Captain's Quarters -

It appears that Islamists have chosen the popular resort destination of Bali once again as a target for terrorist attacks. A series of explosions have left at least eight people dead, including tourists, in the Indonesian area:

Bombs exploded almost simultaneously Saturday in two tourist areas of the Indonesian resort island of Bali, killing at least eight people and wounding 13 others, police and hospital officials said.

The victims included foreign tourists.

The blasts at Jimbaran beach and a bustling outdoor shopping center in downtown Kuta "were clearly the work of terrorists," police Maj. Gen. Ansyaad Mbai, a top Indonesian anti-terrorism official, told The Associated Press.

Other reports quote higher casualty figures, but none provide solid links yet. I will update as this becomes clearer. It also may not yet be over -- some of these reports imply more than two attacks.

It has the earmarks of al-Qaeda operations, which usually pinpoint the primary economic infrastructure of a target. In the US, that meant NYC and the World Trade Center, an objective that they tried twice to destroy. The original Bali attacks in October 2002 resulted in the deaths of over 200 people, mainly Australian tourists. The mastermind behind the Jemaah Islamiyah group responsible for the first Bali bombings only received 30 months behind bars for his part in 202 murders, although the operational leader had already gotten a death sentence.

Once again, we see that the Islamofascists have bravely taken on unarmed civilians, including women and children, in order to further their political and religious goals -- and that Muslims will once again suffer the brunt of the consequences of their actions, as Bali will lose even more of its luster as a tourist resort. Maybe this will get Indonesia to take people like Abu Bakar Bashir more seriously.

UPDATE: The BBC reports three bombs now, with nine dead.

Security forces in Afghanistan arrested a Taliban commander wanted in the string of bombings that unsuccessfully attempted to derail elections in the newly liberated and democratic nation. Gafar attempted to hide in plain sight from the American and Afghani soldiers who rooted him out:

U.S. and Afghan forces arrested a Taliban commander suspected in bomb attacks against coalition forces during a raid on central Afghanistan home, where he tried to conceal his identity by dressing as a woman, police said Saturday.

The commander, known as Gafar, was arrested Wednesday in Andar district of Ghazni province, southwest of the capital, Kabul.

A U.S. military statement said he was a "key enemy commander" behind attacks on Afghan and U.S. forces in the province carried out with homemade bombs, rockets and small-caliber handguns. ...

During the raid, the suspect tried to conceal his identity by dressing as a woman with a veil and sitting with other women in the house, Sarjang said.

A moment of gender equality from the Taliban! Will wonders never cease? One has to wonder what his former followers must think about Gafar's choice of subterfuge, and of its efficacy. For a group as fanatical about keeping women covered up from prying male eyes, they won't be pleased with its implications. Gafar has now made it a requirement for security forces to check under the veils of Afghani women to do a Y-chromosome check.

US forces now have Gafar for questioning. Perhaps they can soften him up by playing old Poison records and having him watch Some Like It Hot until he cracks.

NOTE: I was going to suggest To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar, but I think that might be a specific violation of the Geneva Convention.

Local elections in the West Bank produced results quirky enough for both Fatah and Hamas to claim victories in the 104 municipalities polling yesterday. Even the media coverage seems confused, as the New York Times suggests that the results favor Hamas while the Washington Post argues the opposite. The difference between the two comes from the lack of representation for Hamas in many of the elections, while Fatah had candidates in all localities.

The Post's Scott Wilson takes the macro view:

The Palestinians' ruling Fatah movement won a majority on 51 municipal councils in elections held Thursday in 104 West Bank towns and villages, according to official results scheduled to be released Saturday that show the rival Hamas movement taking clear control of 13 councils.

Thursday's vote was the third round of municipal elections in the Palestinian territories. Voting in the Gaza Strip, where Israel recently ended its 38-year presence, was postponed to give election officials more time to prepare ballots.

In total, Fatah won 54 percent of the municipal seats, while Hamas, formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, won 26 percent. The remaining seats were won by several smaller secular parties and independent candidates, leaving 40 councils without a clear majority party. Fatah and Hamas could increase the number of councils in their control by forming coalitions with the smaller parties in the weeks ahead.

Wilson gets this correct as far as he goes, but it has to be somewhat disappointing for Fatah that it couldn't control a majority of the councils when Hamas didn't field candidates in a significant number of communities. Given that Fatah claims a voter turnout of around 85 percent, this appears to give Mahmoud Abbas a less-than-stirring boost of confidence going into the delayed parliamentary elections.

