War, Not Candyland

Some Republican senators are calling “for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.” WHAT!?!

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 – In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.

Well, it just doesn’t get any stupider than that. Why do we need legislation to tell the Iraqis what to do? Bush laying out the stragety is just retarted anyway. I mean, sure, a general overview is nice and has been given time and time again without much notice from those who should take notice.

It seems like congress is all about letting our enemy get one up on us. You don’t tell your enemy what your plans are in a war, that’s just how it works. Do they expect our enemy not to act on this information? “Now, we’re going to set a withdrawl strategy, but you can’t use this information against us.” I don’t think that’ll work, though they may believe that’s how it’ll work. Since when are our senators flat out pussies willing to cop-out so easily? And those detainees are not american citizens. They should not be allowed access to our federal court system. They should be held until it’s proven they hold no threat the the U.S. and our allies. We’re at war, this isn’t a fucking game of candyland.

Scott at ScrappleFace feels basically the same way. Zarqawi is gonna be happy about this! Scott is right, I mean, we might as well ask for Zarqawi’s input on this. While we’re at it we should probably just let the paris riots continue un-hindered. What do we gotta lose?

Others blogging include Michelle Malkin, Right Wing Nuthouse and Hugh Hewitt. Donklephant says this is a good thing, basically how Kerry said he would have handled the situation, minus the U.N. and quarterly senate reports. I’m all for letting the Iraqi citizens take total control of their country, just not yet. We have to make sure they’re 100% ready or we’ll be right back in the same place we were 5 years ago. We’ve started down this line and we need to follow through, there’s no going back.

UPDATE: Looks like Bush won’t be forced to divulge future war plans. Instead, 2006 “should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty.” From the AP via Yahoo News:

On the question of a timetable for troop withdrawal, senators rejected the Democrats’ proposal by 58-40. Democratic leaders had advanced the measure in the wake of declining public support for a conflict that has claimed more than 2,000 U.S. lives and cost more than $200 billion.

Republicans countered with their own nonbinding alternative that the Senate approved on a 79-19 vote. Five Democrats sided with the majority party.

Instead of calling for a withdrawal timetable, the GOP provision urged that 2006 “should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty,” with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces.

Hey, Detainee! Gimme Those Rights!

The Senate has voted 49 to 42 on an amendment to a military budget bill that will strip some rights currently retained by detainees. These detainees are detainees for a reason, they shouldn’t get rights the average prisoner gets. From the NYT:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 – The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured “enemy combatants” at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.

The vote, 49 to 42, on an amendment to a military budget bill by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, comes at a time of intense debate over the government’s treatment of prisoners in American custody worldwide, and just days after the Senate passed a measure by Senator John McCain banning abusive treatment of them.

If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered the measure but where passage is considered likely, the law would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions in court.


What the hell? It’s more upsetting to me that these criminals have these sorts of rights. Gotta love sucking up to the enemy. And from WAPO:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he also faces some resistance from Senate colleagues and the White House as he considers whether to try attaching his proposal to a defense bill the Senate is debating this week. Senators could vote on the proposal as early as Thursday.

“What I object to is criminalizing the war. Enemy combatants, POWs have never had access to federal court before,” said Graham, a 20-year Air Force lawyer.

Well put Senator Graham. It only makes sense that we shouldn’t allow the enemy access to our federal court system. They have no place being there, their place is in prison. No doubt the ACLU will throw a fit. Many liberal bloggers are already whining and crying for the rights of these criminals and murders. Before we know it we’ll be forced to grant these people citizenship within the United States. I’m sure the ACLU would be happy with that.

We’re at war. Allowing prisoners, who are fighting for the opposing side, to appeal their cases is totally bogus and goes against all basic logic.

Others blogging:
Michelle Malkin
Stop the ACLU
Say Anything

Linked at The Political Teen and Mudville Gazette.

Samuel Alito new SCOTUS Nominee

Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to the supreme court. Many thought Alito would have been the nominee to replace Rehnquist, but that went to John Roberts. Various individuals appearing on Fox News yesterday threw Alito’s name out there, expecting him to be the new nominee to replace Sandra Day O’Conner. They liked comparing him to John Roberts.

Alito is a federal judge in New Jersey and a well established conservative. Too conservative for some probably. His stances on various issues are more well known than Miers were, hopefully he’ll have an easier ride than Harriet Miers had.

I expect he won’t have many troubles along the path to the SCOTUS. Could be a little sluggish in the Senate, but what isn’t? Overall, I’m happy with Alito as the new nominee.

Outside the Beltway has some early takes on Alito. California Conservative says “Confirm Judge Alito.” Iowa Voice “can live with this”, although he’d rather see Janice Rogers Brown be the nominee. The Political Teen was hoping for a Brown nomination too. Of course, Stop the ACLU is pleased because Alito has ruled against the ACLU in the past.

Other blogs with something to say:
Blogs for Bush
Conservative Cat
Wizbang
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Confirm Them
SCOTUS Blog

Miers Withdrawls

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court this morning. No doubt lots of people from both sides of center will be pleased with this news. I personally didn’t have an opinion one way or the other about Miers. She probably could have done a very good job filling the open SCOTUS seat. From the Washington Post:

Harriet Miers withdrew this morning as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In announcing the decision, Miers and President Bush cited their concern with the requests of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for documents dealing with her work as White House Counsel that the administration has chosen to withhold as privileged.

But the Miers nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was in deep trouble, with little support in the Senate, open criticism from many Senators of both parties, and an outpouring of opposition from conservative activists and intellectuals.

Miers told the president in a letter of withdrawal that she was “concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interests of the country.”

Bush responded that he was “reluctantly” accepting the decision.

In the long run, it’s probably good she withdrew. She was obviously someone that not many people seemed to be able to agree with on any issue. She caused enough controversy just being herself, not sure she’d work out so well had she gotten the job. Michelle Malkin, Outside The Beltway, and SCOTUSblog have more.

Others blogging include TMH’s Bacon Bits, Cao’s Blog, Stop the ACLU, Iowa Voice, GOP and the City, and A North American Patriot. Euphoric Reality has a nice collection of links.

Harriet Miers

I woke up just in time to see Bush announcing his nomination for the next SCOTUS position yesterday morning. I was still pretty groggy so I didn’t really gather that much from it.

I haven’t really read much about her yet, she looks to be a pretty nice lady though. Lastnight, I was watching FoxNews for a little bit. Someone was bitching because Harriet Miers is a “total unknown”. “Total unknown” is a little extreme I think, considering that googling her name yielded 60,000+ results not long after Bush had made the announcement.

Just goes to show that Bush can’t please anyone, no matter what he does. Had he nominated Jesus H. Christ himself, people would have bitched, mostly the religious right probably. I’m not just talking about the left here, I’m talkin everyone that has their own little agendas that don’t help our country at all.

Miers was a former lawyer for Microsoft. She basically protected them from various class action lawsuits. Also, she’s pro-life. I can already tell I’m not gonna like this lady. She helped Microsoft retain their monopoly. She doesn’t think grown women are able to make their own decisions that affect their own bodies.

She may not take that stance publically, but that’s the impression I get from what she’s been found to do in the past. Maybe I’m totally off and she’s really just that Rachel Dratch lady from SNL.

Stephen Bainbridge thinks she’s a B+ pick and the Supreme Court deserves an A+ pick. He couldn’t be more right. Sean at The American Mind thinks there’s just not enough known about her at this moment, kinda like the position we were in with Roberts.

And the Political Teen has an open trackback post.