1. PlameGate indictments. 2. Iraqi death toll hits 2,000. 3. Harriet Miers withdrawl? W responds today with a presidential speech on Iraq at Bolling Air Force Base. You go boy!
Miers is gone. The paper dispute will be the convenient rationale. I still can't believe W and his circle were dumb enough to nominate her. If W isn't already radioactive, he's getting there fast.
Bush Lays Groundwork for Miers to Back Out As our insider source told us over the weekend, Republican senators on the Judiciary committee do not want to confirm Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, President Bush gave them their way out. The Los Angeles Times reports that Republican senators have joined Democrats in asking for the White House "to release documents relating to" Miers' "service as White House counsel, with some warning that she might not win confirmation otherwise." One of them, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is a consistent Bush ally. This afternoon, CNN notes President Bush refused the Senate request, saying "It's a red line I'm not willing to cross." Bush insisted that complying with such requests "would make it impossible for me and other presidents to be able to make sound decisions." Now, the White House can withdraw the nomination over principle and not out of political necessity. They may still wait to see if the circumstances change in the coming days, but they've given themselves a way to at least partially save face. Update: The Wall Street Journal says opposition to Miers "intensified as a conservative coalition launched a campaign to force her withdrawal from consideration."
Bush's statement from AP: "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."
Think they will be ordred to cheer or something? This military base pr app is getting to be a weekly gig.
I have a stupid question about the WMDs. Which is worse, that Iraq did have them or that they didn't? If they didn't -- we went to war unjustly. If they did -- we couldn't find all those WMDs and they're probably in the hands of the terrorists. Either way it would be Bush's fault. If I have unfairly simplified this, please let me know. Is there another way to look at this?
Your first point is the correct one. Only Dick Cheney still says he believes the other. I'm not a nuke expert, but I've read enough about them to say this: If Iraq had nukes, there is no way in the world they could have eliminated all traces of them. A totally impossible task. Something would have been found and the Bush Administration would have trumpeted the news loud enough to wake the dead. Bush himself admits there were no WMDs in Iraq and that the WMD rationale for invasion was incorrect. The debate is why (not if) our intelligence was wrong. I'll give you two words important words in that equation: Ahmed Chalabi. The other debate is whether the invasion was worth it even though there were no WMDs. We would need another thread for that discussion.
Thanks for the analysis and tip. I looked him up, as you suggested: Wikipedia : Initially, Chalabi enjoyed a cozy political and business relationships with some members of the US government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the PNAC, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle who was introduced to Chalabi by Wohlstetter in 1985. He also enjoyed considerable support among politicians and political pundits in the United States, most notably Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who held him up as a notable force for democracy in Iraq. Chalabi's opponents, on the other hand see him as a charlatan of questionable allegiance, out of touch with Iraq and with no effective power base there, and an escrow.
This adminstration is an absolute disaster. Might go down as the worst presidency ever...it's like the worst of Carter crossed with the worst of Nixon.
Actually Bush and Franklin Pierce both have a lot in common - friendly drunks who can't do anything right.
Chalabi was the source of much of the false intel about Iraq's non-existent WMDs. Not to mention he also had, to put it mildly, some legal problems involving Jordan. Now, after publicly falling from Bush's grace because of leaking material to Iran, his relationship with us is now on the mend? Something isn't right. Either he is a crook and an opportunist who we should completely shun, or he is all this and also the best alternative this administration can conceive of for leading Iraq. Either way, it's very bad. The thought of 2,000+ American soldiers dying, plus untold thousands losing limbs and suffering other serious injuries to put this stinky scumbag in charge of Iraq makes me pretty angry.
