Reading the head lines today what struck me was the lack of discussion of violence in Iraq yesterday during the nation wide election. This is the best image we can have of Iraq, much better than the staged pulling down of Hussien's statue when the US troops entered Baghdad. It is also encouraging to hear that there was close to 70% turn out (kind of makes the turn out for US elections look pathetic, maybe we have forgotten what it really means to have the freedoms we take for granted) as well as high participation from the Sunnis.
However, let us not allow this to lull us into a false sense of success and of "mission accomplished." Much remains to be done. US troops should still be expected to manage Iraq's security for many more years...for as long as it takes. What happens next year will go a long way to determine the future for Iraq. Let us hope that the politics of Mid-term elections does not cloud our decisions for Iraq
Friday, December 16, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
The 911 report
The final 911 report came out this week and overall it gave the efforts of the US government as abyssmal. While I may be overstating the grade I think it should give us all reason to pause and think. Since the horrible events of Sept 11, 2001 we have seen the US government invaded 2 sovereign nations and create great debate around the future of the Middle East as well as the global system. However, what has the government done with regards to ensure that the United States does not suffer another catastrophic attack? From the 911 report it would appear that not enough.
I find it interesting that the Bush administration was not on the White House lawn commentating on the report, rather they had a spokeswoman who had the gall of saying, (this is not a direct quote): "The Bush administration has been doing a good job with Terrorism, we have not suffered an attack since 9/11." Of course this statement is completely misguided and actually extremely reckless. Terrorists do not think in time frames of 2 or 4 years, they think long term, generations, etc. The fight against extremists will last much longer than this President's term. It is reckless to try an convince the American populus that all is fine, what happened on 9/11 will change the way we live for the rest of our lives as well as those of our children. I think the 911 report points that the Government has not taken this to heart. Shame on them, both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have misguided leadership focusing on overseas "problems" while avoiding the hard decisions and actions needed to make this nation safer. Why are we protecting bomb sniffing dogs as well as those picking up the garbage (air conditioned trash trucks) rather than our sea ports, containers, airports, etc? The Republicans are showing poor leadership in this area, the Democrats are showing no vision or ideas. They are too busy hounding the Republican party rather than leading the country with ideas for how to make this "war on terror" winnable.
Shame on both sides. Maybe this report will give both a kick in the pants to get things done...unfortunately being a year out from midterm elections I highly doubt it.
I find it interesting that the Bush administration was not on the White House lawn commentating on the report, rather they had a spokeswoman who had the gall of saying, (this is not a direct quote): "The Bush administration has been doing a good job with Terrorism, we have not suffered an attack since 9/11." Of course this statement is completely misguided and actually extremely reckless. Terrorists do not think in time frames of 2 or 4 years, they think long term, generations, etc. The fight against extremists will last much longer than this President's term. It is reckless to try an convince the American populus that all is fine, what happened on 9/11 will change the way we live for the rest of our lives as well as those of our children. I think the 911 report points that the Government has not taken this to heart. Shame on them, both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have misguided leadership focusing on overseas "problems" while avoiding the hard decisions and actions needed to make this nation safer. Why are we protecting bomb sniffing dogs as well as those picking up the garbage (air conditioned trash trucks) rather than our sea ports, containers, airports, etc? The Republicans are showing poor leadership in this area, the Democrats are showing no vision or ideas. They are too busy hounding the Republican party rather than leading the country with ideas for how to make this "war on terror" winnable.
Shame on both sides. Maybe this report will give both a kick in the pants to get things done...unfortunately being a year out from midterm elections I highly doubt it.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Intelligent Design?
The debate on Intelligent Design scares me. The United States is constantly loosing when it comes to the hard sciences, more and more degrees being earned by foreign students as well as our overall scores constantly drop with regards to the rest of the world. Yet, there are some school systems that are looking to institute "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I respect those that belief in faith and believe in what the Bible says, they are and should be protected to preach and spread their beliefs, but not in public schools, the schools that are suppose to ensure our students are prepared for global competition.
There is a reason for seperation of church and state....
I fear that as we spend time debating such issues the rest of world catches if not widens their lead in the hard sciences. Hard to imagine the United States maintaining its hegemonic status if we lose the education battle.
