I Am a Trench-Dwelling Dogface

by Charles

But I'm leaning more toward the Rebel Alliance than the Loyalists.  Ed Morrissey describes the three camps of conservatives regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers, putting himself in the Trench-Dwelling Dogface category:

Despite our normal support for the president, we Dogfaces fail to recognize George Bush's supposed brilliance in naming his personal lawyer to the bench, whatever Hugh Hewitt says. Even if Miers obviously has earned Bush's trust, she just as obviously has done nothing remarkable to earn the trust of conservatives; being a mover and shaker in the American Bar Association doesn't lend her much credibility among those who have watched that group get more and more politically activist in what we view as the wrong direction. Most of us have tired of the "trust me" approach. In short, we find ourselves with some sympathy for the Rebel Alliance.

However, we also see the realistic outcome of the bloody civil war that threatens to split the GOP over what clearly is a White House blunder -- one compounded by White House adviser Ed Gillespie's charging the Rebel Alliance with "sexism" at last week's meeting. With important mid-term elections next year and at least one more Supreme Court opening likely during Bush's term, we want to avoid a party schism that could make him a prematurely lame duck and hand the Democrats an opportunity to seize control of one or both houses of Congress.

It is undeniable that the undocumented and undistinguished Miers is a Bush crony, as Bill Kristol called her, and Bush's pleas of "trust me" fall on deaf ears because he signed the campaign finance reform bill even though he proclaimed that he thought it was unconstitutional.  This is defending and upholding the constitution?  George Will is right.  Far as I'm concerned, because he violated his oath of office (among other multiple missteps large and small), he has lost the trust of many conservatives, myself included.  Bush should have nominated a notable conservative jurist, not a Mystery Date.  Bill Kristol is also right that Miers should fall on her sword.  Supporting her may not give Hugh Hewitt indigestion, but it sure makes me queasy.

in

Comments

[vida]

Oh come on. James Dobson is fine with her, and he knows. He just can't tell. Its all secret - just him, Karl and Jesus.

[spartikus]

It seems strange to think of you as shrill, Charles. But nevertheless, the world is a strange place, and there you go. I suppose, too, you can no longer be considered nonpartisan, either.

[John Thullen]

" .. because he signed the campaign finance reform bill even though he proclaimed that he thought it was unconstitutional."

Yes, but don't you find ANY comfort in the fact that his proclamation had nothing to do with what he thought, if, in fact, he thought?

[Phil]

This is defending and upholding the constitution? George Will is right. Far as I'm concerned, because he violated his oath of office (among other multiple missteps large and small), he has lost the trust of many conservatives, myself included.

Er. . . isn't this grounds for impeachment?

[Edward_]

If Harry falls on her sword, which seems unlikley unless George tells her to, what are the repercussions for the next nominee? I mean, if that person is one of the groomed anti-Roe judges in waiting, we'll probably have a nuclear showdown, and all this hoopla over Harry has simply emboldened the Dems (not to mention the entertaining Scandal-a-day excitement that promises to proceed through Fitzgerald's conclusions and the Abramoff findings), so I can't see them backing down now (although they may have eventually backed down if Bush had nominated one of Pat B's Uruk-hai in the first place, now there seems a much better rationale for not doing so).

In other words, Harriet will have to be defeated at the hands of Republicans in broad daylight, which only seems fair to me.

[Paul]

If George Will is right, then I'll ask the same question I asked earlier: if George W. Bush forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution on March 27, 2002, what does that make of his decision to take the country to a disasterous war a year later? The act of a man already in violation of his oath of office?

[Dantheman]

"If George Will is right, then I'll ask the same question I asked earlier: if George W. Bush forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution on March 27, 2002, what does that make of his decision to take the country to a disasterous war a year later?"

And what does it mean when the same people decrying the President now went in for new lows in character assassination to get him reelected? (I'm thinking specifically of Krauthammer, but others spring to mind).

[Charles Bird]

what does that make of his decision to take the country to a disasterous war a year later?

The difference is that Bush made a case for removing Saddam based on the best available intelligence. He didn't say "trust me" on Iraq, Paul.

