Yes, I'm talking about Washington D.C. I am becoming really tempted to just remove myself from even watching or reading political anything anymore. There just seems to be no one in a suit that can think for themselves. I for one don't really want to know who has their hands up everyone's puppeted backsides.
Okay, enough rambling about that. Lets talk about the babbling. Within the next few weeks we will know If Meyers was a decent offering for the Supreme Court. Democrats love her. Republicans hate her. Quite frankly I don't understand how either party can say the things they have already said about her. They're just babbling about a topic they know nothing about. I know the truth about her. I have the right judgment about this judge. Here it is:
I have no judgment on the matter.
How can anyone say they are absolutely going to voter her up or down at this point in time? She doesn't have a historical judicial record. She hasn't been an activist. She hasn't really even written public opinions. She could be a brain trust that has been tucked away with the president or she could be an imbecile with a bobblehead. We just don't know yet.
One thing I do know is Bush's history of judicial appointments. As a prime example we need look no further than Judge Roberts. I did not need to hear more than five minutes of his congressional inquiry to know he had the cranial capacity of half of the politicians in the room combined. If he would have been any more intelligent he might have had supernatural powers. This was a man I could trust with the future of America.
So am I saying Meyers is going to be just as smart as Roberts? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying I am reserving judgment until such time she proves to America that she is smart enough to handle the position. This should not be a political vote either way. This should be a vote on her constitutional capacity. Can she pull out facts buried so deep in the constitution and the supporting documents that only the most studious judges will know? Will she come across as someone with such an even keel she can steer the ocean of political debauchery without so much as listing a degree to the right or left?
We will only have our answers after she presents herself to congress and to America.
Well at least after her presentation, we'll know how to spell her name!
You are more optimistic than I am about this but you are right - she deserves to be heard in her own right. Maybe the creepy Church Lady 'push' being put out is really the equivalent of somebody setting you up on a date with somebody with a 'great personality' - and it turns out she looks like Julia Roberts!
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 14, 2005 01:29 AMJulia Roberts scares me. She could swallow half your head in a fit of pique.
I almost agree on Meirs with the "wait and see" approach. The problem is that we HAVE to wait and see. She's done absolutely nothing to suggest that she'd have any capacity for constitutional law at all, besides be a lawyer (and there are plenty of lawyers who don't seem to get constitutional fundamentals that I'd expect a high school senior to). I'd prefer that a nominee have something somewhere in their background that could at least suggest this is something they could be competant at. She ran the Lotto.
Bush should take a mulligan on this one and bring forward another nominee.
Posted by: Doug at October 14, 2005 03:59 PMThe words we choose to use, I believe, say a lot about us. Assuming that this is true, I believe that the writer of this blog may be interested in what I have to say, assuming that they are interested in the opinion of one career Marine who believes wholeheartedly in the practice of warfare.
This practice of warfare is effective in accomplishing the goals of a nation so long as we can commit to the plan. When things begin to go downhill there is usually some hot headed and inexperienced leader to blame. These individuals know what language to use in order to gain the support of others but fail to understand the nature of the beast they command.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 one such individual took advantage of the situation by using it to drive our people into a frenzy. I can tell you with complete confidence that we knew who was responsible for this attack the very day that it occured, although I can not share with you the evidence to prove it. At any rate it was common knowledge within certain circles that Osama bin Laden had been planning this attack for a decade or more.
The organization that Osama created was then, as he continues to be, America's greatest threat. To allow Saddam Hussein, a man who had allowed himself to be confined to the borders of Iraq by sanctions and spiradic attacks, to rise to the forefront of our minds as a threat was a major mistake. Our error was in invading Iraq before Osama and his forces had been neutralized.
I am of course basing this judgement upon knowledge of a plan that most Americans know nothing about. According to this plan Iraq was to be taken through seige while Afghanistan was taken by force. The reason this approach was desired over what has been done is that Afghanistan lended itself to all out warfare while Iraq did not.
What we are looking for as leaders of the free world is obedience. This we had achieved in Iraq prior to March 2003. Saddam's final plea for peace was a prime example of the obedience we had attained, and was probably the last time we will see Iraqis destroying weapons rather than using them against us or each other.
Our time shall come again, of this I am confident.
With all due respect, Sgt. B, the objective that our policy is engaged towards is not "Osama and his forces"; it's the ideology that maintains and replenishes those forces. If we killed and/or captured every top leader of al Qaeda (Osama included), or eliminated every person who acts on his behalf, we will have won no more than a temporary respite. We need to kill the hydra, not the heads.
The entire social and political landscape of the middle east needs to change for this to happen, and Iraq was an excellent strategic choice for this enterprise. I would argue that arguments of Saddam as "contained" are questionable, and that leaving Iraq as the region's festering wound was counterproductive to this policy. Given the positive results we've seen outside of Iraq, there seems to be little evidence that it isn't working more or less as intended.
Posted by: Doug at October 17, 2005 09:51 AM