There is a reason for seperation of church and state....
I fear that as we spend time debating such issues the rest of world catches if not widens their lead in the hard sciences. Hard to imagine the United States maintaining its hegemonic status if we lose the education battle.
Monday, November 21, 2005
The War in Iraq
As the "war" in Iraq resembles the quagmire of Vietnam, we hear the call to pull out the troops of Iraq. While I will be the first to critisize Bush et al for invading Iraq and for leveraging the tragedy of 9/11 to fulfill a personal vendenta, I cannot disagree more with the calls for withdrawl.
Iraq is the result of colonial powers France and England creating a forced nation of three tribes, much like what we see in Africa and other colonial nations (interesting fact, look at the map of Africa and see how many boarders are straight lines, drawn in the European Capitals not from natural boundaries or human trial and error on the ground). A country that was held together through the hard and brutal hand of Saddam Hussein, but a nation that was strategic to the West during the cold war, counter weight to Iran, and due to its large reserves of oil. The West turned a blind eye to and even profited from relationships with Saddam. All this came crashing down once Saddam became too aggressive and decided to invade Kuwait. We (the west) argued that violation of another nation's sovereignty could not be tolerated by the international community and we needed to do something about it. So the West put together a multinational coalition, a real coalition - UK, Germany, Japan, France, USA, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc and defeated Hussein and his army in 100 hours. At the time the coalition had the opportunity to keep rolling into Iraq and overthrow this ugly dictatorship once and for all. Instead it stopped at the boarder and even allowed Hussien to put down a revolt with attack helicopters while western fighter jets flew over head. At the time, I felt that we had done the right thing, had we invaded and overthrown Hussien we would create a major power vacuum in the middle of the Middle East, a place ripe for Iran, Syria etc to fight for control and power. The First Gulf War was more about Oil than about human rights violations, this does not take away from its necessity. We needed to ensure that oil continued to flow freely into the Global Economy.
The second "gulf war," and I use that term lightly was started under the guise that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he was support Al Qaeda. We were told that American troops would be welcomed as liberators and that democracy and peace would sweep through the middle east starting with Iraq. 3 years later we are seeing none of the above....WMD - funny how this has dropped off the talking points of the administration. Al Qaeda is spoken about more because of their rushing into Iraq not having been present prior to the war.....Democracy, that has been a mild early success. The very fact that there were open elections was amazing. While the constitution remains up in the air, the fact that this is actually progressing is nothing short of a miracle. However, overall the presence in Iraq has been nothing but a slog, and a deadly one at that. The only reason why events have not become worse is the determination of the troops on the ground.
Having said all this, I think that the United States has a responsiblity to stay in Iraq. The administration should not see this as justification for invading in the first place, but now that we are in Iraq we need to stay the course. Ensure that Iraq is given every opportunity to establish itself, find its identity, and manage itself as a sovereign nation is the responsibility of the United States. This will take time, more than the 2 - 4 year election cycle politicians speak of. Rumors are abound that the Republicans will push to draw down some troops next year due to the midterm elections, this is irresponsible. Others have argued for complete pull out, this too is irresponsible, Iraq is in no position to be left on its own.
We need to be prepared for the long haul, not 2 years or 4 years, but more in terms of 10 years or more. We started this mess, we need to make sure that when we leave it is able to stand on its own two feet. This administration brought us into this mess under lies and misguided aspirations. Let us hope that they do not allow dreams of electoral wins give them reason to leverage the future of Iraq and the Middle East for political means.