Er. . . isn't this grounds for impeachment?

Only if the House thinks Bush committed high crimes and misdemeanors in so doing, Phil.

I suppose, too, you can no longer be considered nonpartisan, either.

No longer? Ignorance must be bliss, spartikus.

[cleek]

He didn't say "trust me" on Iraq, Paul

the fnck he didn't.

[bob mcmanus]

"In other words, Harriet will have to be defeated at the hands of Republicans in broad daylight, which only seems fair to me."
...Edward

It is of interest,AFAIK, that the WH has not designated a "point man" Senator to push the nomination through, and has not sent Harriet, perhaps with an important companion like Cheney, to the Senate for the face-time their egos require. This was done immediately with Roberts in the person of Fred Thompson. I would never expect the chimp to understand that this needs be done, or even to notice it being done or omitted, but it has some possible implications.

1)That Miers is a "fake" candidate, meant by all to lose.
2)That this was Bush's personal decision, disapproved and unsupported by his closest advisors.
3)Some other filthy trich, e.g.,

I suggest that Democrats stay the hell away from this. If, for instance, she is confirmed on Democratic support and then in June Roe is overturned...I know about the vote count, but votes can change...the bases would be demoralized and energized in terrible ways.

As far as suggestions for Republicans in this time of soul-searching and crises of conscience, I suggest they all move to Costa Rica.

[Catsy]

He didn't say "trust me" on Iraq, Paul.

Er--yes, he did. And so did others in his administration. Vast reams of the evidence of Saddam's NBC programs boiled down to "trust me". This is why it was necessary for the administration to lean on the CIA and form their own stovepipe operation in order to gin up enough "intel" to support the allegations they had already made. It was a desperate search for ex post facto justification, and the entire time--during which experts and people who weren't buying the official line clearly pointed out how thin or nonexistent the case was--this administration kept saying "trust me".

You know this. That you persist in denying it even after the fact--when it must be obvious in retrospect to even the most blinkered Bush supporter, among which I do not count you--baffles me. There is no benefit, political or otherwise, to clinging to the absurd fantasy that we were taken to war on anything more than--at best--a promissory note of trust in the president. So why bother?

Only if the House thinks Bush committed high crimes and misdemeanors in so doing, Phil.

The question wasn't "will he be impeached". The question was "isn't that grounds for impeachment". The answer to this is less cut-and-dried. IANAL, but I suspect that violation of his oath of office, particularly on something as subjective as the passage of CFR, is not grounds for impeachment.

War crimes, however, are.

All of that said, I'm glad that your eyes are open on Bush's shortcomings. I would've liked for it to have been for the right reasons much earlier, but if it takes the nomination of an unqualified crony to the SCOTUS to break the camel's back, I'll take it.

[John Thullen]

Bob McManus:

What do you have against Costa Rica?

Certain Republicans should move to Iraq; others to Guatamala and El Salvador; I can see some performing sweat-shop labor in Micronesia; let's not leave out New Orleans, which at least looks like what some of them want the government-less rest of the country to look like.

Don Young of Alaska, for one, will be a refugee on that little island. Then we take a wrecking-ball to the bridge to nowhere and sink the ferries with overwhelming prejudice. He can take the heads of the slaughtered on his office walls with him.

He'll need to eat something.

[liberal japonicus]

Apologies in advance for this blasphemous observations, but...

I'm disappointed that Morrissey didn't suggest the three groups were indicative of the Trinity. The Loyalists are obviously the Old Testament God, telling people to toss up the son as an offering (He's right, you just don't question that!). The Rebel Alliance has to be the Son, upholding the new rules and suggesting that he sacrificed everything (Oh, the blood and sweat to get to this point) and the Dogfaces are obviously the Holy Spirit, who has everyone speaking in tongues so that no one knows what they are saying...

Drat, John Thullen and Bob McManus are here first. Maybe they would like to collaborate on casting for "Lost-The Republican version".