The New York Times takes the more nuanced view of the election, noting that Hamas does pretty well for an underrepresented party:

The elections, the third of four rounds of local votes, encompassed about 10 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the largest cities still to vote.

Preliminary tallies show that the main Fatah faction of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, rebounded slightly from earlier rounds of voting, taking 54 percent. Hamas, which is considered a terrorist group by the United States, took about 26 percent, a strong showing in the West Bank, where it has been historically weaker than it has in Gaza.

Fatah appears to have won majority control of 61 of the 104 councils, while Hamas appears to have won 28 of them. Voter turnout was about 85 percent, according to the Palestinian Election Commission. ... Complicating the analysis, Hamas had candidates running in only 56 councils, meaning that it won half of the council races it entered.

That success rate of 50% outstrips that of Fatah, which presents a real problem for Abbas. If Hamas can launch itself as a national party, it could easily beat Fatah in a fair election -- a demonstration of the Palestinian desire for total war against Israel. Abbas will find himself out of power and living at the whim of a militant organization bent on genocide, hardly the kind of political "party" that engages its opposition with anything but bombs and bullets. Abbas will have to choose between corruption and tyranny, thanks to the Palestinian electorate which his organization has poisoned for decades with anti-Semitic and anti-Western propaganda.

The irony of Yasser Arafat's partner in terrorism slowly getting hoist on his own petard would be delicious if it weren't for the terrible consequences it will cause. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Hamas appears to have the true sense of the Palestinian people -- they want all-out war, and they have no idea how close they are to getting their wish.

UPDATE: Hamas won't challenge the election results, although they criticize Fatah's analysis of their meaning. Meanwhile, Brant at SWLiP wonders when the Pali Party has finally hit Last Call.

The blogosphere and talk radio have pulled apart the unfortunate two minutes of Bill Bennett's "Morning In America" broadcast in which he attempted a clumsy reductio ad absurdum argument involving a hypothesis about aborting all black babies. Most of the commentary has predictably been inflammatory, although Matthew Yglesias, Brad DeLong, Jeff Goldstein, and Dafydd ab Hugh all offer excellent analyses of Bennett's commentaries.

When one looks at the entire context of the remarks made by Bennett in discussing the Freakanomics argument that three decades of abortion lowered violent crime in America (an argument that suffers by the fact of the violent death of 43 million feti, wouldn't one think?), it should be obvious to reasonable people that Bennett neither argues for aborting black babies nor does he agree with the Leavitt and Dubner hypothesis. Anyone who spends time with Bennett, either listening to his radio show or reading his works, knows that Bennett is no racist.

However, he makes one mistake in his reductio ad absurdum argument that he should have avoided, one which gives fuel to the entire argument: he assumed that lowering the African-American population would result in a lower crime rate, without any other conditions being met. Here's Bennett's statement:

But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

Do we know that the crime rate would go down, any more than if we aborted every white baby in America? No, we do not, and that mistaken assumption creates the much smaller but legitimate criticism of Bennett's remarks. At the heart of that assertion, Bennett has to assume that all other things being equal, blacks are more likely to commit crime than non-blacks as part of their innate nature, and not as part of an environment.

First mistake: using blacks as an example. Had he said "poor", he would have been much closer to the mark. The poor do not have an innate compulsion to commit crime either, but the environment in which they enter the world creates more pressure towards criminal behavior. That does not hold true for "all black children" -- only for those born into that environment.

Jeff notes some interesting data from the Department of Justice on racial statistics on crime showing that for the past thirty years, showing that murderers tend to be black more than white, which would tend to support Bennett's assumption. But why? Looking at the breakdowns, white murders outnumber blacks in all but a handful of categories: gun, argument, felony, and drugs. It looks like absent drug prohibition, the numbers might tend to normalize somewhat, although probably not enough to reach equality.

Less convincing is Dafydd's argument supporting Bennett's assumption. Dafydd says this:

If half of all violent Asian criminals were to reform, turn over a new leaf, and become honest citizens, it would slightly lower the violent-crime rate of the United States; but if half of all violent black and Hispanic criminals were to cease committing crimes, it would drastically lower the national violent-crime rate.

