Wall Street Journal John Fund Monday, October 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
I have changed my mind about Harriet Miers. Last Thursday, I wrote in OpinionJournal’s Political Diary that “while skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself.”
But that was before I interviewed more than a dozen of her friends and colleagues along with political players in Texas. I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now–and loudly–because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. “She is unrevealing to the point that it’s an obsession,” says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.
White House aides who have worked with her for five years report she zealously advocated the president’s views, but never gave any hint of her own. Indeed, when the Dallas Morning News once asked Ms. Miers to finish the sentence, “Behind my back, people say . . .,” she responded, “. . . they can’t figure me out.”
Missourian: Even when I agree with you in substance and approach with an olive branch regarding whatever the topic might be, you end up beating me over the head with it because you’re unhappy with the extent to which I agree. Did I say that all Muslims were peaceful? No. I’m simply stating a fact: the population of Muslims who are in fact peaceful and law-abiding is certainly more than a handful. That was the only point I was trying to make. Take it how you wish.
As far as the law’s concerned, I think you’re misunderstanding me. You say: the law is about CONDUCT. Fine. My disagreement with you is over what types of conduct can (or should) be legislated. I don’t personally think that we as a nation (who elect legislative bodies who create these laws!) need bother ourselves with what people do in private. I don’t care if Mr. X smokes pipes in his basement. I don’t care if Mrs. Y prances about in her bedroom naked listening to bagpipes and playing the castanets. I also don’t care if some 13 year old kid masturbates in the shower. I don’t mean to be crude, but when it comes to what people do in private, I don’t CARE!! Is there a “RIGHT” to smoke pipes, or play the banjo? I guess not.
However, to me, this is not the sort of conduct I want our legislature bothering with. If you think I’m making these laws up, go to http://www.crazylaws.com. There’s all sorts of nonsense that I’m sure you’d get a thrill out of sentencing some poor sap to community service for engaging in.
The Republicans left me.
Note 5, Dean said: Politically, this is an especially dangerous time for Mr. Bush to alienate his base. Mr Bush’s approval ratings have dropped to historic lows in response to a number of events, including rising energy prices, the federal government’s poor performance after Hurricane Katrina, and the ongoing violence and failure to achieve a positive outcome in Iraq.
Well, Dean, for once I agree with you, but not on the issues you mentioned. My own quarrel with Mr. Bush and the Republicans is their support for illegal immigration. Immigration done according to current law is great. Unfortunately, few of the many immigrants to this country enter and reside here lawfully. Also unfortunately, practically no Republican officeholder has been willing to enforce immigration laws effectively. (Same for the Democrats, but I never expected better from them.) Next election, I’m voting for local and state ballot issues, but not for candidates. Perhaps I’ll write in Tom Tancredo for President for 2008, but I’ve had it with the Rs in general.
So yes, Dean, at least this part of the base is “alienated.” Ironic word, that.
From the Final Report of the Iraq Survey Group:
“Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States, according to Tariq â??Aziz and the presidential secretary. Tariq â??Aziz pointed to a series of issues, which occurred between the end of the Iran-Iraq war and 1991, to explain why Saddam failed to improve relations with the United States: Irangate (the covert supplying of Iran with missiles, leaked in 1986), a continuing US fleet presence in the Gulf, suspected CIA links with Kurds and Iraqi dissidents and the withdrawal of agricultural export credits. After Irangate, Saddam believed that Washington could not be trusted and that it was out to get him personally. His outlook encouraged him to attack Kuwait, and helps explain his later half-hearted concessions to the West. These concerns collectively indicated to Saddam that there was no hope of a positive relationship with the United States in the period before the attack on Kuwait.