[Ugh]

It is of interest,AFAIK, that the WH has not designated a "point man" Senator to push the nomination through, and has not sent Harriet, perhaps with an important companion like Cheney, to the Senate for the face-time their egos require.

They did, former Senator Dan Coats.

[Paul]

The difference is that Bush made a case for removing Saddam based on the best available intelligence.

No, the difference is that by the next March, Bush was "re-constitutionalized" just in time to start a new project more appealing to his fans, similar to way someone becomes "re-virginized" if they go a year without sex. Therefore he was too a good and parfait knight when he invaded Iraq.

Hey, it's as plausible as your story, Charles.

At any rate, I don't think Will really believes Bush violated his oath of office--and I don't think you do, either. Talk is cheap. When George Bush wanted Bolton he got Bolton; if George Bush wants Miers badly enough, he'll get Miers and The Base will just have to suck it up.

[bob mcmanus]

"They did, former Senator Dan Coats."

I am in error. Incidentally, I have stated my objective opinion over at Crooked Timber, saying that Miers is a better choice than an aggressive movement intellectual. She can be "good cop" to Robert's "bad cop" and influence Souter and Kennedy with honey and cookies. If anyone would like to contend that Luttig would be a better politician on the court...but I suspect one more aggressive conservative Scalia would actually drive the court, in reaction, more to the left than Miers.

But often I think conservatives would rather be victims than actually achieving their aims. And they are all, of course, much smarter and wiser than the President.

[Anderson]

Charles: The difference is that Bush made a case for removing Saddam based on the best available intelligence. He didn't say "trust me" on Iraq, Paul.

Say WHAT???

I'm reading George Packer's Assassins' Gate, which I bought in hardcover based on his excellent N'Yawker articles. From page 62:

It didn't matter that there was no strong evidence to back up the doomsday prognosis. A possible medium- to long-term threat hd become a "grave and gathering danger." ...

The campaign of perssuasion proceeded by rhetorical hyperbole, by the deliberate slanting of ambiguous facts in one direction, and by a wink-and-nod suggestion that the administration knew more than it could reveal. Conflicting and inconclusive intelligence about Saddam's weapons programs was selected and highlighted for the worst-case analysis favored by the White House. A shipment of aluminum tubes that experts in the Department of Energy doubted could be used as centrifuges were, Condoleezza Rice asserted in a television interview, suitable for nothing else. ...

A group of civilians at the Pentagon under the direction of Douglas Feith and William Luti was culling through raw data on Saddam's possible ties to al-Qaeda in order to produce the desired result that the established intelligence community, including the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency, would not provide. ...

It was as if the administration were working around the clock to head off a nuclear Pearl Harbor and simultaneously prove that it was about to happen. One didn't need special expertise in the fields of intelligence or proliferation to smell something wrong. The administration had boxed itself in by deciding to go to war before it knew exactly why.

This is common knowledge, Charles.

[otmar]

Oh, the rest of the world was told in the run-up to the war "Who are you going to believe? The President of the United States or some brutal 3rd world dictator?".

Guess who turned out to be right concerning the WMD in Iraq?

The world has not forgotten.

[Charles Bird]

This is common knowledge, Charles.

I'll take the 9/11 and WMD reports over Packer, Anderson. Among other things, you had a CIA director saying the words "slam dunk" regarding WMDs to the president (so perhaps Bush believed Tenet's "trust me" statements), and you had an Office of Special Plans that should never have existed, and you had CIA analysts getting much more face time with relevant officials than scientists when it came to aluminum tubes. The cases made may have been wrong, but they existed, flawed though the intelligence and communications were.

[spartikus]

you had an Office of Special Plans that should never have existed

Yes. And who set that up, and why? It's quite clear now - and then - that it was the best intelligence to make the case for the pre-chosen policy, rather than the best intelligence to provide an accurate picture.

[Edward_]

Among other things, you had a CIA director saying the words "slam dunk" regarding WMDs to the president (so perhaps Bush believed Tenet's "trust me" statements),

whzzzzzzzzzzzz....there goes that buck again.

Come on, Charles.