But part of that argument's veracity comes from the fact that the Asian population accounts for 3.6% of US population as a whole, while blacks and Hispanics account for 24.8%. Dafydd's argument is obviously true, and just as obviously irrelevant. And Bennett still would have been better off choosing white babies as a way to lower crime, because they would account for roughly three-quarters of all births and could contribute much more to the lowering of the crime rate. In 2003, white births outnumbered black births 6-1.

I don't think that Bennett chose his example wisely, and he should expect some criticism for it. The White House stupidly injected itself into this nine-day wonder of a controversy, but at least they got the temper of their criticism correct; the remark was "inappropriate". If Bennett wants to talk about race and crime, then let him argue, as Jeff does, from real data and real issues, instead of playing around with it in the indirect manner Bennett does. Injecting it as a hypothetical for what would otherwise have been an excellent reductio ad absurdum refutation of Leavitt and Dubner amounts to a moment of uncharacteristic rhetorical folly for Bennett. That doesn't make him a closet racist; it just makes him mistaken.

UPDATE: Now, this is racism, but we won't hear that from the people screaming for Bennett's job.

UPDATE II and BUMP: We'll be discussing the Bill Bennett issue on the Northern Alliance Radio Network on AM 1280 The Patriot at 1 pm CT. Listen on the stream at the Patriot and call us at 651-289-4488 to join in the conversation. We're discussing Judy Miller right now.

Earlier this week, the AP reported on a series of issues that the DIA used as an excuse to revoke the clearances of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the liaison to the SOCOM program Able Danger and the first public witness to the program's identification of four 9/11 hijackers as al-Qaeda operatives more than a year before the terrorist attacks. Many of us saw the revocation as a transparent attempt to discredit LTC Shaffer before he has a chance to testify to Congress on the Able Danger program, and the failure of the DoD to allow it to share its information with the FBI as well as the 9/11 Commission's refusal to meet with any of the Able Danger team.

Now his attorney, Mark Zaid, has posted his comment on the matter at CQ. With his permission, I'm reposting here so that it gets the most exposure possible.

==================

I have read through many of the comments posted concerning LTC Anthony Shaffer and it is great to know that so many of you support him and his efforts and see through the DoD/DIA charade. As most may know, I am LTC Shaffer's attorney.

This is my first post on this blog and I want to use this opportunity to comment on something that I find to be very important, and that is the issue of LTC Shaffer's security clearance. The AP story that was issued Friday entitled "Pentagon revokes clearance of 'Able Danger' officer" was replete with many errors and unfortunate omissions that portrayed my client, who the reporter never interviewed, in a false light.

I would like to set the record straight so that everyone knows the situation. I set up the story so that a full and balanced portrait could be drawn. Of course I knew that unfavorable information would be reported, but so long as the substantive responses would be reported alongside we had no qualms about releasing the information. The information I submitted not only from LTC Shaffer to refute the allegations but also from independent third parties would show everyone how petty, pathetic and absurd the allegations were.

Unfortunately, the AP story was terrible. Despite having the documents in her possession the reporter made numerous errors and ignored crucial information. To say that I was disappointed is an understatement. Twice I got the AP to modify the story and yet still they just couldn't get it right, which is why I am submitting this post here.

Most of you already realized, even with the poor reporting of the AP story, how ridiculous the DIA allegations are. I have been handling security clearance cases for about a decade and I was dumbfounded by the lack of evidence the DIA had against LTC Shaffer and the depths to which DIA transversed to try and manufacture a case against him. Let me further support your conclusions.

First, the AP failed to understand the distinction between DIA and the Army. DIA is LTC Shaffer's civilian employer. The key allegations filed against him were while he served with the Army on active duty. LTC Shaffer is now a reserve Army officer. The Army took no punitive action against LTC Shaffer. Instead, with full knowledge of everything DIA was doing, the Army promoted him from Major to LTC in the midst of the security clearance revocation proceedings. This says everything. It was a slap right in DIA's face. Thus, it is his civilian, not military, security clearance that was revoked.

Second, the initial article noted: "Shaffer says he received a Bronze Star medal for work on a classified operation in Afghanistan in 2003. According to papers provided by Zaid, the military is now questioning whether he deserved it, including challenging whether at least one person who backed Shaffer's nomination for the medal had firsthand knowledge of his actions."

