After President Bush spoke of the antiterror efforts at the National Endowment for Democracy Thursday, Senator Kerry had this to say:
Every American agrees we must win the war on terror, but after today’s speech every American is still waiting to hear the president offer any specifics about how we will win or how he will clean up a terrorist mess in Iraq that didn’t exist before the invasion.
The left’s public comments (quagmire, our military are Nazis, we are losing, we created the terrorists, we invaded Iraq illegally, illegal occupation, war for oil, etc…) do more to “create” jihadist terrorists than a robust Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war could ever do. Their comments are causing us to wage an emasculated war on terror that can only be waged with aggressive force and effective intelligence gathering. Yet, liberals like Kerry continue to provide the jihadists with ripe agitprop to use as recruiting tools.
Also, it is crucial to point out that not “all Americans want to win the war on terror.” as the admitted war criminal Kerry asserts. I would argue that in fact, there are many on the left who view America as the villain who would like to see nothing more than the American military failure in Iraq and in the larger WOT. While there may be some on the left who genuinely feel that we are going about things the wrong way strategically in Iraq it is true that they do hope that we are victorious. But the mainstream Democrats -Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, the ACLU,the Daily kos, Algore, Moveon.org, Soros, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and Clinton-the kook fringe who have become the heart and soul of the modern day Dem party-I believe, want to see us fail and would be secretly gleeful if another 9-11 were to occur in this country. Remember, they are the domestic insurgents who are every bit as dangerous to this country’s welfare as is Al Qaeda. Might not be “pc” to say it, but it is the truth.
As for Bush’s plan not including “specifics.” Senator Kerry, the president has defined victory consistently. when all the terrorists who seek to kill Americans are dead we can declare victory, and this will be a long tough slog. I know that you probably have never had too many tough “slogs” at St. Paul’s, Yale, marrying rich heiresses, and flying back and forth from the mansions in Nantucket, Sun Valley, Parris, and Beacon Hill, but this WOT will require patience, sacrifice, and a modicum of discretion especially when commenting publically about the war. Words have consequences as you should know by now (“I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it…”) So get back to missing 80% of your Senate Intelligence meetingsa and strap on those tight spandex pants you wear when yo go windsurfing and let the men in the Bush Administration take care of killing the bad guys.
The essential Michael Yon is back with a new dispatch from Mosul. I can’t believe how good a writer he is. This is war reporting at its finest.
Michael’s two Pundit Review Radio appearances are located our new radio archive page.
Conservatives can rightly take issue with President Bush on a number of important items (Borders, Spending, Signing McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance “Reform,” Prescription Drug Bill, No Child Left Behind, Steel Tariffs, hanging out with Slick Willy, etc…) I voiced my dissapointment with Bush on these issues on our radio program this week.
On the social issues, however, Bush has been true to his word by defending traditional marriage, advocating a Constitutional Amendment to protect marraige similar to his predecessor Bill Clinton’s signing of DOMA, his twice signing bans on partial birth abortion, his support and advocacy for faith based organizations, and his staunch opposition to embryonic stem-cell research and cloning.
There is also very little reason not to trust President Bush that his nominations to the Federal bench will be anything other tha judges in the mold of “Scallia and Thomas” (originalists/New Federalists/ Strict Constructionists depending on one’s definition) Almost without exception this has been true of evey federal judicial court nominee during Bush’s 5 years as president.
I believe that Harriet Miers will fit the “Scallia/Thomas” mold and will strictly interpret the Constitution and help to restore a vital balance of power to a court which has all too often substituted personal preferences for narrowly interpreting the enumerated provisions of the Constitution.
The fact that Bush has known Miers for two decades alleviates any concerns I may otherwise have regarding her being a blank slate. I fundamentally trust Bush in that if he endorses her and has promised that all of his nominees would be of the “Scallia-Thomas” mold then I take him at his word. He is not a lot of things (including an effective advocate-salesman for his major initiatives and reforms) but he is a fundamentally decent and honest man. In this regard I believe that Miers shares Bush’s fealty to reforming the judiciary and to a strict construtionist interpretation of the Constitution.
One whould think the feminists would be her most vocal allies as Ms. Miers was the first female to serve as president of her 400 person law firm and was the first female to serve as President of the Texas Bar,not to mention winner of the “Sandra Day o’Conner Award” . Add to this impressive resume her serving as chief legal council to President Bush and it becomes difficult to criticize her professional jurisprudential accomplishments. I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for public endorsements from Patty Ireland, NARAL, or NOW.
Mark my words, what worries those on the left most is that Ms. Miers is stauchly 100% pro-life and is likely to cast a decisive vote to overturn Roe. They also worry about how a committed social Conservative Christian is likely to vote on similar activist rulings dealing with the commerce clause, the establishment clause, the takings clause, and the 2nd Amendment (rumor has it she also packs heat).
