T1B

BSmack wrote:I love watching dittotards melt in the morning.

So how do you propose that Bush derail this nomination?

What then after this nomination?

You know if Bush yanks this nomination that his next choice is DOA in the Senate. With everything else that is going on, do you think Bush wants more drama over the SCOTUS?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:With everything else that is going on, do you think Bush wants more drama over the SCOTUS?

There is nothing more important going on than appointments to the Supreme Court.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:With everything else that is going on, do you think Bush wants more drama over the SCOTUS?

There is nothing more important going on than appointments to the Supreme Court.

Risa wrote:Not even the Delay indictments (plural) for campaign finance dirty deeds and outright money laundering, the Frist situation, RovePlamegate, the Atta papers, Bush himself implicated in RovePlamegate, the fact that the white house was charged with illegal activities in that whole 'false news broadcasts' situation?

and of course, the Libby/Judy Miller papers....

just who *is* this Libby dude Dame was laughing a long time ago, and is now crowing about since certain chickens have come home to roost?

DrDetroit wrote:Nothing has come home to roost. The investigation will end this month with no indictments. It's over.

Wilson outted his wife years ago. It never was about the exposure of a covert agent, anyway.

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:Not even the Delay indictments (plural) for campaign finance dirty deeds and outright money laundering, the Frist situation, RovePlamegate, the Atta papers, Bush himself implicated in RovePlamegate, the fact that the white house was charged with illegal activities in that whole 'false news broadcasts' situation?

and of course, the Libby/Judy Miller papers....


just who *is* this Libby dude Dame was laughing a long time ago, and is now crowing about since certain chickens have come home to roost?

I'm not impressed by howling from shit-flinging liberal monkeys.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12799081.htm

The danger of Pentagon obstruction

By THOMAS J. RALEIGH

Special to the Star-Telegram


NEW YORK - Most people in the intelligence community would probably agree that fixing U.S. intelligence is a long-term and continuous undertaking; one that requires regular self-examination, frank assessments and discussion, and routine tweaking of policies, systems and procedures.

It is far from certain, however, that Pentagon leaders are equally disposed towards such introspection and perpetual improvement.

The Department of Defense has much to explain -- to Congress and the American people -- concerning Able Danger, the highly-classified, now terminated program that gained notoriety when it was learned that the department inexplicably failed to share with the FBI information it had uncovered on Mohammed Atta -- a year before the 9-11 hijacker and his accomplices flew their planes into their targets in New York and Washington.

Contrition may not be in order. However, one would expect that the Pentagon would want to get to the bottom of this and would fully cooperate with any Congressional inquiry. Not so. Since this matter first came to light, the Pentagon has consistently obstructed efforts by the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate this matter.

According to The New York Times, several weeks ago, in response to a request for information on Able Danger by Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R- Pa., a defense spokesman said: "Not only can we not find documentation on it, we can't find documents to lead us to the documentation."

The Pentagon also objected to the forum for the inquiry, suggesting that it would be inappropriate to discuss Able Danger in an unclassified setting -- a point to which there is a degree of validity.

Other Pentagon statements, however, including ones attributed to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, questioned whether the Judiciary Committee has any jurisdiction in this matter. On this, Rumsfeld is being either obtuse or disingenuous.

The Judiciary Committee clearly enjoys at least partial jurisdiction in this matter, specifically on a key issue in the Able Danger affair: Defense Department activities on U.S. soil.

Surely Rumsfeld, whose department controls most of this country's intelligence activities, is aware that oversight on intelligence matters cuts across the jurisdictions of a handful of congressional committees -- a cumbersome and unfortunate reality that the 9-11 Commission recommended that Congress fix.

Expressing concern regarding the protection of classified information that relates to U.S. capabilities is legitimate. However, Pentagon objections over jurisdiction amount to little more than bureaucratic stonewalling.

Then there was Rumsfeld's odd choice of a representative for the Sept. 21 hearing. He did not send Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, or the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or anyone familiar with Able Danger.

Instead he sent William Dugan, acting assistant to the secretary of defense for intelligence oversight, who was only able to enlighten the committee about his own ignorance of the Able Danger program. (In his 1,000-word prepared statement to the committee, Dugan never mentioned Able Danger or anything about the program (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1606).

Finally, the Pentagon barred two people who had worked on Able Danger from testifying to the committee: Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, of the DIA, and James Smith, a defense contractor. (Coincidently, the Pentagon revoked Shaffer's security clearance two days before the hearing -- something that smacks of intimidation.) However, the committee did hear from Mark Zaid, an attorney who offered disturbing testimony on behalf of Shaffer and Smith.

