Bork Weighs In On Miers Again

Judge Robert Bork, the conservative judge who was dragged through the mud during confirmation hearings back in the 1980's, has penned another editorial about the Miers nomination, and it's great reading, as usual. It's on the Wall Street Journal's Opinion page, requiring free registration. Get it here.

Republican Con-Law expert and Bush Kool-Aid Drinker Hugh Hewitt has been going after other conservatives who don't support the nomination relentlessly the last couple of weeks. It's amazing to see him reach for positive comments and pretend that his "side" is winning this argument, in the light of so much well-written heat from prominent conservatives. Consider this amazing statement:

On Miers' side to date: Ken Starr, Lino Gralia, Thomas Sowell, James Dobson, Jay
Sekulow, Marvin Olasky, Chuck Colson, Michael Medved, William Rusher, R. Emmett Tyrrell and of course Fred Barnes. Against her: The Corner, Tucker Carlson, Bill Kristol, Robert Bork, Mark Levin, George Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, and Charles Krauthhammer. I like those odds.

"I like those odds???" You have got to be kidding me. And I've listened, by the way, to James Dobson describing his support for Ms. Miers. I'd actually call it "indifference," if you want to be accurate. On his appearance on Michael Medved's radio show last week, he gave his support but grudgingly. He admitted he didn't have any special inside knowledge, and that he was basing his support strictly on the fact that the president has explicitly asked for it. I haven't heard much from the other "supporters," but at least with guys like Dobson, Sekulow, Olasky, and Colson you're talking specifically about evangelical Christian leaders; not experts in constitutional law OR politics, so how much weight can you give them?

Anyway, yesterday Hugh took issue with Bork's statement about the president's amnesty plan for illegal aliens. Although the president, of course, doesn't call it that, that is what it is. He has called it a "Guest Worker Program," and recently started referring to it as a "Temporary Worker Program." But with the end-result normally being citizenship, it's effectively an amnesty plan.

Today Republicans and Democrats alike are complaining about Ms Miers's "inadequate" answers to the questionnaire they gave her. National Review has posted a PDF of the 57-page document here. And Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of opinions on it. Things do not appear to be getting better. It will be an interesting couple of weeks...

The Miers Nomination Should Be Opposed

There are many reasons why President Bush's nomination of his personal attorney, Harriet Miers, should be opposed. This is an issue which has unexpectedly divided the president's "base" of voters; in my opinion, because most of the base is conservative first, Republican second. Those who insist on supporting this nomination, and there are a number of very prominent folks, like Hugh Hewitt, who do, seem to me to be doing so out of respect for the president and a wish to re-unify the party. While I think those are nice sentiments, I feel the negatives outweigh these sentiments.

We Know Nothing About This Nominee. Ever since Judge Robert Bork was savaged by liberal Democrats back in the '80s, conservative Republicans have increasingly relied on "stealth" nominations -- people who have very little record, whose personal views are largely unknown -- in an effort to avoid confrontations with the same Democrats. In many cases, this has come back to bite conservatives, with nominees like David Souter turning out to be liberal judicial activists. So the whole "stealth" idea is, to me, a bad one to begin with. And Harriet Miers is a "super-stealth" nominee. No one seems to know for sure what her views are on anything. Her supporters rely on the fact that she's an evangelical Christian as proof that she's a reliable conservative. But this strikes me as pretty thin.

We Shouldn't Be Sending Up Stealth Candidates. Republicans now control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. If ever there was a time to lose our fear of liberal retribution, now is the time. The president has decided, for some reason, to try and avoid the fight that conservatives around the nation had been salivating over: that of going to battle to get an "originalist" put onto the Supreme Court, with everyone knowing he/she was a conservative from the get-go. While Chief Justice John Roberts sailed through the confirmation hearings by disavowing any particular philosophy and by distancing himself from conservative comments he'd made in papers written throughout his career, the idea of getting an "originalist" like Judge Michael Luttig, whose positions everyone already is familiar with, onto the court was something conservatives were ready to go to battle for. We want to see an end to liberal judicial activism and nominees should be proud of their rulings and positions, not afraid of discussing them.

Perpetuating Stealth Sends a Bad Message to the Next Generation. What the president is saying, intentionally or not, with his nomination of Harriet Miers, is that if you are a law student or young in your career, and/or have any hope of vying for a federal judgeship or Supreme Court justice-ship, don't write anything that states your views; don't speak to anyone about your personal philosophy on anything remotely controversial. This is a horrible message to send to people. We need people to express their opinions and to fight for what they believe in. Suppressing that is unhealthy for the country and for the people with the opinions.