Although the United States was not considered a natural adversary, some Iraqi decision-makers viewed it as Iraqâ??s most pressing concern, according to former Vice President Ramadan. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam and the Baâ??th Regime considered full-scale invasion by US forces to be the most dangerous potential threat to unseating the Regime, although Saddam rated the probability of an invasion as very low. Throughout the UNSCOM period, Iraqi leaders extended a number of feelers to the United States through senior UNSCOM personnel offering strategic concessions in return for an end to sanctions. The stumbling block in these feelers was the apparent Iraqi priority on maintaining both the Saddam Regime and the option of Iraqi WMD.
In a custodial debriefing, Saddam said he wanted to develop better relations with the US over the latter part of the 1990s. He said, however, that he was not given a chance because the US refused to listen to anything Iraq had to say.
In 2004, Charles Duelfer of ISG said that between 1994 and 1998, both he and UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus were approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States, and that Iraq was in a position to be Washingtonâ??s “best friend in the region bar none.”
While Iran was a more enduring enemy, after 1991, the temporary challenge from the United States posed a more immediate danger. Those who had detailed information about US capabilities also concluded there was little Iraq could do to counter a US invasion. Iraqi military commanders who did perceive the risk of invasion realized that the imbalance in power between Iraq and the United States was so disparate that they were incapable of halting a US invasion. Even if Iraqâ??s military performed better during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq would only have increased the number of Coalition casualties without altering the war’s outcome, according to the former defense minister.
Saddam failed to understand the United States, its internal or foreign drivers, or what it saw as its interests in the Gulf region. Little short of the prospect of military action would get Saddam to focus on US policies. He told subordinates many times that following Desert Storm the United States had achieved all it wanted in the Gulf. He had no illusions about US military or technological capabilities, although he believed the United States would not invade Iraq because of exaggerated US fears of casualties. Saddam also had a more pessimistic view of the United States. By late 2002 Saddam had persuaded himself, just as he did in 1991, that the United States would not attack Iraq because it already had achieved its objectives of establishing a military presence in the region, according to detainee interviews.”
Okay JBL – you’re supposed to be a conservative, right? Yet, you completely discount the fact that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright could have been lying about the siuation in Iraq for partisan gain. After all, keeping Saddam in the gunsights provided a ready-made Patriotic moment whenever we wanted one. Didn’t it?
Of course, I’m stupid, right? Clinton would never lie, would he? He would never manipulate the press, would he? The press wouldn’t buy his line just to prop up his regime, would they? Why do Republicans keep swallowing Clintonian propaganda so long after his demise?
By the way, I could back up the story with CNN, Washington Post, or other sources. The timing is what it is. Clinton ordered the inspectors out so that he could bomb the place. You can say that Iraq provoked it. I believe that regardless of what Iraq did, they were going to get creamed. Clinton had American citizens killed who were inconvenient, do you really believe he would have thought twice about killing Arabs?
As for the Balkans, the U.S. calls the shots in NATO. We’re to blame for the Christians who died from our bombs. No one forced the president of the United States to kill thousands of Orthodox Christians and to bomb civilian targets. That was all us. Blame the French if you want, but do you think they could force us to do something we didn’t want to do? Do you think the UK and the French would have gone to war in the Balkans without us? They can’t fight their way past a Girl Scout Troop.
As for sponsoring terrorism – Saddam paid suicide bombers in Israel. I have never, ever seen anything that I consider to be reasonably good evidence that Saddam sponsored terrorist attacks on U.S. assets. If he did, then I would have supported attacking Iraq after having secured a Declaration of War in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. However, the administration did NOT accuse Iraq of that. If Saddam backed attacks on Israel, then Israel should have dealt with him – not the U.S.
As for brutally suppressing the Kurds and the Shi’ites – they were attempting to secede from the country. Remember what our nation did in 1861 to the Southern states? Did the U.S. government let the states go, or were they brutally repressed? Which government lets pieces of the country break off peacefully? Rarely does such a thing occur. Saddam used military force to suppress rebellions. Hey, alert the media. Many Sunnis would like to leave Iraq today, if they voted to do so would we let them? Or would we violently suppress them?