The usual suspects (Kennedy, Durbin, Shumer, Biden et al. ) who carry the pro-abotion organization’s water will oppose Mier’s nomination on the grounds of “cronyism,” “lack of judicial experience,” “lack of Ivy league credentials,” and too much of a “blank slate.”
But as much as they claim she is a “question mark,” they all know how she is likely to rule on Roe and this is the over-riding concern of the liberals in the Senate. I believe that the Dems will fillibuster Miers, because they know deep down that Bush has nominated somebody he is sure will vote to overturn Roe and similar unconstitutional activist rulings. It will get very ugly. I have no doubt.
For such an idiot president, Bush seems to be running cirles around the lefties who are too intensely preoccupied with seething rage and venom to act logically and reasonably which would- no doubt- enable them to get much further on a great many issues. This pick has Rove’s fingerprints all over it. I could be wrong on this one, but I doubt it. The best part is that with an aging Stevens and Ginsberg on the Court, Bush could very well get two more picks. Then if the libs want more “judicial experience,” Bush could send them Luttig, McConnell, or better yet Janice Rogers-Brown. I can’t wait. It’s gotta be depressing to be a liberal these days knowing that your lest vestige of hope for reshaping America into the socialist utopia you have always dreampt of (the judiciary) is slowly evaporating into thin air.
If anybody doubts the left’s perception of the Miers’ nomination, consider this letter from our friends at Moveon.org. I think they too know that Miers is no Souter, Kennedy, or O’Conner.
Dear MoveOn member,
This morning, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Miers is a long-time political appointee, campaign counsel, personal lawyer and Bush loyalist who has never served as a judge.
Ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown taught us that vital national positions must be filled with qualified candidates, not political friends with limited experience. With such a thin public record, how can Americans know Harriet Miers’ approach to critical issues like corporate power, privacy and civil rights?
Right now we urgently need more information, and we need your help to get it. In the next few hours the Internet will fill with facts, anecdotes and rumors about Harriet Miers. We need your help to sort through it all, select the relevant and important details, and let us know what you findââ?‰?Âdecentralized, grassroots research.
We’ve set up a simple web form where you can post facts and sources that will fill out the picture on what kind of Supreme Court justice Miers would be. We’ll get your research to the media, the Senate and our partner groups. This info will also be crucial in setting MoveOn’s course for this nomination. Even if you just have a few minutes to spare, it could help a lot at this crucial time.
You can post facts right now at:
http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-6365738-sMi4cvd5okeVTuQunmR9bg&t=3
Here is a quick chronology of Harriet Miers’ career, courtesy of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, to help jump start your research.
1970ââ?‰?ÂGraduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972ââ?‰?ÂClerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001ââ?‰?ÂJoined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985ââ?‰?ÂElected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989ââ?‰?ÂMember of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991ââ?‰?ÂElected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992ââ?‰?ÂElected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994ââ?‰?ÂWorked as counsel for Bush’s gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000ââ?‰?ÂAppointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996ââ?‰?ÂBecame president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998ââ?‰?ÂPresided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000ââ?‰?ÂRepresented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary
2001ââ?‰?ÂSelected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003ââ?‰?ÂPromoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004ââ?‰?ÂSelected as White House CounselThere are many important questions that need to be addressed, including:
What policies did she advocate for on the Dallas City Council?
What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission?
What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for?
What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the “commerce clause” or equal protection
As White House councel Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening America’s stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role?
Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush?
It’s important that we move quickly in answering these questions. The Bush spin machine has been prepared for this nomination for some time and is already cranking at full speed. The strategy is to move Miers through as an enigma. We need to make sure the facts about her views are known.This kind of decentralized research may never have been tried before at this scale. But a Supreme Court nominee with a record only the president really knows is a new national challenge. If we act quickly, we can meet that challenge together.
Please pitch in by taking some time to research today, and post what you find at:
http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-6365738-sMi4cvd5okeVTuQunmR9bg&t=4
Thanks for all that you do,
ââ?¬â??Ben, Marika, Rosalyn, Joan and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Monday, October 3rd, 2005PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION
See also the American Thinker entitled “Don’t Misunderestimate Miers,” by editor and publisher Thomas Lifson for what I believe to be the best analysis I have yet to read on this topic.
Did you hear about that deranged student from Univ of Oklahoma who blew himself up near the football game on Saturday? The incident was immediately declared a suicide by detached loner.
According to University of Oklahoma president David Boren, although Hinrich had “emotional difficulties in the past,” there is “certainly no evidence at this point which points to any other kind of motivation other than his personal problems.”
