Miers Withdraws Nomination - Page 6

Nepa · #51 10-27-2005, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pulling for Luttig myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bring it on!!! I would love to see him put Luttig up. I will also love when they lose this fight. Luttig doesn't have the votes and Luttig will not get the votes. I'll say it again. BRING IT ON!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

anyone know who said this?

"There are not enough Republican votes in the Senate to win an ideological fight over a nominee like Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, or Janice Rogers Brown."

Nepa · #52 10-27-2005, 07:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your conclusions but I like this approach to politics. I'm 100% pro bring it on politics. Especially when my party is in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your party might be in power but they don't have the votes to vote for a Bork like canidate.

One the subject of Judge Bork. He was asked today weather a person could forget about a conversation that happened over two years ago? His answer, "Not likely"

Jedster · #53 10-27-2005, 07:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So for Cheney to lie, he would have to know there was doubt about whether there were WMDs in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt by whom though? Certainly he knew there was doubt from people who had no knowledge of the issue. Someone who has zero access to any CIA info would certainly have doubt. So I don't think he meant that EVERYONE had no doubt.

So did it mean that those who had intelligence had no doubt? Or did it mean that he himself had no doubt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly when he says "no doubt" he means "no doubt." There are no shades of gray in his statement, which was the summation of a litany of points referencing intelligence from our own country as well as from others. So clearly he was not refering to his own doubts, though we can have a separate argument over whether or not he should have had those doubts in the unlikely case that he didn't have them.

But a review of the run-up to the war shows there were doubts throughout the American government. Clearly Cheney knew this, as evidenced by the coverup reported today in the National Journal that I referenced earlier in the thread.

One of the voices expressing doubts was Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's Chief of Staff. In an article on CNN.com about him, there is the following passage:

[ QUOTE ]
Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/ 
[/ QUOTE ]

That, my friend, is the definition of doubt.

AngryCola · #54 10-27-2005, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that affects the strategy at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're wrong.

It wouldn't hold water. They won't attempt to blame liberals at all for the Miers withdrawl. Doing so would be laughable even by DC standards.

If you listen to some of the reactions today, you'll notice nobody that anyone actually listens to is attempting to spin it in such a way.

It doesn't fly now, and it won't fly tomorrow. Period.

Now, the republicans will pounce on liberals for being resistant to whomever Bush appoints. That's to be expected.

One could speculate that the entire Miers nomination was just a clever way of making the 'real' nominee's conformation process a bit easier. You know, one of those, "Thank god that's over with so we can finally get someone qualified in there," moments. Then when liberals resist the new nominee, the republicans can point to how long all of this has taken and the country might just start to say, "Enough already, Dems! We're tired of all this jerking around and 'wasted' time. Stop being so partisan and just accept this clearly qualified person to be our next justice!"

Essentially, it could be that Miers nomination was designed to get exactly the reaction it got. Get the public thinking about how bad the Miers nomination is, and then spring a much more qualified person on them. I'm not suggesting that was actually the true intention, but it certainly isn't much of a stretch, IMO.

Still, there is no way the republicans will make any real attempt at trying to suggest Miers' nomination was unsuccessful because of liberals.

wmspringer · #55 10-27-2005, 08:00 PM

Shame...I preferred unqualified over actively corrupt

Myrtle · #56 10-27-2005, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's see if my prediction when the nomination first came out will come true...Bush will nominate a VERY conservative justice who the liberals will disdain. When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists (ignoring, of course, the very vocal criticism from those on the same side of the aisle.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you love or hate them, the Republican strategists behind the throne are very clever.

Was the Miers nomination by Bush simply a "Straw Dog" nomination advanced by those who knew that it would not fly in order that the above quoted 'line of argument' could be advanced by Republican spinmiesters, so that they could attempt to regain the bully pulpit and force someone like a Luttig through?

Is the above scenario beyond possibility?

Have the Democrats allowed themselves to be backed into a no-win political corner on this issue?

Let's see what happens............

ACPlayer · #57 10-27-2005, 10:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now, the republicans will pounce on liberals for being resistant to whomever Bush appoints. That's to be expected.

One could speculate that the entire Miers nomination was just a clever way of making the 'real' nominee's conformation process a bit easier. You know, one of those, "Thank god that's over with so we can finally get someone qualified in there," moments. Then when liberals resist the new nominee, the republicans can point to how long all of this has taken and the country might just start to say, "Enough already, Dems! We're tired of all this jerking around and 'wasted' time. Stop being so partisan and just accept this clearly qualified person to be our next justice!"

Essentially, it could be that Miers nomination was designed to get exactly the reaction it got. Get the public thinking about how bad the Miers nomination is, and then spring a much more qualified person on them. I'm not suggesting that was actually the true intention, but it certainly isn't much of a stretch, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a weird line of play. Specially as the Admin holds all the cards and most of the chips.

They could have nominated a Thomas/Scalia clone instead of Miers and pushed that through in the first instance. If at all the Democrats should now argue that they were perpared to give the Miers a vote but the Republicans are the ones with the Litmus test.

With any luck, the government will stop functioning in the next couple of months. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

elwoodblues · #58 10-28-2005, 02:24 AM

A moment of genius in a lifetime of lunacy.

Which one of us that applies to is open for debate.

vulturesrow · #59 10-28-2005, 09:03 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pulling for Luttig myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bring it on!!! I would love to see him put Luttig up. I will also love when they lose this fight. Luttig doesn't have the votes and Luttig will not get the votes. I'll say it again. BRING IT ON!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your conclusions but I like this approach to politics. I'm 100% pro bring it on politics. Especially when my party is in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus · #60 10-31-2005, 01:38 AM

...I told you so