You know the answer. Is it right? No, anymore than it was right in 1861. The question is – is it our business to go around fighting wars over it? The answer is no.
As for Syria, you’re buying into more government propaganda. The Assad Regime is not perfect by any stretch. However, it is the best you are likely to get. Trying to ‘fix’ Syria and end its policies, whatever they are that Washington dislikes, is going to make it worse.
From Israeli paper Ha’aretz: “But that is not the important thing. Because Syria is not just Assad. Today there are many who wish to see him fall from power, and not all of them would replace him with a leader “desirable” to the West. For example, the fanatic Muslim Brotherhood maintains extensive activity in Syria and is demanding reforms that would allow it to participate in government. Rifat Assad, Bashar’s uncle, has aspirations and devotees of his own, who are liable to constitute a more serious regional danger if they were to attain power. A real danger is anticipated from radical organizations, such as those operating today in Iraq, which seek to participate in internal battles and build themselves another stronghold if and when Assad is deposed. The bloody settling of accounts that is so familiar from Iraq could also easily develop in Syria between those faithful to the Baath regime and those who wish to take over the reins of power. And the Kurds of Syria, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Palestinian organizations would also have something “to contribute” to the turmoil that is liable to develop. In a situation of internal struggle over a regime in which too many parties are armed, the Iraqization of Syria is not an imaginary scenario. And in such an event, Israel’s quietest border is liable to reawaken in a thunder. The Afghani and Iraqi models should already have made it clear what happens when a regime is “revived” from the outside.”
Kick over Saddam – you get Shi’ite fanatics who will come to power in December through the ballot box. Then the real fun begins.
Kick over Assad – you will get the Muslim brotherhood.
That’s my point JBL, it’s called realism. Bush and company aren’t realists, they’re idealogues. If their vapid theories were being spoken aloud by Dems, you and every other decent Republican in the country would be lining up to overthrow them. And you’d be right to do so. But, since the guy with the Wilsonian foreign policy has an ‘R’ next to his name, this must just be a good idea.
Note 53JamesK, Linear Thought Can Be Taxing But Keep Trying
This latest debate between us began with your Note 28:[quote begins]
What you seem to do frequently is transpose your views of ideology onto those who purportedly adhere to that ideology. Islam is evil, therefore, self-described “Muslims” are as well. It doesn’t quite work this way, however. Many Muslims do not adhere to every tenet of Islam. They reject male domination, jihad and the fanatical hatred of the States in both practice and in theory (whether their religion considers them “wrong” or not). Why is it impossible for you to recognize any existence of behavioral and ideological nuance within groups? Is everyone just one big stereotype? It’s as simple minded as saying that all “Christians” are gun-toting, abortion-clinic-bombing, tongue-speaking, snake-handling yahoos (just because some, in fact, are).[quote ends]
You clearly accused me of stereotyping when I was, in fact, factually reporting some of the major aspects of sharia law. Although I don’t qualify as an Arabist, I have done far more serious reading of Islamic source documents than you have. As several go arounds concerning religious source documents I produced a quote from a very reputable scholar confirming that the so-called Islamic Declaration of Human Rights calls for all human rights to be limited by sharia. At this point you switched gears and started off as if I had criticized your buds in the Progressive Muslims of North America (PMNA’s have nothing to fear from me, but they need to watch out from other Muslims.)
In Note 53 you stated that you agreed with me in substance. No you don’t. You accused me of stereotyping Islamc when I was fairly and accurately reporting the truth. As I said linear thought is taxing but you should still keep trying.
Note 53 JamseK, Might as well argue in favor of throwing out the alphabet in favor of pictograms.
Note 53JamesK types:[begin quote]
As far as the law’s concerned, I think you’re misunderstanding me. You say: the law is about CONDUCT. Fine. My disagreement with you is over what types of conduct can (or should) be legislated.[end quote]
Actually what you initially said that you thought that the law regulated RELATIONSHIPS. I didn’t misquote or misunderstand you in the slightest. I accurately reported to you that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled consistently that our laws regulate conduct. This is a fact not an opinion. Try plastering the attorney section of your local yellow pages to the wall, throw a dart to pick the name of any licensed attorney. Call him or her, ask him the same question, they will tell you the same answer.
