The Fortunes of War

Oct 05, 2005 09:09

As many of you may be aware, President Bush recently appointed Harriet Miers to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. With this decision I am afraid that the President just lost the Iraq War. As always, a lengthy explanation lurks below the cut.
Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 55

(The comment has been removed)

Thanks stip001 October 5 2005, 16:59:21 UTC
Jake,

Glad you found this useful.

-Nick

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

Judges stip001 October 5 2005, 17:14:28 UTC
Jesse,

Not at all. In fact, I don't think that the late Chief Justice Rehnquist was ever a judge at any level. Mostly you just have to be a lawyer that the President likes and the Senate will confirm. Which is why there have been quite a few ex-politicians appointed, such as Earl Warren (governor of California during WWII).

-Nick

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

Iraq stip001 October 5 2005, 17:37:06 UTC
Jake,

I have no idea. It's still possible that the President might pull this one out. He's surprised me before. It's also possible that events on the battlefield are going well enough that even if we have to leave ahead of schedule the Iraqis will still be able to handle the terrorists and deter opportunistic foreigners.

If not, then maybe civil war? Iranian or Syrian intervention? A general regional war? Massive floods of refugees and death camps, like after the fall of Saigon? I don't know, but thinking along this line you get to scary, scary places really fast.

In my more optimistic moments, I like to think that even if everything goes completely, horribly wrong after a withdrawal, the Iraqis will still come out on top. After all, free men fight better and harder than slaves. And in that case the Iraqis could be justifiably proud of themselves as being the first Arab nation to earn their freedom. That would break the Arab cycle of despair more effectively than anything. But I wouldn't bet too heavily on it.

-Nick

Reply


atrocity_ October 5 2005, 17:59:29 UTC
Well written, informative and entertaining. Kudos.

Support of this statement however:

"So the President can't publicly state the real rationale for the war, which is to defuse Arab Islamic hatred of modernity by forcibly introducing them to liberal democracy"

I find to be disgustingly imperialist, morally and politically. Not only is the goal of "defusing Islamic hatred of modernity" a morally self-righteous goal, but forcibly introducing them to liberal democracy as a solution takes this a step further. I find the entire thing overtly and unconcernedly arrogant. No offense, but it reminds me why I would never turn to you with concern over any type of moral issue. You may feel the same way.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

atrocity_ October 5 2005, 19:27:39 UTC
This is also true, but then again, there is really no forseeable circumstance where the President might be available to provide moral advice for me. Nick could easily be available, but as I said, I can't breathe the cyanide atmosphere where his morals dwell.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


aaronstj October 5 2005, 18:19:34 UTC
Huh. I was under the impression that the conservatives liked whats-her-name, especially religious conservatives. Shows what I know.

Reply

Religious Conservatives and Miers stip001 October 5 2005, 18:55:50 UTC
Frenchy,

The problem is mostly that they don't know her, and given the history of Republican appointments, they don't trust anyone they don't know. And now they aren't sure they trust the President.

-Nick

Reply

Re: Religious Conservatives and Miers aaronstj October 5 2005, 19:22:09 UTC
"the history of Republican appointments, they don't trust anyone they don't know"?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


fro_dude October 5 2005, 19:01:52 UTC
I enjoyed this post quite a bit. I had come to many of the same conclusions myself, though I hadn't thought about the formation of the modern Republican coalition as well as you had ( ... )

Reply

Good Questions stip001 October 5 2005, 19:49:34 UTC
Lee ( ... )

Reply

Re: Good Questions fro_dude October 5 2005, 20:15:12 UTC
Thanks for the reply. One bit of clarification though. Assume DeLay beats his indictments (which though I think is probable, I don't think its the sure thing you seem to be assuming) and returns to DC. Perceptions are everything in politics, and DeLay hasn't made himself a lot of friends as "The Hammer". He's know for using strong-arm tactics on everybody (Reps and Dems) to force issues his way, tactics that have on occasion flirted with ethical boundries to the point where he has recieved warnings about his actions ( ... )

Reply

Re: Good Questions stip001 October 5 2005, 21:13:05 UTC
Lee ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up