Yes it's true a President is only as good at his job as the information he's given, but do you still believe that Bush wasn't looking for justifications for an action he was dead-set on taking one way or the other? Still?

[spartikus]

Well...on reflection, perhaps Mr. Bird has a point.

And perhaps Harriet Miers was the best conservative judge the President could choose.

With the information he was given.

[Barry]

Charles, why do you even bother, at this late date?

George gave Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom, didn't he? Odd thing, to give to a man who had allegedly deceived him.

[Opus]

back to the actual topic of the post...

If Miers is a Real Nominee and not participating in some sort of shell game, then my question is: why did she say yes? Does she really believe she is qualified? Does she really believe in the President's "brilliance" so much that if he says she's the person for the job, then she must be?

In either case, that's enough to disqualify her right there.

[CaseyL]

That's a good question, Opus.

My first take was, "Well, who wouldn't want to be a SCOTUS Justice? Hey, I'd take the job if it was offered!"

Then I thought about why I wouldn't, and the answer came down to "I'm not qualified. Even if I had the best intentions, and an honest determination to be a wise, fair, thoughtful Justice, I just don't have the background or the training. I'm as likely to do damage as not, and I sure don't want to bet the country that I won't."

And since I'm not regarded as a particularly humble person, I don't think admitting I'm not qualified is unduly modest.

It doesn't seem as if a similar thought process entered Miers' head. So what was she thinking?

I can't answer that with any reasonable certainty, since I don't know Miers. But I can hazard a few guesses.

One, she has certain ideological/religous viewpoints and she wants a chance to make them into law. She wants, in other words, to legislate from the bench.

Two, she's ambitious and regards SCOTUS as a really good job move. From middling attorney to SCOTUS Justice is quite a coup.

Three, she regards the world as Bush does: someplace where favors are done and returned. A SCOTUS appointment is just another favor - one she can return, too, by protecting Bush from the consequences of his MalAdministration.

My best guess is Number Three.

Times like this I wish Senate confirmation hearings were a little more like job interviews. In job interviews, people are asked why they want the job, and what assets they believe they bring to it. Her answers would be interesting, don't you think?

[Catsy]

There is a truly Red Queen quality to the about-face that the Republican talking points about the CIA's intel on Iraq took once it became clear that Saddam's NBC programs were smoke and vapor.

For those with memories, the standard line in the run-up to the war was that the CIA was too hesitant, too wary of making conclusive judgments about Iraq's WMDs. The CIA, then, was an obstacle, not an asset, was widely derided by the right as too cautious, particularly when people pointed at the vagueness and uncertainty in their reports on Iraq.

Later, after the WMD justifications collapsed like a house of cards, the talking points switched overnight. As in literally; you could watch it happening. Suddenly the CIA had been purveyors of bad intel, and were guilty of making definite statements where the facts only supported ambiguity.

That some still cling to the post facto fabrications in the face of all evidence is nothing less than amazing. And not a little bit pathetic.

[CharleyCarp]

I can't believe anyone think she's not the real nominee. Then again, this may not be their real thought, but might just be a placeholder position designed to draw opponents into some kind of weird mental ambush . . .

I've got better things to do than worry about than this anyway, having started Gary Wills' new book Henry Adams and the Making of America. With Judge Sewall's Apology on deck (I'm a fifth of the way in, actually, but Wills just preempts).

[NeoDude]

Once again, Bush is the white O.J. Simpson.

[NeoDude]

Bird just reminded me of some folks I know who are convinced of OJ's innocence, even when most folks in the community no longer believe it.

[dmbeaster]

The difference is that Bush made a case for removing Saddam based on the best available intelligence. He didn't say "trust me" on Iraq, Paul.

There is a typo here... "intelligence" should have been "disinformation." That was the whole point of the Feith based intel service in the Pentagon. And having fraudulently spun the intelligence to fit the policy, the case for war was based entirely on "trust me."

Charles -- catsy said it best That some still cling to the post facto fabrications in the face of all evidence is nothing less than amazing. And not a little bit pathetic.