Veteran journalist and blogger Mark Tapscott isn’t buying it,
Suicide victims don’t normally accumulate a large amount of bomb-making material in their homes. People intent on blowing up other people do.
Second, the proximity to the stadium suggests Hinrichs’ target was the crowd, perhaps as people were leaving the game. But being an OU student, he presumably would have access to the student seating section and could have gone from that area to anywhere else in the crowd he chose.
What better place to detonate a bomb guaranteed to both kill and maim many, as well as incite terror and possibly a stampede that would kill and injure more people? My guess is Hinrichs was kept from reaching his target by a premature detonation.
Steve Warshawsky of The American Thinker,
For surely, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, anyone who blows himself up in public near large crowds of people should be presumed to be a terrorist, not a bizarrely suicidal college student.
This is a fascinating story that is just starting to unfold. Once again, blogs are leading the charge.
UPDATE: Mark Tapscott has more on the OU Bomber
Despite an apparent clamp-down by the FBI on information about the death of Joel Hinnrichs, details are beginning to be surfaced by enterprising reporters in Oklahoma and elsewhere. Most important of these details is the fact Hinnrichs tried to buy ammonium nitrate from a Norman, Oklahoma, feed store. Ammonium nitrate is one of the prime ingredients in bombs like that used to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
Driving home tonight I turned on WRKO, of course, and caught the tail end of Howie Carr asking why it was that Harriet Miers was worth so little money. I wasn’t really sure what he getting at. Now I am.
Powerful lawyer, in and out of government, married to her career, no kids.
EXPERIENCE: February 2005-present, White House counsel; 2003-2004, White House deputy chief of staff for policy; 2001-2003, White House staff secretary; 1995-2000, Texas Lottery Commission chairwoman; 1972-2000, private law practice; 1992, Texas Bar Association president; 1989-1991, Dallas City Council member; 1985, Dallas Bar Association president.
Shouldn’t she be financially secure, at least?
FINANCES: She has financial interests valued at between $218,006 and $497,002, according to her 2004 financial disclosure statement released by the White House. Most of her assets, valued at between $215,003 and $452,002, are in money market funds, Treasury securities and certificates of deposit.
For a sixty year old that is very much money. I know 60 year old teachers with more in the bank. Maybe she tithed it? Gave it to charity? It just seems like there would be more.
This weekend on Pundit Review Radio we discussed the current, sorry state of the GOP. Let’s just say, neither of us are very happy with the direction of the party, and that was BEFORE Harriet Miers!
Don Luskin has been tireless in his pursuit of Paul Krugman. What kind of pursuit? Is he stalking Krugman, as Krugman claims? No, the pursuit has been one for accountability. It is one thing to
It is another entirely to turn the Times Public Editor Barney Calame towards your position on Krugman to the point where he starts hammering the paper for allowing Krugman to lie without consequence on the prestegious editorial page.
Columnist Correction Policy Isn’t Being Applied to Krugman
An Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times who makes an error “is expected to promptly correct it in the column.” That’s the established policy of Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page. Her written policy encourages “a uniform approach, with the correction made at the bottom of the piece.”
Two weeks have passed since my previous post spelled out the errors made by columnist Paul Krugman in writing about news media recounts of the 2000 Florida vote for president. Mr. Krugman still hasn’t been required to comply with the policy by publishing a formal correction. Ms. Collins hasn’t offered any explanation.
Embarrassed into action, Gail Collins finally addressed the issue this weekend, and changed her policy.
Editor & Publisher says NY Times’ Finally Runs Full Correction on Krugman Column,
NEW YORK Just days after it ran an editors’ note–under pressure from outside and within–that sort of admitted it had erred in a blast at Fox News’ Gerald Rivera during the Katrina tragedy, The New York Times finally ran a full correction on Sunday, on its editorial page, for a miscue by columnist Paul Krugman, while announcing a new policy on noting errors on that page.
Krugman had three times previously admitted getting wrong part of his Aug. 19 column about media recounts of the 2000 Bush-Gore race, but critics (ed. note: Luskin and other bloggers) kept claiming that he still hadn’t gotten it quite right. Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins wrote on Sunday that it had turned into a “correction run amok.”
After publishing his third correction on the Web, Krugman asked Collins, she wrote, “if he could refrain from revisiting the subject yet again in print. I agreed, feeling we had reached the point of cruelty to readers. But I was wrong. The correction should have run in the same newspaper where the original error and all its little offspring had appeared.”
Congratulations to Don Luskin, The Krugman Truth Squad and the legions of other citizen journalists who have helped educate the New York Times how to manage and handle corrections. If only they were not so scared, they could learn alot from the lowly citizen journalists.
Don is one of our favorite guests on Pundit Review Radio, click here, here and here to listen to the archived shows, all of which are available by clicking the microphone at the top right of the home page.