This was not the medal that DIA - again, not the military/Army - raised an issue about. LTC Shaffer was awarded the Bronze Star for his six month deployment in support of combat operations in Afghanistan during his July-Dec 2003 deployment for Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. He served as the DHS (Defense Humint Services) representative to the most sensitive, highly classified operational unit conduct operations in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility. This Bronze Star award was provided outside of DIA’s Joint Reserve Unit award processing mechanism and presented to him while still in Afghanistan.

The award at issue was the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) - and it had to do with his work on classified operations such as ABLE DANGER. Again, the Army/military is not questioning whether he deserved the DMSM - it was the DIA. The Army resolved this issue by promoting him. In fact, LTC Shaffer was wearing the medal at last week's Senate Judiciary hearing. The Army has never sought to take it back, and I doubt it ever will.

The key aspect here is that we provided the AP with a copy of Col Gerry York's statement to support LTC Shaffer's entitlement to the award. Col York was LTC Shaffer's military AND civilian rater and had full knowledge of LTC Shaffer's activities. His statement makes it clear that LTC Shaffer was entitled to the award and that the individuals who complained about the award had no idea what LTC Shaffer had been doing because they were not properly cleared to know. That is fundamentally important and goes far beyond simply noting that I, as the attorney, or LTC Shaffer, as the "victim", deny the allegations. Col York was a very senior, respected DIA official who as a third-party is completely independent. Yet he was not quoted at all by the AP.

Third, the story notes that "Shaffer says he showed his government credentials during two incidents in 1990, when he was drunk, and 1996, when he was pulled over by police. The military says he misused his credentials, but Shaffer says he was not told he should not have used them. He also said he has joined Alcoholics Anonymous and has been sober for 13 years."

In the 1990 incident Shaffer merely had the credentials on him when he got a "drunk in pubic" charge. He did not use the credentials for any purpose. In 1996 he was on official business with a DIA Counterintelligence Special Agent in the car when he was pulled over. He was explicitly told by the DIA Special Agent to show the credentials. That is a very important fact that was omitted. Moreover, there was no alcohol involved with the 1996 incident though at first glance the article may give that impression. Why the AA comments were included I do not know as they are completely irrelevant to the issue and was never raised by DIA.

Additionally, every allegation prior to 1995 was FULLY investigated by DSS (Defense Security Service) and found to be unsubstantiated or irrelevant and he was given his TS/SCI clearance, which he has had for years. I provided the AP with a statement from DSS Agent Ann Clark who conducted an earlier investigation and stated that these prior issues were favorably resolved for LTC Shaffer. After several versions of the article were published the AP at least added this fact though they attempted to minimize its impact.

Fourth, the story states that: "Falsely claiming $341.80 in mileage and tolls fees. He said he filed travel expenses based on what he was told by human resources staff"

It was $180 - not $341. The entire voucher that LTC Shaffer had submiited and was approved was $341. Tthe New Jersey (Ft. Dix) part, which is what was in contention, was only $180. It was to attend a military school and he was authorized to file for it. In fact, all such claims are deemed legitimate when filed by reg (so I am told) and it routinely happens that sometimes the reimbursements are judged to be inapplicable. Yet neither DIA or the Army has ever requested the funds back, which LTC Shaffer has offered to return.

Fifth, yes, LTC Shaffer took pens and pads from the American Embassy to use at school. However, it was nearly 30, not 20, years ago, in the 1978-79 timeframe - when he was 15 and 16 years old. And, again, this previously investigated and favorably adjudicated.

Sixth, the story quotes: "Going over his chain of command to do briefings. Shaffer said he was providing briefings to higher-ups on projects even his direct superiors did not know about, and he received superior review ratings for that time"

Major General Harding (a two star general) provided a written statement stating that he directed LTC Shaffer to brief him. He had specific permission and guidance from the commanding general of the organization to do exactly what he did. That statement categorically refutes the allegation. That LTC Shaffer's immediate superiors were annoyed the General had him go around them is not LTC Shaffer's problem.General Harding's letter was provided to the AP but completely ignored.

Seventh, the article asserts: "Showing irresponsibility with $2,012 in credit card debt. He said he paid off the debt"

This allegation is not even an issue any longer. DIA dropped it completely, which is clear from the documents I provided the AP but which was not noted until I requested a correction. Moreover, to just have this allegation hanging out there was irresponsible given the stated explanation.