[dmbeaster]

To return to the theme of this post, it seems to make this self-revealing point -- that Charles will support obviously bad policy and decision-making by Bush in the name of party loyalty.

Well, at least the post has that degree of intellectual honesty -- admitting that partisanship trumps intellectual honesty.

[Jesurgislac]

Heh.

(It's an Amazon review. Click the link before Amazon notices it's there...)

[Charles Bird]

Yes it's true a President is only as good at his job as the information he's given, but do you still believe that Bush wasn't looking for justifications for an action he was dead-set on taking one way or the other? Still?

I believe that Bush and administration officials believed the intelligence on WMDs. So did a whole host of others. That was the nut of the WMD report. That, and the intelligence failures. The conclusions are there for anyone to see.

This failure was in large part the result of analytical shortcomings; intelligence analysts were too wedded to their assumptions about Saddam's intentions. But it was also a failure on the part of those who collect intelligence--CIA's and the Defense Intelligence Agency 's (DIA) spies, the National Security Agency 's (NSA) eavesdroppers, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 's (NGA) imagery experts.1 In the end, those agencies collected precious little intelligence for the analysts to analyze, and much of what they did collect was either worthless or misleading. Finally, it was a failure to communicate effectively with policymakers; the Intelligence Community didn't adequately explain just how little good intelligence it had--or how much its assessments were driven by assumptions and inferences rather than concrete evidence.

But I guess the facts are just "post-facto fabrications". Whatever. Tenet resigned not long after the report was released, and his face-saving medal didn't save his face.

[Charles Bird]

My mistake. Tenet resigned just prior to the release of the 9/11 Commission report.

[Anarch]

But I guess the facts are just "post-facto fabrications". Whatever.

This would be the same commission whose mandate forbade them from even considering whether the intelligence had been politicized, yes? [In fact, IIRC it was explicitly declared during one of the early sessions that no questions concerning political pressure applied to the Executive branch were legitimate, period.] So, well, you'll forgive me if I tend to be less than impressed by the results of the commission in that regard.

Aside: I vividly recall an article, possibly by Sy Hersh, that detailed how, precisely, the "aluminum tubes" got into the SOTU; specifically that one particular scientist at Oak Ridge, I think, protested loudly enough to get heard by Scooter Libby and thereby get his otherwise-inconsequential views considered "mainstream". I lost the link when I reformatted my hard-drive, however; anyone know what I'm talking about?

[Anarch]

Found what I think is the article in question. It's WaPo (Gellman/Pincus) not Hersh, which explains why it took so long to find.

And while we're at it, this is as comprehensive a resource I've seen on the veracity of the "facts" to which Charles alludes, incorporating a number of the DSM into the timeline.

[Jesurgislac]

it seems to make this self-revealing point -- that Charles will support obviously bad policy and decision-making by Bush in the name of party loyalty.

And Roscius was an actor in Rome. Buzz, buzz!

[hilzoy]

Anarch: based on your description, is this it?

[Catsy]

If I formed a Senate commission to investigate what makes water flow downhill, but forbade them to consider anything to do with gravity, the Water Commission might well conclude that the wind blows it downhill. But that wouldn't make it so.

I guess at least we've narrowed down what it takes for Charles to stop carrying water for the worst president ever. Exploit 9/11 for political gain? A-OK. Twist vague intelligence reports in order to justify a war he'd already decided to start? Just fine. Blame both on the CIA? Sure, the buck stops anywhere but with a Republican. Violating his oath of office and signing legislation he's already declared to be unconstitutional? Not happy, but we'll make pro forma noises and still vote for him. Forever consign the myth of Republican fiscal responsibility to the world of fantasy while mortgaging our children's future? Unhappy, but just wait for the payoff when the SCOTUS opens up.

Failing to appoint to the SCOTUS someone who's clearly enough hard right? DING!

I mean, come on--after five years of watching Bush appoint unqualified cronies to key positions in Iraq and at home, with nary a word until this poor judgement put New Orleans underwater and helped kill thousands of people who weren't Iraqis, you expect me to believe that you've suddenly developed standards about this? Particularly when you're still shilling for Bush on the same things most thinking people have already realized he lied about?