Iraq is the result of colonial powers France and England creating a forced nation of three tribes, much like what we see in Africa and other colonial nations (interesting fact, look at the map of Africa and see how many boarders are straight lines, drawn in the European Capitals not from natural boundaries or human trial and error on the ground). A country that was held together through the hard and brutal hand of Saddam Hussein, but a nation that was strategic to the West during the cold war, counter weight to Iran, and due to its large reserves of oil. The West turned a blind eye to and even profited from relationships with Saddam. All this came crashing down once Saddam became too aggressive and decided to invade Kuwait. We (the west) argued that violation of another nation's sovereignty could not be tolerated by the international community and we needed to do something about it. So the West put together a multinational coalition, a real coalition - UK, Germany, Japan, France, USA, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc and defeated Hussein and his army in 100 hours. At the time the coalition had the opportunity to keep rolling into Iraq and overthrow this ugly dictatorship once and for all. Instead it stopped at the boarder and even allowed Hussien to put down a revolt with attack helicopters while western fighter jets flew over head. At the time, I felt that we had done the right thing, had we invaded and overthrown Hussien we would create a major power vacuum in the middle of the Middle East, a place ripe for Iran, Syria etc to fight for control and power. The First Gulf War was more about Oil than about human rights violations, this does not take away from its necessity. We needed to ensure that oil continued to flow freely into the Global Economy.
The second "gulf war," and I use that term lightly was started under the guise that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he was support Al Qaeda. We were told that American troops would be welcomed as liberators and that democracy and peace would sweep through the middle east starting with Iraq. 3 years later we are seeing none of the above....WMD - funny how this has dropped off the talking points of the administration. Al Qaeda is spoken about more because of their rushing into Iraq not having been present prior to the war.....Democracy, that has been a mild early success. The very fact that there were open elections was amazing. While the constitution remains up in the air, the fact that this is actually progressing is nothing short of a miracle. However, overall the presence in Iraq has been nothing but a slog, and a deadly one at that. The only reason why events have not become worse is the determination of the troops on the ground.
Having said all this, I think that the United States has a responsiblity to stay in Iraq. The administration should not see this as justification for invading in the first place, but now that we are in Iraq we need to stay the course. Ensure that Iraq is given every opportunity to establish itself, find its identity, and manage itself as a sovereign nation is the responsibility of the United States. This will take time, more than the 2 - 4 year election cycle politicians speak of. Rumors are abound that the Republicans will push to draw down some troops next year due to the midterm elections, this is irresponsible. Others have argued for complete pull out, this too is irresponsible, Iraq is in no position to be left on its own.
We need to be prepared for the long haul, not 2 years or 4 years, but more in terms of 10 years or more. We started this mess, we need to make sure that when we leave it is able to stand on its own two feet. This administration brought us into this mess under lies and misguided aspirations. Let us hope that they do not allow dreams of electoral wins give them reason to leverage the future of Iraq and the Middle East for political means.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Pseudo mid term elections
Last week we saw a number of mid term elections come and go. Notably the Virginia and New Jersey governorships. While Democrats should hold their heads high, more so because this is the first good news since Ross Perot decided to run as a third party candidate, they should not get too arrogant going into next year's real midterm elections.
New Jersey and Virginia had Democratic governors already Codey in New Jersey and Warner in Virginia. Codey being acting governor due to some "interesting" admissions by the former governor...but the Democrats and Republicans launched into mud slinging galor in both races, Hitler being brought up in Virginia...never a good idea to reference one of this planet's greatest villians, shows a sign of desperation by the user of the name.
However, Virginia has been a solid Red State, voting for Bush by a large margin in the last election. Yet it once again went Democratic...while New Jersey has always been an extension of both Blue Philadephia and very Blue New York City.
Should Democrats be rejoicing, is this the tipping point in a Republican string of victories?
I am not sure that the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton should be singing the witch is dead yet. There is much work to do before they can assume some branches of government from the Grand ole Party next year.
First, the Dems still do not have a uniting voice. They have not found the next Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat who understands how to galvanize the Democrats as well as the center. And please don't tell me that person is his wife...while she is capable and extremely intelligent I think she is too divisive, much more than her husband. I am not sure she can appeal to enough on the left to offset all those she will alienate inthe middle and right. John Kerry....hmmm I think he is still trying to break out of his wooden box. Democrats rallied behind him and his medals last year only to see Carl Rove negate them with some schrewd if not tastless attacks, not sure they are ready to do that again. The aforementioned Governor Warner, he has all the right elements: southern governor, large state, right background etc. But he has not been given the stage to drive the party. John Edwards....what has happened to him in the past year? I have heard him on and off but it appears as if he has retired to North Carolina and is plotting his next step. Al Gore? Maybe he has grown his beard again and lives in the woods....