As I explained with what I thought was considerable patience and painstaking detail, your “legal” theories are disconnected from and bear no logical relationship to 200 years of American constitutional legal theory or 900 years of Anglo-American law. Since I have made my living for 25 years as an attorney and have argued real constitutional issues before real courts for real clients with massive amounts of money in controversy, most people would consider me better qualified to evaluate constitutional arguments than say….. you.
The Japanese can communicate using their traditional system of pictograms. I could propose that Americans abandon our current system of using a twenty-six letter alphbet and adopt pictograms, but, there isn’t much chance of that happening in our lifetime. Your analysis contained your “conclusion” that “what the law regulated was relationships.” That bon mot is burned in my brain.
Even setting aside the fact that your “legal” theories are out there floating freely in intellectual “deep space.” The best description I can give them is that they are about as persuasive as the ultra-liberatarianism that 16 years-olds embrace with fervor after reading the Fountainhead by Ayn Rand the first time.
Note 53 You may not be interested in sharia law, but it is interested in you.
Americans need to separate two issues when it comes to the Ummah (the universal brotherhood of Muslims.) The first issue is “how many Muslims are ready and willing to actually pick up a gun or blow themselves up for the sake of Allah.” The second question is how many Muslims support sharia law or a close variant to the classical version of sharia law.
Steve Emerson and other people who have spent decades studying Islamic terrorism estimate that a minimum of 15% of all Muslims worldwide are willing to engage in a violent jihad. Fifteen per cent of 1.2 billion is one heck of alot of people. This is why throwing the discussion over to Eric Rudolph or Timothy MacVeigh is such a juvenile waste of time. Fifteen per cent of 1.2 billion is over 170 million people on this planet who are willing to kill for Allah. This dwarfs any other terror group by massive factors.
Secondly, even looking at the peaceful Muslims who have no desire to engage in violence, most Muslims support sharia law or a close variant of sharia law. Islam can be defined as sharia law. It is a politico-religious governmental system and it Islamic scholars have constructed an entire system of laws and customs which they, the Islamic scholars, believe have been dictated by God. Tariq Ramadan is considered a leading Euro-Islamic scholar and he has been given a professorship at a British University. Some of his most recent articles have touched on the topic of “stoning for adultery” which is part of sharia law. Are there some Muslims who want to join modernity? Sure, but they remain in the very small minority. Most importantly, they are in a nearly powerless minority. Muslims who support the spread of sharia law are in the vast majority. The people with the funds, the guns and the armies support sharia law. This conclusion is compelled by logic because sharia law is Islam and Islam is sharia law.
Now, JamesK, you are dance around this all you want. Somehow you think it is worth investing energy in protecting Muslims from some supposed slander. Given that 15% of a massive population group stands ready to kill for Allah, this seems to be a rather ridiculous waste of time. I think it more worthwhile to invest my time in helping stop the daily murders of innocent people being killed for allah.
I think that your central mentality is locked in a battle with your own culture. Because of this your sympathies are with whomever you think the “minority” is with respect to any given issue. Even if that “minority” is killing in cold blood right before your eyes. So be it. You will gain no quarter from these people for your efforts.
Glen and JBL.
You both make some good points. My question, respectfully, is can we change policy in the short run? I tend to think not, hence, I tend to think that debates about past policies are pretty academic at this point.
Frankly, I am worried about war with Iran and Syria in the near future. The tension with Iran seems to build continuously.
Heaven help us.