This isn't about cronyism, except insofar as the sheer obviousness of it in Miers's case is a political liability for Republicans. This isn't about her qualifications, not after you watched dozens of equally unqualified or loony appointees get sent up without a peep.

This is about the Supreme Court, and the remaking thereof. This is about the decades-long conservative fantasy of dominating the Supreme Court so that the perceived dominance of liberal judicial activism can be replaced with thinly veiled conservative judicial activism. This is about Bush appointing someone to the SCOTUS that you and those like you can't be sure isn't a Souter.

In other words, this is politics, not principle.

[Anderson]

Charles, obviously the Senate investigation was designed to exonerate Bush. Otherwise, why first "defer" the part about White House pressure until after the election, and then decide that we won't be looking into that after all?

You don't like Packer, try Hersh (or do we have to come up with something by Hugh Hewitt to persuade you?):

The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic--and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.

“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”

Hence Packer's Pearl Harbor example.

The Administration eventually got its way, a former C.I.A. official said. “The analysts at the C.I.A. were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenet”--the C.I.A. director--“for not protecting them. I’ve never seen a government like this.” * * *

As the campaign against Iraq intensified, a former aide to Cheney told me, the Vice-President’s office, run by his chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, became increasingly secretive when it came to intelligence about Iraq’s W.M.D.s. As with Wolfowitz and Bolton, there was a reluctance to let the military and civilian analysts on the staff vet intelligence.

“It was an unbelievably closed and small group,” the former aide told me. Intelligence procedures were far more open during the Clinton Administration, he said, and professional staff members had been far more involved in assessing and evaluating the most sensitive data. “There’s so much intelligence out there that it’s easy to pick and choose your case,” the former aide told me. “It opens things up to cherry-picking.”

Note that when you exclude "military" AND "civilian," you're left with who weighing the evidence? Politicians, that's who.

Senior C.I.A. analysts dealing with Iraq were constantly being urged by the Vice-President’s office to provide worst-case assessments on Iraqi weapons issues. “They got pounded on, day after day,” one senior Bush Administration official told me, and received no consistent backup from Tenet and his senior staff. “Pretty soon you say ‘Fuck it.’ ” And they began to provide the intelligence that was wanted.

Wouldn't want to investigate that, would we?

Charles, every bit of evidence has tended to prove that Bush/Cheney (1) decided to go to war and then (2) looked for an excuse. They were pounding the Iraq war hours after 9/11. We appear to have deliberately impeded our efforts to nail Osama in order to avoid any troublesome casualties that could jeopardize an Iraq war in the eyes of the public.

If all you have on your side is a whitewash by Republican senators, don't you see the problem? Really? Come on now. We're not talking "irrational Bush hatred." Even Hersh concedes they weren't intentionally lying. They were just breathtakingly incompetent. Is that so unbelievable???

[Charles Bird]

Aside: I vividly recall an article, possibly by Sy Hersh, that detailed how, precisely, the "aluminum tubes" got into the SOTU; specifically that one particular scientist at Oak Ridge, I think, protested loudly enough to get heard by Scooter Libby and thereby get his otherwise-inconsequential views considered "mainstream". I lost the link when I reformatted my hard-drive, however; anyone know what I'm talking about?

Yes, I wrote about it here, Anarch.

If I formed a Senate commission to investigate what makes water flow downhill, but forbade them to consider anything to do with gravity, the Water Commission might well conclude that the wind blows it downhill. But that wouldn't make it so.

Catsy, the commission was bipartisan. Just because you don't like the result, doesn't mean it was a whitewash or what have you. The Senate Intelligence Committe (equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats) came to similar conclusions, and Duelfer added perspective as well.

Exploit 9/11 for political gain?

Which politician didn't?

with nary a word until this poor judgement put New Orleans underwater and helped kill thousands of people who weren't Iraqis, you expect me to believe that you've suddenly developed standards about this?

Nary a word? Catsy, you're writing ignorantly.

