three Iraqi brigades..."

Actually, they're battalions, which is a significantly smaller unit.

Evanston2 said...

A few corrections, not on your faulty interpretation of the facts (see Osama, Taliban “smack down” of the U.S., incarceration of terrorists vs. prevention), but on the facts themselves:
-Al Qaeda, I said “reduced to” killing muslims in Iraq because that is the trend line.
-Afghanistan and opium, again, read the article I gave you the link to, about the drought: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1919/19190660.htm
Again note that the Taliban relied on opium “taxes.”
-Iraq: You make several factual observations. Well done, seriously. However, you distort the facts. You use the words “combat ready” for the 3 Battalions. Educate yourself. The top level is able to "operate without U.S. military help" which includes logistics and communications. A great many Iraqi units are in combat TODAY. Recommend you read the Belmont Club or other milblogs such as http://strengthandhonor.typepad.com
for an unclassified analysis. Those same Marines who refuse to train locals (that is, Sunnis) are reenlisting at record rates, along with the other services (including the Army). Read the comments from servicemen/women serving and returning from Iraq. They share my outlook on Iraq, no surprise, I’m one of them. Overall, your observations reflect an ignorance regarding how political/military alliances are formed, democracies developed. In a place with no democratic tradition, you start with what you have and build. You see the Shia passing a law to discriminate against the Sunni. I see them reversing it the next day. I did not paint a “Rosy” picture, I say “Al Qaeda will become the new IRA – a nuisance, but ineffectual.” You are sloppy in the adjectives you use. Just as cute as your comments about someone dying in a “civil war.” Absolutely, Iraq could become a civil war. But it is not one today. I am trying to get you to discipline your language.
- Iraq as a national threat (including WMD). Good job avoiding the question by bringing up Iran. Since Iran matters, please tell me when they developed their WMD technology. Under 8 years of Clinton, who relied on arms protocols (as he did a worthless treaty with N. Korea, negotiated by Jimmy Carter). Say, when Bush named Iraq, Iran and N. Korea as an “Axis of Evil” how did you react? The fact is we did things the Clinton/Carter way and outlaw nations carried on, knowing we would do nothing. Saddam ignored his Gulf War treaties and carried on, defying inspections, committing mass murder, thriving under “UN sanctions” and deals with the French, the Russians, etc. Bringing up Iran as an issue is a mistake and again, irrelevant to the fact that Iraq is no longer a national threat.
- Rumsfeld quote: You mis-interpreted the comment but this is understandable. Rumsfeld was asked a military question in front of a military audience. I’ll walk you through it, you can go to this link for the full transcript: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t02072003_t0207sdtownhall.html
(1) Air Force guy asks question on behalf of reservists, whether we are going to a “full mobilization.” [As a preface to his question he mentions that he is part of an “AEF rotation.” More on that later…]
(2) Rumsfeld answers that full mobilization is highly unlikely. [FYI, this ends up being correct. We end up doing a mobilization of particular units, not the entire Guard/Reserve.]
(3) Rumsfeld continues. Here is the key quote you misunderstood:
“…we have brought a good many Guard and Reserve on active duty. Fortunately, a great many of them were volunteers. We have been able to have relatively few stop losses. There are some currently, particularly in the Army, but relatively few in the Navy and the Air Force. And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
[Rumsfeld is addressing “stop losses” because this was the overall point of the Air Force guy’s “full mobilization” question – he asks “how long will we be frozen?” By that he means, how long will Reservists (and even Active Component) military have to stay in the service after mobilization. FYI, under “stop loss” they cannot leave a unit. More on that later as well…]
(4) At the end of Rumsfeld’s answer regarding stop loss he mentions days/weeks/months. [Pay attention here, he mentions how there have been “relatively few stop losses” and he and his audience know that partial stop losses are already under way. He is referring to a general stop loss where everyone in the service (i.e., activated Guard and Reserve units as well as normal Active Component servicemen) must stay in. Here is the key point regarding Rumsfeld’s accuracy: there was a general stop loss during the initial months of the war but it ended soon thereafter. Now, a selective “stop loss” continues today, for a recent article see:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051004/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_recruiting
Here’s an extract:
“Under current practice, soldiers in units that are under orders to prepare to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan are prohibited from leaving the service during the 90 days before their deployment and for up to 90 days after they return — even if their enlistment period ends during that time or they had planned to retire.”
Bottom line is that if you are in a deploying unit, you cannot end your enlistment or retire on a normal schedule. But you are not kept in for years.
(5) In sum, you missed the point of his remarks ENTIRELY. He was speaking about “stop loss” – not how long the war would last. For Rumsfeld’s outlook on the war, you may wish to read the rest of his remarks. Such as the part immediately after the portion you quoted, which DOES talk about the “after war” period:
“After that, we have a responsibility as a country that if force were to be used…we feel an obligation to see that what is left after that regime is gone becomes a state that does not have weapons of mass destruction, and that would be part of our responsibility; that it would be a state that would not threaten its neighbors and launch Scuds into it, or use chemical weapons on their own people or their neighbors, as they have in the past; that it would be a single country and not broken into pieces; and that it would be a country that would be setting itself on a path to assure representation and respect for the various ethnic minorities in that country.
The number of people that that would take is reasonably predictable, and the only question would be what portion of that total number would be U.S. forces.
So I would see this buildup going up, lasting for a period, and the last choice is war, but if that is necessary, a period where that takes place and then a drawdown. And you would find people moving back out and some residual number staying there, with the -- undoubtedly the forces of many other nations.”
[Note how he lays out the strategic goals of the war, how we will draw down (which we have) but “find people moving back out” (that is a re-deployment of units like the Air Force guy belonged to – “AEF” means “Air Expeditionary Force” – these are designed for deployments instead of just launching air strikes from normal bases)
- Regarding Democracy in Iraq and Elsewhere. Your expectations, that everyone should be getting along swimmingly from the get-go, are so unrealistic and your interpretation of events there and in Egypt and Lebanon so pessimistic that they are only rivaled by the WMD statement: “since they didn't exist it was an obvious failure.” They did exist. Ask the Kurds and Iran. If Saddam destroyed them, he was fool enough to do it surreptitiously in violation of a treaty.
- “There is absolutely no hope for a meaningful democracy in Iraq.” Smiles.
- Political vs. Policy failures. Did Clinton’s “National Health Care” policy fail? No, he never implemented it. Same with Bush on Social Security. It is quite revealing when you do not understand the distinction…
- FEMA: waiting for the link, and an explanation as to why Clinton’s “professionals” did not incorporate the sort of procedures, fund the types of equipment, make the levee upgrades needed to deal with Katrina.
- Bush: Has done fine. It is clear your mind is closed on this issue, that is why I have asked you to propose SOLUTIONS: I have read your previous posts on this Blog, and before I “called” you on it they constantly contained diatribe, no hard facts. Remember, Bush is an idiot. It should be easy for you to come up with better solutions.