While there remains time for the Dems to find their voice and position, we have all been waiting for that moment the past 5 years, since Clinton left office.
Second, this does not mean the Republicans should not be nervous about what occured. They are under tremendous pressure for a variety of directions. The investigation on the "leaks" is not helping, Alito's nomination "saved" Bush from his right wing constituents but they are not in the clear, the electorate appears to final have woken up to the fact that these Republicans are cut tax/increase spending Repbulicans not something people are happy about, the bungled handling of hurrincane Katrina, and finally the war in Iraq. Bush is playing defense on many fronts and therefore cannot even lend his misguided voice to the party. Tom Delay is also playing defense and cannot keep the rank and file in order. And Frist is too worried about not ending up like Martha Stewart as well as his dimming presidential hopes to rally the party. The recent speaches by Bush and Cheney on those that "criticise the war in Iraq" as sign that the White House (really Carl Rove) are back on the offensive, trying to get control of the situation again and refocus on their "strengths."
What does this mean? A year is a life time with regards to politics, neither party really has a clear focus and direction. However the republicans hold the seats of power and do have a "war" we are fighting. In the end of the day I think most voters will fall back on that, and figure "better the devil we know than the devil we don't" plus there are more seats the dems are protecting then the republicans. I think that '06 will be a fairly quiety mid term, but after that the real fun starts as the white house comes into play....
New Jersey and Virginia had Democratic governors already Codey in New Jersey and Warner in Virginia. Codey being acting governor due to some "interesting" admissions by the former governor...but the Democrats and Republicans launched into mud slinging galor in both races, Hitler being brought up in Virginia...never a good idea to reference one of this planet's greatest villians, shows a sign of desperation by the user of the name.
However, Virginia has been a solid Red State, voting for Bush by a large margin in the last election. Yet it once again went Democratic...while New Jersey has always been an extension of both Blue Philadephia and very Blue New York City.
Should Democrats be rejoicing, is this the tipping point in a Republican string of victories?
I am not sure that the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton should be singing the witch is dead yet. There is much work to do before they can assume some branches of government from the Grand ole Party next year.
First, the Dems still do not have a uniting voice. They have not found the next Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat who understands how to galvanize the Democrats as well as the center. And please don't tell me that person is his wife...while she is capable and extremely intelligent I think she is too divisive, much more than her husband. I am not sure she can appeal to enough on the left to offset all those she will alienate inthe middle and right. John Kerry....hmmm I think he is still trying to break out of his wooden box. Democrats rallied behind him and his medals last year only to see Carl Rove negate them with some schrewd if not tastless attacks, not sure they are ready to do that again. The aforementioned Governor Warner, he has all the right elements: southern governor, large state, right background etc. But he has not been given the stage to drive the party. John Edwards....what has happened to him in the past year? I have heard him on and off but it appears as if he has retired to North Carolina and is plotting his next step. Al Gore? Maybe he has grown his beard again and lives in the woods....
While there remains time for the Dems to find their voice and position, we have all been waiting for that moment the past 5 years, since Clinton left office.
Second, this does not mean the Republicans should not be nervous about what occured. They are under tremendous pressure for a variety of directions. The investigation on the "leaks" is not helping, Alito's nomination "saved" Bush from his right wing constituents but they are not in the clear, the electorate appears to final have woken up to the fact that these Republicans are cut tax/increase spending Repbulicans not something people are happy about, the bungled handling of hurrincane Katrina, and finally the war in Iraq. Bush is playing defense on many fronts and therefore cannot even lend his misguided voice to the party. Tom Delay is also playing defense and cannot keep the rank and file in order. And Frist is too worried about not ending up like Martha Stewart as well as his dimming presidential hopes to rally the party. The recent speaches by Bush and Cheney on those that "criticise the war in Iraq" as sign that the White House (really Carl Rove) are back on the offensive, trying to get control of the situation again and refocus on their "strengths."
What does this mean? A year is a life time with regards to politics, neither party really has a clear focus and direction. However the republicans hold the seats of power and do have a "war" we are fighting. In the end of the day I think most voters will fall back on that, and figure "better the devil we know than the devil we don't" plus there are more seats the dems are protecting then the republicans. I think that '06 will be a fairly quiety mid term, but after that the real fun starts as the white house comes into play....