Missourian: The Limits of Government and Constitutional Theory
Here is a link from the Cato Institute that expresses more clearly my point. It was written by Roger Pilon, VP of Legal Affairs and director of the Center for Constitutional Studies. Complain to him if you disagree.
a) It is especially important to note that the Founders couched their moral vision in the language of rights, not in the language of virtue or values or any other moral concept.
b) Rights are claims against others, which entail correlative obligations requiring others to do or not do various things. (Note!! Individual conduct as it relates to others!!!)
c) We can imagine a world in which people are free to live their lives, exercise their liberties, and build and enjoy their estates, provided only that in the process they refrain from taking what belongs to others â?? the lives, liberties, and estates of those others.
Note 60: All three items should have been quoted: the words are Roger’s, not mine (with the exception of the “Note”).
Couple more money quotes:
“[E]ven in a democratic regime, ‘the governed’ do not consent except in the most attenuated of ways. Indeed, to suppose that a single vote every few years suffices to empower a majority of representatives, under a representational system, to thereafter bind all other citizens to their will is far-fetched,to say the least.”
â??Rights and correlative obligations are the language of law and liberty.â??
â??Today there seems to be almost no subject too personal or too trivial for federal regulatory attention.â??
Notes 60 through 63 Cato is fringe
The Cato Institute does some good research on current political issues from time to time, however, as to their theory of government, it is extreme libertarianism. Libertarianism destroys the cohesion necessary to pull a country together. It legitimizes a juvenile “me-first, and only me” kind of attitude. One example, we depend on a volunteer Army and few people want to go back to a draft, but the end result of extreme libertarianism, is the rejection of a common culture. People don’t volunteer to defend a undefined collection of individuals that happen to live on the same real estate. Second, example, people are not motivated to invest in a community or a city or state because they have no common values with others on that same real estate.
Additionally, your assertions are untrue, especially this one:
It is especially important to note that the Founders couched their moral vision in the language of rights, not in the language of virtue or values or any other moral concept.
This is patently untrue. There are many quotes from many sources that assert that the Constitution as passed was understood to be workable ONLY in a society that already benefited from the social cohesion afforded by the Judaeo-Christian moral tradition. A limited role for government ONLY made sense for people who were INTERNALLY SELF-GOVERNED by a moral code. That remains true today.
Missourian,
I think that debates about past policy matter to the extent that similiar situations will present themselves in the future. The only thing new is the history you don’t know. For example, one of the primary reasons that the United States gave for annexing the Phillippines after the Spanish American War was to create an ‘Empire of Liberty.’ The Phillippines were supposed to be an American showcase in Asia, a shining light for the whole region that would lead to Democracies sprouting up all around the Pacific Rim.
In the name of that dream, we crushed the Fillipino Insurgency that sought independence, and killed somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people. Nobody knows how many, since the U.S. refused to keep records on the civilian dead.
Ideas have consequences, and ideas almost never die. The same rhetoric that justified The Span-Am War and WWI was completely recycled by the Bush White House for the current Iraqi Adventure. And it was treated as if it were a new idea, somehow sprung forth from Mt. Sinai. Part of the reason no one called the President on this is because so few people understood our own history as a people, and that we had already been down this whole ‘spread Democracy by force’ road.
So, that is why I think debating past policy makes sense. Understanding the Balkans and Iraqi mess under Clinton helps illustrate how foreign policy can be manipulated for political gain. That is an important lesson for the future that we must all learn. Another important lesson is how Republicans who opposed the Balkans Wars and the Iraqi bombings at the time, have changed their tune since taking power. It is as if they find themselves forced to justify Clinton in order to feel justified at the current time.
It almost seems as if the two parties are in a conspiracy together at some level. W takes power and immediately begins protecting his predecessor from criticism. Eerie, really, since they are not supposed to be on the same side.
In any event, how to change policy in the short run? There is no real way to do that. Both political parties are now fully committed to humanitarian military missions. The Dems have, traditionally, actually been the most warlike of the two parties. This is a function of their being the most Utopian. The Republicans are now fully on board with nation building through force. At the same time, both parties are committed to open borders, political correctness, deficit spending, and keeping Roe v. Wade on the books.