Evanston2 said...

Nice partial quote of Cheney. To continue from the link you sent: "And so I have great confidence in the conduct of the military campaign. The really challenging part of it to some extent may come in the--in the aftermath once the military segment is over and we move to try and stand up a new government and--and turn over to the Iraqi people the responsibilities to their nation."
It is clear that Cheney is talking about how long the military campaign (force-on-force) will last, then he segues into "the really challenging part" which is the aftermath.

You consistently, desperately, choose to interpret any fact or event in the worst possible light.

You say democracy in Lebanon, Egypt. etc. are unrelated to Iraq, while claiming I miss the "bigger picture" with another neighbor, Iran, on WMD (that were already in development long before the war started, unlike pro-democracy events in Lebanon, Egypt, etc. that are arguably causal since they happened after GWOT began).

You say that there is "absolutely no hope for a meaningful democracy" in Iraq and at the same time refuse to back your thoughts on Baghdad since it is "impossible to predict" what will happen.

You choose to believe the UN when it fits your convictions on Afghanistan when the methodology they used is discussed in detail elsewhere, you just "choose to believe" them.

You continue to claim there were no WMD although the dead Kurds and Iranians prove otherwise.

Your say that in the "bigger picture" since Iran has WMD, therefore Iraq could develop WMD. Then express superiority to Bush's naming them in the Axis of Evil since it was "melodrama."

You claim to be a budget hawk who thinks Social Security is just fine.

Reading your posts is like watching a yogi twist into a pretzel. Very entertaining postures, not much good for getting around in the real world.

Carry on.

James F. Elliott said...

Evanston,

You say democracy in Lebanon, Egypt. etc. are unrelated to Iraq, while claiming I miss the "bigger picture" with another neighbor, Iran, on WMD (that were already in development long before the war started, unlike pro-democracy events in Lebanon, Egypt, etc. that are arguably causal since they happened after GWOT began).

The best you can say here is that there's a chance that the GWOT and pro-democracy movements in Lebanon and Egypt are correlational. You cannot, based on available information, make a causal argument. Causation requires more than a convenient timeline. The American Revolution follows the English Revolution. I can't argue that Cromwell caused the Declaration of Independence. At best, I can argue that his example had something to do with inspiring the participants of the Continental Congress. Correlational, but not causal. That's basic debate logic.

You say that there is "absolutely no hope for a meaningful democracy" in Iraq and at the same time refuse to back your thoughts on Baghdad since it is "impossible to predict" what will happen.

Is there a chance for meaningful democracy when the Kurds and Shiites have to be bullied out of disenfranchising the Sunnis? Possibly, but the odds aren't great. You can't really hold a debate when all you have to refute Tlaloc's arguments is unbridled optimism.

Your say that in the "bigger picture" since Iran has WMD, therefore Iraq could develop WMD. Then express superiority to Bush's naming them in the Axis of Evil since it was "melodrama."

As far as refutations go, this one is a confusion of non sequiturs, not to mention gramatically fragmented and hard to understand. Bush's words were melodramatic, especially since they weren't terribly factual. He completely omitted our obstensible ally Pakistan, the world's biggest enabler of the rogue nuclear technology black market. Give me a break, Evanston, or at least come back with something cogent.

You claim to be a budget hawk who thinks Social Security is just fine.

Like most arguments in economics, it's all in the statistics you use. Economists can't project trends out three years, much less 75. Social Security, most likely, will remain perfectly solvent, especially if we can get rid of the tax cut. It's entirely possible to be a budget hawk and support Social Security. Watch: With ten days' worth of Iraq War money, we could have made secure over 160 ports in the United States. Look, I did it, and didn't even have to touch Social Security! Just because Tlaloc has different budget priorities than you doesn't make him less of a budget hawk. Your "argument" isn't even worthy of the name.

Reading your posts is like watching a yogi twist into a pretzel. Very entertaining postures, not much good for getting around in the real world.

Reading your posts is like watching a monkey color with crayons. Amusing, but nothing to put on the refrigerator.