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Is Paris burning?
As many of you have noticed France is embroiled in nights of violence and rioting, burning cars, gas bombs and vandalism. All this stems from the tragic death of two youths running away from the police, and being accidentally electricuted. This tragic sparked off 14 days of rioting. Some would have you believe that "Paris is burning," that there is an intifada in France. A few points.
First, this is once again a facsinating study of the press and media. Being French and more importantly Parisian I am deeply concerned about the activities in Paris and France. However depending on what source I read or watch or listen to, I hear everything from open revolution in France to everything is safe. Now the truth lies somewhere in between and I would argue more towards the peace than the outright warfare. The media always latches on to the latest "hot" story, running with it for days until the next one emerges. The press loves a good fire or bombing, rioting crowds, and armored riot police. Sometimes the stories mix up dates and events to make the story more attractive. I read something today that still talked about a fire bombing of a Toulouse bus as if it just happened, althought it happend two days ago. I saw some reporters from CNN talking to youths with covered faces making the scene appear to be coming from Bagdhad or Beirut. I have read that parts of Paris are "war zones." Yet whenever I see live shots I see people still living their lives, getting their baguets and trying to keep some sanity while the misguided youths leverage this situation to vandalise. I have also seen live shots of down town Paris, and all I can say is it looks lovely as ever. This is once again a good example of understanding the press and their methods. I also enjoy seeing some right wing press (NY Post) using this tragedy as a manner of sticking it to France, shows the Post's true value as a source for Murdoch's right wing agenda.
Second, this is a tragedy, but let us hope this finally gives the government the motivation for real reform. The crux of this issue is the horrible living conditions for many of these rioters. While the rioting is occuring in "Paris" it is happening in the suburbs of Paris, a Paris that few of us know a Paris that you do not find in Rick Steve's latest guide to Paris. These areas in Paris have been long neglected. The government hoping that it will just keep to itself. But it will not, these are French men and women, born in France raised as French. The government has been to slow in reform when it comes to employment and jobs. With unemployment over 10% and stagnant, something needs to be done. Rather than allowing small unions force the government to back down whenever reform is mentioned, the government needs to take what is happening as an indication that the country needs reform, and real leadership to get itself back on the right track. A few reforms:
Finally, next to reform, or potential reform, what I take away from these tragedies is the desire of regular people in the neighborhoods rising up and taking back their neighborhoods, organizing teams to patrol their streets at night. The saddest part is that the distruction and vandalism is being dispensed by those in the neighborhoods, those living amongst the peaceful citizens. They are destroying their own homes, schools, gyms etc. Now their neighbors are saying "no more." The French gov't needs to work with these teams to allow this to continue and to take root in people's thinking.
As we watch the happenings in France, we must all ask what is our government doing to integrate and empower all of its citizens? If you cannot come up with a clear answer or strategy, don't feel as if this could not happen in your neighborhood.
First, this is once again a facsinating study of the press and media. Being French and more importantly Parisian I am deeply concerned about the activities in Paris and France. However depending on what source I read or watch or listen to, I hear everything from open revolution in France to everything is safe. Now the truth lies somewhere in between and I would argue more towards the peace than the outright warfare. The media always latches on to the latest "hot" story, running with it for days until the next one emerges. The press loves a good fire or bombing, rioting crowds, and armored riot police. Sometimes the stories mix up dates and events to make the story more attractive. I read something today that still talked about a fire bombing of a Toulouse bus as if it just happened, althought it happend two days ago. I saw some reporters from CNN talking to youths with covered faces making the scene appear to be coming from Bagdhad or Beirut. I have read that parts of Paris are "war zones." Yet whenever I see live shots I see people still living their lives, getting their baguets and trying to keep some sanity while the misguided youths leverage this situation to vandalise. I have also seen live shots of down town Paris, and all I can say is it looks lovely as ever. This is once again a good example of understanding the press and their methods. I also enjoy seeing some right wing press (NY Post) using this tragedy as a manner of sticking it to France, shows the Post's true value as a source for Murdoch's right wing agenda.