If all you have on your side is a whitewash by Republican senators, don't you see the problem? Really? Come on now. We're not talking "irrational Bush hatred." Even Hersh concedes they weren't intentionally lying. They were just breathtakingly incompetent. Is that so unbelievable???

Anderson, the Senate Intelligence Committee is bipartisan by its very makeup, and so was the WMD report. I do agree that there was breathtaking incompetence.

[Catsy]

Catsy, the commission was bipartisan.

Which is all well and good, but irrelevant to the fact that they were barred from examining the question of the White House's involvement in massaging the intelligence and leaning on the CIA. Which makes your claims that it exonerates the White House of precisely those things less than credible.

Nary a word? Catsy, you're writing ignorantly.

I think not. Show me words written by you prior to Katrina in which you take umbrage with the Bush administration for its practice of relentlessly doling out positions to unqualified people who have the right ideology or connections. I think you might've said something un-nice about Bolton once or twice. I'm fair certain I'd never seen you talk down a Bush crony until their stock had already fallen, not until Katrina blew Bush cronyism wide open and it became not only safe but fashionable to trash-talk "Brownie".

Point me at a link or two, though, and I'll retract what I said with a smile. So certain are you of my ignorance that you must have one in mind.

[Charles Bird]

Show me words written by you prior to Katrina in which you take umbrage with the Bush administration for its practice of relentlessly doling out positions to unqualified people who have the right ideology or connections.

Yours is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. Since you can't prove your earlier statements that I'm a "blinkered Bush supporter" or an unapologetic water carrier for the administration, now you're trying to narrow your argument down to making me prove that I haven't criticized his selection of appointees. Yet I'm the dishonest one, no? The only appointee I recall writing a post about was Bolton. Oh, and opining that Rumsfeld should resign or be fired. Same with Michael Brown, shortly after Bush's "Brownie" reference. There may have been other incompetent appointees whom I've written about, but I can't remember. Since I'm not your dogsbody, you can look it up yourself.

[Catsy]

Yours is a perfect example of moving the goalposts.

Hardly, but I appreciate the observation from a master of the art.

Since you can't prove your earlier statements that I'm a "blinkered Bush supporter" or an unapologetic water carrier for the administration, now you're trying to narrow your argument down to making me prove that I haven't criticized his selection of appointees.

Which only suggests, again, that you didn't read what I wrote for comprehension, only for the ability to write a rejoinder. Either that, or you're confusing the lines of discussion about cronyism with the earlier line of discussion about WMDs and Tenet. I didn't narrow anything, I reiterated the substance of my criticism. To wit:

I mean, come on--after five years of watching Bush appoint unqualified cronies to key positions in Iraq and at home, with nary a word until this poor judgement put New Orleans underwater and helped kill thousands of people who weren't Iraqis, you expect me to believe that you've suddenly developed standards about this?

Note here the focus of my criticism, bolded for your convenience.

Charles: Nary a word? Catsy, you're writing ignorantly.

Note, in case you've forgotten, the criticism of mine to which you were responding.

Catsy: I think not. Show me words written by you prior to Katrina in which you take umbrage with the Bush administration for its practice of relentlessly doling out positions to unqualified people who have the right ideology or connections.

Note, fascinatingly, how my response stays on-target. In this entire thread of argument, my point has been that I do not believe your opposition to Miers is principled--that is, based on her qualifications--because I have watched you give a pass to every other example of raw cronyism in the Bush admin until it killed Americans during Katrina. And yet you respond:

Yours is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. Since you can't prove your earlier statements that I'm a "blinkered Bush supporter" or an unapologetic water carrier for the administration, now you're trying to narrow your argument down to making me prove that I haven't criticized his selection of appointees. Yet I'm the dishonest one, no?

Either deeply dishonest, or lacking in reading comprehension. You quote me calling you a "blinkered Bush supporter", but I actually said the opposite:

That you persist in denying it even after the fact--when it must be obvious in retrospect to even the most blinkered Bush supporter, among which I do not count you--baffles me.

Now if you care to respond to the challenge I laid out, kindly go back and first review what was actually said. I've wasted enough of my time.