Zaid testified that -- not once, not twice, but three times -- Able Danger personnel attempted to provide the FBI with information they had obtained on Atta. Zaid said that on each occasion, Army lawyers, using an "unduly restrictive interpretation" of laws and regulations concerning the collection of intelligence on U.S. persons, instructed that the meetings be canceled.

Zaid suggested that the Pentagon may have improperly destroyed Able Danger records during the period between December 2000 and March 2001. Zaid also testified that duplicate records, maintained by Shaffer at his DIA office, were apparently destroyed -- for reasons unknown -- by the DIA in the spring of 2004, a new and troubling revelation.

The recent Able Danger hearings ought to have resulted in a clearer understanding of what happened to a small but valuable intelligence program that went horribly wrong. By obstructing this investigation, in a manner that was as deliberate as it was clumsy, Rumsfeld undermines public confidence in him and his department.

There will be more hearings on Able Danger -- you can count on it. In light of recent reports that the Pentagon may be expanding intelligence operations that deliberately seek to evade congressional oversight, at the next hearing, the first series of questions Congress ought to pose might go something like this:

"Mr. Secretary, we have learned that it was Army lawyers who prevented Able Danger officers from meeting with FBI officials. It is my understanding that military lawyers provide commanders with advice, but operational decisions and directives remain the purview of commanders. What were the lines of command and control of Able Danger? What commander issued the order that prevented Able Danger personnel from meeting with the FBI? Who runs our intelligence programs; risk-adverse lawyers and intelligence bureaucrats, or warfighting commanders?

"Your former deputy Douglas Feith manipulated and distorted pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Then there was 'Curveball'; now Able Danger. That is a lousy track record. Could you please tell this committee, and the American people, why we should continue to entrust the Pentagon to run over 80 percent of this country's intelligence programs?"

Stay tuned.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Raleigh, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, served in infantry troop assignments, as an Army attaché in Moscow and as a military adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Vienna. .com

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:which begs the question, which is what *I* was asking -- of why Rove had to 'out' her to Novak in the first place. If people already knew she was a CIA operative...why was Rove pulling the blackmail game in the first place? and then hiding beyond anonymity?

something deeper was going on. and i think that's what RovePlamegate is really about.

Blackmail? You're a fucking moron. That's what's going on.

Novak asked who in the fuck sent that assclown Joe Wilson to Niger and the response was that his wife hooked him up.

That's it.

which begs the question, which is what *I* was asking -- of why Rove had to 'out' her to Novak in the first place. If people already knew she was a CIA operative...why was Rove pulling the blackmail game in the first place? and then hiding beyond anonymity?

something deeper was going on. and i think that's what RovePlamegate is really about.

I know those who brought the first indictment are saying that the first indictment was weak compared to the second indictment...

which took a grand jury all of one day to decide upon. Why is Delay in this position in the first place?

They have something on him.

If it's business as usual to launder money -- that's sick. And we should know about it. If it isn't business as usual, he should pay.

Risa wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:which begs the question, which is what *I* was asking -- of why Rove had to 'out' her to Novak in the first place. If people already knew she was a CIA operative...why was Rove pulling the blackmail game in the first place? and then hiding beyond anonymity?

something deeper was going on. and i think that's what RovePlamegate is really about.

Blackmail? You're a fucking moron. That's what's going on.

Novak asked who in the fuck sent that assclown Joe Wilson to Niger and the response was that his wife hooked him up.

That's it.

Apparently not. We'll see, man.

Risa wrote:Why were the Atta papers shredded?

Or is it a case of the republicans pulling an iran hostage situation in the waning days of a lame duck democrat's presidency?

88 wrote:You guys are hyperventilating without cause. First off, you know absolutely nothing about Harriet Miers. Nothing.

Armed with nothing, you mouth breathers launch into a tirade because you assume she will not be as good an associate justice as some well-known conservative currently sitting on a bench somewhere. You further reason that if Reid likes her, she must damaged goods. Poor reasoning, in my opinion.

No way in hell Bush withdraws her nomination unless something extremely horrible comes seeping out of her past. No way. Bush expects loyalty, and he is loyal in return. It is Harriet unless the Republican Senate can muster the stones to submarine their president's own nominee. And I don't think that will happen.

What kind of justice will she be? Who knows. You guys want Scalia clones, and that isn't going to happen. Change your underpants, get into something dry, and sit back and let the facts come out before you blow up again.