Second, this is a tragedy, but let us hope this finally gives the government the motivation for real reform. The crux of this issue is the horrible living conditions for many of these rioters. While the rioting is occuring in "Paris" it is happening in the suburbs of Paris, a Paris that few of us know a Paris that you do not find in Rick Steve's latest guide to Paris. These areas in Paris have been long neglected. The government hoping that it will just keep to itself. But it will not, these are French men and women, born in France raised as French. The government has been to slow in reform when it comes to employment and jobs. With unemployment over 10% and stagnant, something needs to be done. Rather than allowing small unions force the government to back down whenever reform is mentioned, the government needs to take what is happening as an indication that the country needs reform, and real leadership to get itself back on the right track. A few reforms:
- Focus on job creation at the education level: create an education system for those not pursuing "traditional" education paths, something the gov't claimed it is doing. Allow those that are not great at the traditional education method but need to go to vocational schools. Start opening up school systems with other nations, having exchange programs, allowing students to learn from other cultures in Europe and bringing in new thinking into the french system.
- Allow companies to fire and hire people without the red tape that exists. The ability to fire people that are not working out will allow companies to cycle through labor, allowing those that are qualified to thrive, giving unproven works chances, and forcing those stuck in a rut or who have become too comfortable to become motivated to be the best they can be.
- Continue the integration with the banlieus. One point I think that Sarkozy is wrong, horribly wrong, is to view the police as the hammer of the state. That the police should not be organizing rugby matches in the nieghborhoods but rather policing. The problem in the areas affected is a distrust if not hatred of the police. The way to change this is to have the police become a member of the neighborhoods. Have them walk the beat, organize after school events, know the people, become part of it. Something that has worked well in cities like New York and Boston. This does not mean that the police do not arrest or investigate crimes, but it is a lot easier when the majority of the neighborhood sees you as a part of the system and not the hammer that comes down when the government orders it to.
Finally, next to reform, or potential reform, what I take away from these tragedies is the desire of regular people in the neighborhoods rising up and taking back their neighborhoods, organizing teams to patrol their streets at night. The saddest part is that the distruction and vandalism is being dispensed by those in the neighborhoods, those living amongst the peaceful citizens. They are destroying their own homes, schools, gyms etc. Now their neighbors are saying "no more." The French gov't needs to work with these teams to allow this to continue and to take root in people's thinking.
As we watch the happenings in France, we must all ask what is our government doing to integrate and empower all of its citizens? If you cannot come up with a clear answer or strategy, don't feel as if this could not happen in your neighborhood.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Senate up in arms
Story from yesterday is that the Senate, at least the Republican side, was up in arms because the Democrats forced a closed session to discuss the lack of momentum behind the pre-Iraq invasion investigation. Good for the Democrats, maybe this would not be necessary if the Republicans allowed the investigation to continue unimpeded. The american public and the service men and women deserve to know the truth behind Bush's reasons for going to war. Will the truth bring back the troops or alleviate the pain and suffering of the families, no. But this will clear up the air and allow a renewed focus on what we need to do to bring stability to Iraq and more importantly bring home the troops. The Bush administration, Republicans and many Democrats that supported the war need to stop avoiding the truth and allow us to move forward.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Bush tries again
Early this morning President Bush nominated Judge Alito to succeed Judge OConnor on the Supreme Court. Alito will appease the red meat eating right wing of the Republicans, being a Mini-Scalia. A move that appears to be the work of Bush's Brain: Carl Rove. Why?
Because of the ruthless brilliance of this move. After a terrible week for Bush, "Scooter" Libby's indictment, the 2000 loss in Iraq and Miers waving the white flag, the Bush White House makes the bold move of nominating a right wing judge, one that many will assume will work to overturn Roe v Wade and other favorites of the left and moderates. This move will shift the focus away from Bush's blatant attempt at another act of cronism by nominating his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court and focus it directly on the fight that will no doubt arise between Dems and Reps, right wingers and moderates over "Scalito." As the fight to determine whether or not he will become the next Supreme Court justice heats up, the right wing will be too focused on getting this red meat right winger into the Supreme Court and will forget Bush's blatant attempt at cronism and complete lack of judgement with the Miers nomination. Finally, with Bush nominating Scalito so soon, many republicans will not worry about next years mid term elections, since any backlash from the public over a nasty fight will be forgot by the time November 2006 rolls around.