Others Are Better-Qualified. I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see that there are a huge number of people in the country, male and female, who are better qualified -- have a more "appropriate" resume -- for this position than Harriet Miers. Even the White House, when extolling Ms. Miers's virtues, seemed unable to come up with much more to cheer about besides the fact that she is an evangelical Christian and had worked with Meals on Wheels. In truth, she has run a large law firm in Texas and headed the Texas state bar. However, she is reported to have never practiced Constitutional Law, but was a corporate lawyer. She obviously has never judged before -- something others have ignored or minimized, but which I think is important. The polls before this nomination clearly indicated that people wanted the president to pick "the best person for the job," regardless of gender, race, etc. In short, if you were "hiring" a justice, given a list of candidates, would you choose Ms. Miers as "the best?"

She is a Crony. This may not seem like much, but it sets a bad precedent and looks very unprofessional. You don't nominate your buddies to positions at this level, especially when they come with guaranteed lifetime tenure. The Supreme Court is both the highest law in the land and its justices are there for life. If you want to make an argument that she's deserving, then nominate her for a federal judgeship in a circuit court. This is still a prestigious position and one of great authority. But the Supreme Court?? Come on.

The Liberals Like Her. When you get guys like Harry Reid saying they like your nominee, you know you're in trouble. Either that or you're brilliant beyond measure because you completely conned the guy. I like the president just fine, but I don't think he's one of these "insane brilliant" people who could pull that off. Add to that the fact that he met with Democrats -- consulting? -- before making the nomination and you make it look like Reid and the other nutty liberals actually signed off or even suggested Ms. Miers as the nominee. That is frightening and if true would also set a really bad precedent.

There are plenty of very prominent conservatives on both sides of this issue, so it's not a slam-dunk for either side. Here is a really interesting table of data about the discussion that sort of encapsulates all the arguments and the people making them. With confirmation hearings hoping to be done well before Thanksgiving, it should be an interesting next few weeks...

Stop the Hatred

Michelle Malkin, blogger extraordinaire, has a name for the leftist Bush-haters in this country: "Moonbats". And the more I see of them, the more appropriate I think that moniker is and the more disgusted I get. That the moonbats could get 100,000 people to an anti-you-name-it rally in Washington over the weekend is truly frightening.

The rally, which Michelle covers in photos and a few quotes, was also followed by numerous other bloggers. But the pictures tell the fastest story. Take a look at these on Michelle's main page. You've got a mass of people here who simply hate the president of the United States and will stop at nothing to bring him down. Sorry, no matter who the president is, this kind of thing is un-American.

You also get a sense of just how juvenile the whole "movement" is. "Castrate Cheney"?? "F--- the War"?? What are we, in fifth grade? These people are not just delusional, but moronic.

Activist mom Cindy Sheehan was there, and her vitriol just seems to get more and more harsh as the weeks go by. Weren't her 15 minutes up a month or so ago? At this point she is not only screaming about the war, but blaming the president for the damage in Louisiana from the hurricanes. Why does anyone still take her seriously?

Michelle's very next post described and linked to a video of Bill Maher, host of a Bush-hating talk show on HBO, making a joke about abused women and holding up a doctored photo of Laura Bush, looking like she had been beaten, and mentioning that the president had been drinking again. How does material like this even get uttered, much less on public airwaves? How can liberals think that this stuff is productive for them?

Protest things based on their merit. When you protest a war, have reasons for your opposition and express them to others in an effort to persuade them you are justified. Don't attack the people involved in that war personally; it's just unbecoming. And it does nothing to move your cause forward. It makes you look like a hateful fool and people remember this stuff.

Michael Yon's Latest: Gates of Fire

Michael Yon, freelance writer embedded with the U.S. Army 1-24thInfantry Battalion in Iraq, released his latest dispatch earlier today. Called "Gates of Fire," it lives up to Yon's standard brilliant writing and descriptions of the front lines in Iraq.

Here is a short excerpt of a car/helicopter chase of a trio of terrorists at over 100 mph. This is the chase that precedes an intense firefight that Yon describes afterward:

Kiowas are small, carrying just two people; they fly so low the two flying soldiers are practically infantrymen. The pilot swooped low and the "co-pilot" aimed his rifle at the Opel, firing three shots and blowing out the back window. The Kiowa swooped and banked hard in front of the car, firing three more shots through the front hood, the universal sign for "stop."

The car chase ended, but the men fled on foot up an alley. We approached in the Strykers and I heard Kurilla say on the radio, "Shots fired!" as he ducked for a moment then popped back up in the hatch. Kurilla continued, "Trail section clear the car and clear south to north! I'm going to block the back door on the north side!"About fifteen seconds later our ramp dropped. We ran into combat.

Please take ten minutes and read the entire dispatch, which details a firefight that shot up the unit's brave commander, Lt Col Kurilla, who Yon has written about many times. Yon has also included photos taken in the middle of the firefight, and his account of the action is nothing short of breathtaking. My heart was racing as I read it.