LTC Shaffer was fighting in Afghanistan risking his life and gave his fiancee power of attorney to take care of his bills and she simply neglected to pay it. As soon as he found that out, he paid it. Plain and simple.

Eighth, the story states "Mark Zaid, Shaffer's attorney, said the Pentagon started looking into Shaffer's security clearance about the time in 2003 he met in Afghanistan with staff members of the bipartisan commission that studied the Sept. 11 attacks and told them about Able Danger. Zaid said he can't prove the Pentagon went after Shaffer because he's a whistleblower, but "all the timing associated with the clearance issue has been suspiciously coincidental."

This is perhaps a minor point, but I did not say that. I said DIA started looking into the allegations in late 2003 or early 2004 and then decided to take action against Shaffer only after he told DIA of his meeting with the 9/11 staff.

Finally, the story accurately states that "Shaffer, now a member of the Army Reserves, has been on administrative leave since March 2004. During the same time, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel on Oct. 1, 2004."

This is the key to the whole story and was lost in the shuffle. If any of the DIA allegations had merit, LTC Shaffer would still be Major Shaffer. So why is DIA taking the action it has?

I wish I had an answer to that question.

Thank you all again for the support you have shown LTC Shaffer.

Mark S. Zaid, Esq.

Most of us have wondered why Judith Miller's testimony about Scooter Libby held such importance to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he allowed her to walk away from a contempt charge merely to provide what appears to be corroborative testimony to what Libby has already told a grand jury. Miller wouldn't talk until Libby and his attorney practically had to beg her to do so, as Power Line notes with their discovery of the letters sent by Libby's attorneys to Bob Bennett, who represents Miller. Fitzgerald wound up giving Miller the same deal he gave Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post, which only required them to testify on a narrow basis about specific sources.

Now the Post reports that inside sources in Fitzgerald's office tell them that the strategy has evolved. Instead of finding an act of criminal behavior, which they have apparently not found, Fitzgerald wants to create a conspiracy to commit an overall criminal end -- exposing Valerie Plame in retribution for Joseph Wilson's outspokenness -- by comitting a series of non-criminal acts:

Many lawyers in the case have been skeptical that Fitzgerald has the evidence to prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is the complicated crime he first set out to investigate, and which requires showing that government officials knew an operative had covert status and intentionally leaked the operative's identity.

But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

Then Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus throw in this beaut of a disclaimer:

Lawyers involved in the case interviewed for this report agreed to talk only if their names were not used, citing Fitzgerald's request for secrecy.

Which begs the question: when will Fitzgerald start investigating the leakers in his own office, and did they have an overarching criminal purpose in talking to the Washington Post, even if the leak was technically legal? Fitzgerald's operation should be held to a similar standard, one would think, since it involves secret grand jury testimony which the attorneys do not have the privilege to reveal. (Witnesses can speak openly of their own testimony in most cases, but not the attorneys.) Note: see correction below.

The entire idea reeks of desperation, and the Post article doesn't help by getting key facts incorrect and stretching others to the breaking point. If Fitzgerald cannot find a single act of criminal behavior, then he almost assuredly cannot establish the mens rea necessary for a criminal conspiracy. For a conspiracy to exist, it has to involve the explicit intent to break the law. If no laws get broken in the commission of this conspiracy, it presents a prima facie argument against intent altogether. If prosecutors could get convictions by warping conspiracy laws in such a manner, then anyone could get convicted of almost any kind of conspiracy at any time.

VandeHei and Pincus fail to note a few things in their article, chief among them that Joseph Wilson serially leaked secret government material and lied about its contents. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached that conclusion in its report on Iraq War intelligence, and names Pincus himself as one of the dupes Wilson used to get out his misinformation. Why didn't Pincus bother to mention that? And why isn't Fitzgerald investigating Wilson and Plame for those leaks (the other dupe was NY Times Nicholas Kristof) for a possible CIA conspiracy to illegally undermine the foreign policy of the duly elected American government?

The Post also claims that the Niger intelligence "was central to the White House's rationale for war," when plainly it was not. The vast majority of the intelligence from most Western nations had concluded that Saddam still had WMD, and that his lack of compliance with the sixteen UN resolutions on full, verifiable, and permament disarmament demonstrated that he still retained that capability. Moreover, the trip that Wilson took actually corroborated that conclusion, as the prime minister of Niger told Wilson that the only purpose of a secret Iraqi delegation he could divine was to trade for yellowcake uranium -- which Wilson admitted to the SSCI bolstered, not undermined, the case for war against Iraq.