88 wrote: Bush expects loyalty, and he is loyal in return.

What kind of justice will she be? Who knows. You guys want Scalia clones, and that isn't going to happen.

DrDetroit wrote:

Risa wrote:Why were the Atta papers shredded?

Uh, because the law required that the Able Danger records be destroyed, idiot.

Or is it a case of the republicans pulling an iran hostage situation in the waning days of a lame duck democrat's presidency?

Oh, it was the GOP that kidnapped those people...my bad, I guess? :?

DrDetroit wrote:

88 wrote:You guys are hyperventilating without cause. First off, you know absolutely nothing about Harriet Miers. Nothing.

Bullshit. We know that she doesn't have a developed judicial philosophy because has not served on the bench. We know she has no litigation experience with constitutional issue involved. We know that she does not have any statements or speeches that would lend any sense to whether she has a constitutional philosophy.

Real conservatives apparently expect party platforms to supercede one man and one man's wishes.

Real conservatives apparently are wary of 'loyalty' when it means raping traditional conservative values and expectations of government versus private in the process.

Risa wrote:Uh, because the law required that the Able Danger records be destroyed, idiot.

They didn't let the hostages come home until after Carter's defeat, and Reagan's inauguration. That was a situation intentionally exacerbated by the Republicans. That always bothered me, when I found out. I was only a little kid when it happened. It was a great day when the hostages were all finally released.

To find out that their lives were just tokens in an American political game, though.... just a very very bad feeling.

Risa wrote:the only thing that matters is loyalty.
apparently.

loyalty supercedes constitutional interpretation.
apparently.

is it true that it was asked of others of her if she would have the balls to break from the wishes of those who nominated her, if a tough case came up where the constitution didn't line up with their wishes? what was the answer?

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Not enough time to comment right now, but since the topic was broached, IIRC, the last U.S. Supreme Court Justice with no prior judicial experience was Lewis Powell, not Warren. http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/sep98ttb/powell.html

Rehnquist had no prior experience on the bench either.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:If Miers turned out to be another Powell, she might actually turn out to be the very sort of Justice everyone could find something in that they liked. That would be very rare indeed in this day and age. But that's also a very HUGE if.

DrDetroit wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:If Miers turned out to be another Powell, she might actually turn out to be the very sort of Justice everyone could find something in that they liked. That would be very rare indeed in this day and age. But that's also a very HUGE if.

Unfortunately, that would make for a poor justice.

While I can find something in O'Connor's opinions that I like, I still think that she is a poor justice relative to other Justices.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:If Miers turned out to be another Powell, she might actually turn out to be the very sort of Justice everyone could find something in that they liked. That would be very rare indeed in this day and age. But that's also a very HUGE if.

Unfortunately, that would make for a poor justice.

While I can find something in O'Connor's opinions that I like, I still think that she is a poor justice relative to other Justices.

I was talking about Powell, not O'Connor.

Risa wrote:

88 wrote: Bush expects loyalty, and he is loyal in return.

Real conservatives apparently expect party platforms to supercede one man and one man's wishes.

Real conservatives apparently are wary of 'loyalty' when it means raping traditional conservative values and expectations of government versus private in the process.

I don't know, but in the last 48 hours I've come to like Real Conservatives. I wish the Republican party had more of them.

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:before even hearing her Senate testimony

Why do we have to wait? Is this really the best he could do? His own personal attorney?

You guys, on the other hand, are relying on the "just trust me" card to support Bush's nomination. It ain't flying.

This nomination reeks of cronyism and back-room dealing that will serve only to piss off the conservative base as we are already seeing.

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:In the opinion of the only person whose opinion on the subject actually matters.

Harry Reid?

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:No, we are relying on the confirmation hearings to make it abunduntly clear how full of shit you are on the subject.

Based on what?

mvscal wrote:I suppose you would be more comfortable with a faith based belief system.

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:His Duty is to select the candidate he feels is right for the job.

So he discharges this duty by choosing his personal attorney in the most shameless and stupid display of cronyism since Bobby Kennedy was named AG.

And then expects the rank and file to blindly defend a totally unknown nominee from completely indefensible charges of cronyism.

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:(since Bush is not going to withdraw her)?

She won't last the week.

rozy wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:(since Bush is not going to withdraw her)?

She won't last the week.

Concur

Pure, unadulterated setup

Can This Nomination Be Justified?

By George F. Will
Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23



Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."

Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender.

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

georgewill@washpost.com

© 2005 The Washington Post Company