Then ask yourself (and maybe your local media) why this kind of reporting is not seen or heard in any other media outlets. Why do we only hear about body counts, evil American soldiers abusing prisoners, and poor, innocent men being held at Guantanamo Bay without trials? Why is the REAL support for our troops not reported on? Why do we instead have to suffer through endless Cindy Sheehan stories, or reports of anti-war protestors displaying mock coffins in front of Walter Reed Army Hospital (and our wounded troops)? Why are TRUE troop-support projects like Soldiers' Angels and Homes For Our Troops ignored, while phony support projects such as Code Pink and AirAmerica get all the coverage? Could it possibly be a liberal anti-war anti-military bias in the media?

Iraq: Liberal Media Bias vs Reality

As the weeks go by and the war in Iraq, and against terrorism, drags on, I find myself getting angrier and angrier at liberal bias in the mainstream media; and at the overall attitude toward the military by liberals. They claim to support the troops, yet they do whatever they can to undermine them and their mission.

Steven Bochco, creator of one of my favorite shows, "Hill Street Blues," has created a new show called "Over There". It is purportedly (I haven't watched it) set in Iraq and has a "Hill Street" feel to it: ensemble cast, gritty drama. Except these are soldiers, not cops. From what I hear, the show seems to be a great example of the mainstream media perpetuating the standard stereotypes about soldiers. Demeaning stereotypes such as "it's not really a volunteer army, it's a 'recruited' army and many of these soldiers came from broken homes and had no choice but to join"; that soldiers, in general, aren't all that bright; that soldiers do not support the war effort or their commanders. Good stuff like that.

In reality the liberals who perpetuate stuff like this probably do not know any people in the military, and have never really been exposed to it in real life. How else to explain their bizarre opinions of these heroic men and women who have volunteered to serve their country, putting their lives on the line every day?

Blogger Michael Fumento has written a piece on this show after having watched a few episodes. Michael is currently embedded in Iraq and has decades of military experience. The article is relatively short and I think illustrates well how the left in this country is really separated from mainstream thinking, and from reality.

For a real look at what's going on in Iraq and what kind of risks are willingly taking every day, real some military weblogs ("milblogs"). I have read a few and am looking for some to add to my list of regular reads. I stumbled into Michael Yon's blog this evening and found his story about taking down terrorists who tried to blow up a convoy he was in, riveting. Read it here. When I finished reading this particular dispatch, I found myself wondering just how long this blogger will survive in such an environment.

The contrast between the world portrayed by Bochco on TV, and the world in which Yon lives, could not be more stark. While they both claim to be describing the same place and the same conflict, the characters involved could not be more different.

The Dangers Of Liberal Bias
A few lines in Yon's latest piece really reminded me of how vocal liberals are endangering our troops and hurting the overall war effort. First, comments like the following remind me that liberals are being heard, even in Iraq:

I looked back to where we had been because the prisoner [the American soldiers always remind me that I should call prisoners "detainees"] was still there, handcuffed, and on his knees, with the radio transmitter lying beside him on the ground.

It seems harmless enough, but let's get real: "Detainees" is a non-judgemental word, while "prisoners" indicates they are being held for a reason. These are men who have been captured while attacking U.S. troops, trying to kill them. Why the concern for not hurting their feelings or judging them in even the simplest of ways? It gets worse. After the troops capture the guy who tried to blow them up, they cannot interrogate him properly and are offered help by the Iraqis; help which they have to reject, thanks to liberal pressure:

"Let him go and we will catch him again." But LTC Kurilla kept reiterating, “You know I can't give him to you. I might not agree with all the rules, but I must enforce them.""Give him to me, just for the night," the Chief said. "You can have him back tomorrow.""That I cannot do," Kurilla replied firmly. "If your police had been with us when we captured him, you could have him. But these are the rules."

In this case, no more troops were killed as a result of our inability to get the necessary information from this prisoner. Thank God. But it could easily have gone the other way, and the liberals who would prevent the army from letting the Iraqi police interrogate a prisoner to get the information they need to save lives, would be the first ones clamoring on the news for George Bush's head on a platter for killing our young soldiers (aka Cindy Sheehan), or reading the killed soldiers' names on national television (a la "Nightline").

Here is another comment, made in various forms to Yon by several soldiers:

Many quiet tears marked the true pain of the loss. A few soldiers wondered, Do people at home even care?

Indeed, Yon himself wonders this sometimes. Following an interview, he pondered this:

I walked back through the dark and did the radio interview by cell phone. During such interviews, I get the impression that people at home are losing faith in the effort, though we are winning. But at home they cannot see it, and when I said goodbye that time, I sat in the dark.

The message on Yon's blog and in other milblogs is that our soldiers are good at what they do, are proud to be serving and are loyal to our country and their commanders; and most importantly, that they are having a positive impact in Iraq. Yet you would never know it by the reports in the mainstream media. At a time when liberal college campuses are forbidding military recruiters on campus and liberal pundits can't stop talking about this "unelected" commander-in-chief having gone to war for no good reason, we need to start recognizing these people for who they are: enemies. They are endangering our soldiers with their ridiculous comments and campaigns. I, for one, have had just about enough. How about you?