Once More Round The Horn About That Miers Person

At the risk of sounding a little paranoid, here's a scenario. Say Miers makes it to the Supremes. What happens if, in a few years, a gigantic case or two relating to the activities of Bush I or II while in office come down the pike? The Bush clan are major players in the international development scene, and have been involved in a bushel of morally and ethically dubious and legally questionable enterprises, along with their not-as-erstwhile-as-might-be-hoped friends the Sauds and the like. What if --- what if -- and I'm just saying, something real ugly comes to light and the case makes it all the way to the big leagues.

Would close personal friend and leader of the fanclub Miers recuse herself? Would she not? Is it possible that W doesn't care what constitutional crises he might be flirting with? Does this help explain some of the reasoning behind this pick?

Reading it back, that sounds uncomfortably like Kossite Kool-Ade, but bless my timid fencesitting soul, that's where my head is going when I think about the implications of this nomination. All the more reason that a crony, no matter how qualified, august and Solomonic they may be, are not suitable candidates for the SCOTUS.

[wik] Speaking of... can anybody please recollect for me why exactly Bush I chose to take out Manuel Noriega? What act of belligerence against the United States or its treaty-bound allies triggered that invasion?

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 10

§ 10 Comments

1

I seem to remember at something to do with drugs and money laundering. Thankfully, we didn't do too much damage to the country in the process of removing him.

The guy was a scumbag, but I can't recall if there were other issues.

2

Riiight. Y'know, I'm not cool with that. Drugs and money laundering is like half the world, and to step in and smack someone just because he's the drug-and-laundry scumbag who privatized the banana company, or shut down a big dam for Bechtel (to take two plausible examples of national projects) ain't right. I've been rethinking recently Bush I's legacy to the world, and coming up on the "not a fan" side.

4

No, NDR, two guys meeting at a bar to watch a baseball game got a "man date." Bush has a razor-thin majority and, in the Democratic leadership, a nemesis only slightly less inept than the Keystone Kops and only slightly smarter (collectively) than Kato Kaelin.

5

Bush I's major legacy was a tax increase and an unfinished war in the Gulf. Oh, and the deployment to Somalia that led to Mogadishu and two posthumous medal of honor winners.

He seemed unaware of the recession, and was unwilling to put in place the typical conservative responses to one.

And despite this, he still had pretty good approval ratings at the end of his term. If he hadn't run a sleepwalker campaign he might still have won the election. Even with that, he still would have won had not Perot stuck his bat like ears into the race.

Bush I was no better than average, but on the flip side was no worse than average. If not for the Gulf War and its historical importance, he would likely go down in history about as important as Millard Fillmore.

And NDR, what does W's clear and convincing mandate have to do with his father's administration?

7

B--

Nothing at all. However, Johno's post is not solely concerned with Bush I, and my comments were obviously addressed to other issues about which Johno wrote. Hopefully I gave him a smile.

8

Hopefully, indeed. But seeing as you gave a smile to this rock-hearted conservative, I imagine you succeeded with squishy-liberal Johno.

Even I don't think a 5% advantage in the electorate is any kind of mandate. A win, certainly; but not a mandate.

10

In addition to the items B mentioned, as I recall it, Noriega stopped taking "direction" from the various arms of the US gubmint, and wore out his welcome rather quickly.

For the record, I'm just fine with that, and not just because he also has the worst case of acne scarring since Britney Spears.

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]