The only long-term way to change policy is to shift one party or the other towards a more rational foreign policy. Barring that, you jump ship to the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party. Either way, it is a long-term struggle.
JamseK This is all about sodomy, isn’t it?
What are the really big changes that you would like to see JamesK? Any chance it would be the legal and cultural legimitization of sodomy? I would bet quite a few pixels it is.
Note 63, Glen
All of your points are well taken.
I am concerned that so many people are debating the events leading up to the March 2003 invasion, and so few are discussing the risks arising from Syria and Iran. I am genuinely afraid that we will be drawn into a war with one or both of these countries. Since I am not confident of our current leadership, I can’t endorse further military action.
I share Michael Ledeen’s concern that our Iran policy has been incoherent, ineffectual and damaging to both our short and long term interests. SIGH.
I think splinter parties are a real risk for the Republicans given the state of their base, everyone I know is steaming, apopletic and incandescent. Bush just doesn’t seem to think that his own base can damage his own interests. He seems to thumb his nose at them as if he were confident they could do him no harm
George Santayana said, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” By repeating the same mistakes of history. through their blind arrogance, the Bush administration has accomplished the following:
“Hogtied” http://billmon.org/archives/002261.html
Note 63: Roger Pilon is fringe?!!
You also state: “Additionally, your assertions are untrue, especially this one”
Missourian, this is not my assertion. It’s Roger Pilon’s. He’s held five senior posts in the Reagan Administration. Sorry, Missourian, but his credentials DWARF yours.
As far as whether this has to do with sodomy or not, it actually has to do with many things, including:
a) the right to smoke (which I do not)
b) the right to drink alcohol (wine, guilty!)
Numerous other things, really.
But why am I bothering even trying to convince you otherwise? You’ve shown yourself more interested in derision and insults (oh, I think “idiot” comes to mind?). Say what you want to say, if it will make you feel better. Let out that cloud of venom you have inside towards me and apparently humanity in general … you’ll feel better.
First of all, I need to rephrase. I do not like the fact that I’ve allowed my speech to degenerate into the type of speech I criticize. It’s hypocritical.
Here’s the problem, Missourian: I presented my view of law which, though I am not an attorney, I feel I am entitled to speak about due to the simple fact that I am, as everyone else here is, a person represented by a legislative official who is responsible for creating these laws. To that end, I feel I can voice my opinion about what legislation I would like to see passed or not passed and why this opinion has some merit on Constitutional grounds.
For that I was called an idiot. So, I presented a piece by a well-respected person involved in the legal venue to buttress my points. So I was then accused of being an apologist for the homosexual agenda. Okay, fine. Since I’ve also presented my opinion on Muslims, perhaps you’ve assumed I’m a Muslim as well? I honestly don’t know what to tell you. I have many opinions on many things that involve me in no direct way. I don’t think I’m THAT narcissistic as to only care about that which involves my personal life and to disregard everything else as irrelevant.
Missourian stated: “A limited role for government ONLY made sense for people who were INTERNALLY SELF-GOVERNED by a moral code.”
I don’t share the view that the colonial era could be considered “halcyon days”. Women depended on men, not only for physical and financial protection, but also because they ‘were presumed less able to ground … spiritual development in the cold logic of reason'”. “Many female slaves and indentured servants exploited their bodies, as demanded by their masters” and where “[s]ociety condoned this sexual slavery in order to protect the property rights of the masters.”
Slavery was commonplace, and “[p]hysical violence toward children was not just acceptable. It was essential to combat their sinfulness and willfulness”. In addition, “children were apprenticed and indentured and enslaved”.
I have a hard time buying the concept that people were successfully “self-governed” to a greater degree than they are today. I’ve moved forward in most areas even if we’re more lax in others.
Additionally, I have yet to see any reference within the Constitution regarding the primacy of “cultural values” over “rights”. If you can find a reference, I’d be happy to reconsider my opinion.