If indeed Fitzgerald has decided on this strategy, then he has embarked on a foolish and dangerous expansion of conspiracy law. The Washington Post, meanwhile, continues to embark on its policy of half-truths on the Wilson-Plame story in order to cover up its position of supine gullibility in regards to Joe Wilson. Why Walter Pincus has remained on this case as a reporter is anyone's guess, but as long as the editors of the Post continue to use him in such a fashion, their reporting will continue to be suspect.

CORRECTION: I misread the excerpt -- the Post uses unnamed attorneys representing witnesses who talk about what they've heard from Fitzgerald's team ... surmising that Fitzgerald wants to use this strategy. This seems even thinner than it did before.

Since the First Mate lost her sight over twenty-five years ago and has had a number of medical conditions as complications to diabetes (now cured), she has a handicapped parking placard which allows us to use the closest spots in public lots, as well as forego parking meter fees in most areas. Since she often has minor problems in walking, the placard helps tremendously.

In Denmark, however, that placard gets the disabled much more personal service than it does in the United States. The London Telegraph reports that the Danes have government assistance programs that subsidize prostitution for those with disabilities so that they can have sexual fulfillment:

Disabled Danes are being encouraged to make monthly visits to prostitutes and reclaim the cost from the taxpayer, under laws intended to guarantee them equal rights.

In a move that has provoked angry protests but has delighted the country's legalised sex industry, the Danish government has launched an information campaign advising the disabled how best to go about obtaining erotic services.

Stig Langvad, the chairman of the Danish Association for the Disabled, hailed the campaign as a triumph for equality. "Sexual frustration can be a major problem for the disabled, and in some cases the last solution is to visit a prostitute," he said. "Politicians can debate whether prostitution in general should be allowed, but if it is, why should the disabled be the only ones prevented from having access to it?" ...

Now the regulations are being used to pay for visits to prostitutes after a disabled man - not named for legal reasons - won a legal action forcing officials to pay his expenses for the services of a call girl. Councils across Denmark have been left with no choice but to follow suit.

I've heard of getting screwed by government, but this really is ridiculous.

On a more serious note, this pattern shows what happens when people force government into legitimizing choices in a socialist model. We have seen this in our own country with abortion. First, a runaway Supreme Court ruled that not only should abortion be legalized but that it ascended to a "right", based on emanations from a penumbra at that point undiscovered in almost two centuries of jurisprudence. Once it assigned abortion as a "right", activist groups started pressuring governments at the federal and state level to subsidize them, arguing that equal access to this "right" required that taxpayers foot the bill for a procedure at least half of them opposed in any form.

We can laugh at the Danes who feel it necessary to have government pay for prostitution, but it follows the same model as the US uses with abortion. It is symptomatic of a government culture where everything that isn't outlawed becomes mandatory -- the typical socialistic approach that results in idiotic processes such as what the Telegraph describes today.

Indonesia claims it has evidence that al-Qaeda planned and executed yesterday's bombings on Bali that killed 26 people and wounded more than 100 others. Counterterrorist investigators claim that two "fugitive" AQ masterminds still want to hit more soft targets -- in other words, civilians:

Indonesia said Sunday it suspected two fugitives linked to al-Qaida masterminded the suicide bombings of crowded restaurants in tourist areas of Bali that killed at least 26 people and injured more than 100. The nation's president, meanwhile, warned that more terrorist attacks are possible. ...

Maj. Gen. Ansyaad Mbai, a top Indonesian anti-terror official, identified the two suspected masterminds of Saturday's bombings as Malaysians alleged to be key members of the al-Qaida-linked Jemaah Islamiyah terror group.

They are also accused of orchestrating the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings, as well as two other attacks in the Indonesian capital in 2003 and 2004. The nightclub bombings, which also struck venues crowded with tourists on a Saturday night, killed 202 people, most of them foreigners.

Six Americans were wounded in the attack. No one knows whether the Indonesians counted the suicide bombers among the 26 dead, but they definitely identified which remains are the terrorists. "All that is left is their head and feet," Mbai told the Associated Press, saying that the missing middle indicates waist belts for explosives.