Carl Rove might be down but he still weaves his distorted, ruthless web.
Because of the ruthless brilliance of this move. After a terrible week for Bush, "Scooter" Libby's indictment, the 2000 loss in Iraq and Miers waving the white flag, the Bush White House makes the bold move of nominating a right wing judge, one that many will assume will work to overturn Roe v Wade and other favorites of the left and moderates. This move will shift the focus away from Bush's blatant attempt at another act of cronism by nominating his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court and focus it directly on the fight that will no doubt arise between Dems and Reps, right wingers and moderates over "Scalito." As the fight to determine whether or not he will become the next Supreme Court justice heats up, the right wing will be too focused on getting this red meat right winger into the Supreme Court and will forget Bush's blatant attempt at cronism and complete lack of judgement with the Miers nomination. Finally, with Bush nominating Scalito so soon, many republicans will not worry about next years mid term elections, since any backlash from the public over a nasty fight will be forgot by the time November 2006 rolls around.
Carl Rove might be down but he still weaves his distorted, ruthless web.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Harriet Miers withdraws
I have been looking to start a political blog and just needed the right time, actually the motivation to do so. The Harriet Miers withdrawl from the Supreme Court nominaton process was the right event.
As Miers slinks away from what would have proven to be a fight neither she nor the Bush administration wanted to tackle, and very likely would have lost, one must ask the question: why was she nominated in the first place?
No one is arguing that Miers did not have some of the qualities needed. She appears to have been a tireless worker, dedicated to law, working in both private and public offices. She rose to prominence by leading a Dallas law firm and as counsel to the President. However she had never been a judge, never argued infront of the Supreme Court, actually never really done work with the constitution. No one really knew her stance on issues such as Roe v Wade, Affirmative Action, Emminenet Domain, etc. All we had were "questionnaires" filled out years ago and the word from Bush to "trust him." (Just like we trusted him that Iraq had WMD)
Did the Bush administration believe that it could "sneak" Miers into the land's highest court? After giving us what appears to be the "ideal" candidate, in Judge Roberts, did the Bush administration get too cocky?
What this appears to be is the ultimate slap in the face of our intelligence and the most unfathomable attempt at cronyism. It was bad enough to put the Director of the Arabian Horse club to run FEMA, an organization that would actually have to make life and death decisions but to place someone on the highest court that is a close buddy to Bush is absurd. While I am sure Miers is a good person and a capable lawyer, there is not justification of having her sit on the supreme court just because Bush wants us to trust him. This administration needs to have its feet held to the fire with regards to its blatant cronyism.
I will be interested to see who Bush now turns to.
As Miers slinks away from what would have proven to be a fight neither she nor the Bush administration wanted to tackle, and very likely would have lost, one must ask the question: why was she nominated in the first place?
No one is arguing that Miers did not have some of the qualities needed. She appears to have been a tireless worker, dedicated to law, working in both private and public offices. She rose to prominence by leading a Dallas law firm and as counsel to the President. However she had never been a judge, never argued infront of the Supreme Court, actually never really done work with the constitution. No one really knew her stance on issues such as Roe v Wade, Affirmative Action, Emminenet Domain, etc. All we had were "questionnaires" filled out years ago and the word from Bush to "trust him." (Just like we trusted him that Iraq had WMD)
Did the Bush administration believe that it could "sneak" Miers into the land's highest court? After giving us what appears to be the "ideal" candidate, in Judge Roberts, did the Bush administration get too cocky?
What this appears to be is the ultimate slap in the face of our intelligence and the most unfathomable attempt at cronyism. It was bad enough to put the Director of the Arabian Horse club to run FEMA, an organization that would actually have to make life and death decisions but to place someone on the highest court that is a close buddy to Bush is absurd. While I am sure Miers is a good person and a capable lawyer, there is not justification of having her sit on the supreme court just because Bush wants us to trust him. This administration needs to have its feet held to the fire with regards to its blatant cronyism.
I will be interested to see who Bush now turns to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)