The AQ plotters wanted by the Indonesians are Azhari bin Husin and Noordin Mohammed Top. Neither have become household names, but they aren't completely unknown, either. The Australian mentioned both of them earlier this week in a now-foolish column by Gareth Evans dismissing the threat of Jemaah Islamiyah:

As to the specific risk posed by terrorist groups operating in and from Indonesia -- naturally centre-front in people's minds given the horrors perpetrated against Australian targets in Bali in 2002 and Jakarta last year -- Crisis Group's perception is that the Jemaah Islamiyah regional division that covered Australia has been effectively smashed by Indonesian police and intelligence operations (well supported by Australian agencies), and that JI no longer poses a serious threat in Indonesia or elsewhere.

The fugitive Malaysian bomb-makers for the embassy attack - Noordin Mohammed Top and Azhari bin Husin - may be tempted by another Western target in Indonesia, but a household name US enterprise is seen as more likely than anything identifiably Australian. And we have never had any information suggesting that there are sleeper cells in Australia or any thought of targeting Australia in this way. ...

Of course there have been some apparent successes, such as the capturing or killing of two-thirds of al-Qa'ida's leadership, but while this has undoubtedly diminished al-Qa'ida's organisational capacity it hasn't done anything to diminish its global following.

Much more successful was the police operation in Indonesia against JI. Interestingly, in Crisis Group's judgment, it was done in a way that avoided arbitrary arrests, with every person being detained for more than a few days being held on the basis of solid evidence. In doing so, the police helped create the necessary political space to work against terrorism.

Evans claimed in his column and speech at the University of NSW that the Indonesian approach to Islamofascist terror -- the law-enforcement approach -- had effectively ended the terror threat against Indonesian targets. His New South Wales audience can be forgiven for their confusion less than a week later to see Bali blown apart again by the same JI that Evans dismissed so casually on Tuesday.

Thanks to that law-enforcement approach, Top and Husin will become household names now.

Rep. Charles Rangel had a bad day on the blogs yesterday. First Mark Tapscott completely discredits Rangel's assertions that the all-volunteer armed services draw disproportionally from poor families in his latest research. The Heritage Foundation compares recruitment data from 1999 to 2003 by zipcode and income levels, and finds that the Clinton-era recruitment relied more heavily on lower-income enlistees:

Note the proportions of recruits from each of the five demographic quintiles, organized according to per capita income by zip code. The percentage of recruits from the poorest quintile is actually lower in 1999 and 2003 than the percentage for the richest quintile.

In fact, the percentage difference between the richest and poorest quintiles increases between 1999 and 2003! And the highest percentage is actually in the second richest quintile of recruits, followed by the richest quintile. It is no exaggeration to say America's most prosperous families bear the greatest share of the burden of fighting in America's defense.

So much for the mythology, pushed hardest by Rangel, that the poor have done most of the fighting and dying for the Bush administration. Rangel used this assertion to push for a new draft, asserting that the only way to get enough pressure to undermine the war on terror was to force the rich to send their kids off to war. Rangel only has two problems with this hypothesis -- he has no idea how the military recruits its enlistees as the Heritage Foundation demonstrates, and no one, no one, sends their kids off to war. Men and women make that decision for themselves, something that Rangel and the rest of the nutcases on the fringe keep forgetting in their infantilization of the US armed services.

Speaking of mythology, Radioblogger stops another Rangel urban legend before it gets rolling. Rangel told a local New York reporter that Dick Cheney should resign as Vice President, because Cheney is "too old for the job, and he doesn't have any experience." Apparently between guffaws of laughter, Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson points out that Rangel misses a few facts regarding Cheney's experience and the age of American politicians:

Dick Cheney was born on 1/20/41. He currently is 64 years old. At the time he was sworn into the Vice Presidency, he was a week shy of 60. As for experience, he had been a Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and White House Chief of Staff, among other government positions. He also was very successful running private sector businesses as well. I may be mistaken, but there was this little company called Halliburton that he ran. Anyway, the point being, Rangel just loses credibility when he tries to maintain with a straight face that Cheney has no experience for the job. As Chief of Staff, you're pretty attuned to the workings of the Executive branch.

Charley Rangel, the man who thinks Cheney's too old, was born on June 11th, 1930. He is 75 years old. But I guess ageism doesn't count if it's applied to Republicans.

Other Democratic notables for whom Rangel needs to reserve rooms at the retirement home:

John Kerry: 62 in December
Joe Lieberman: 63
Nancy Pelosi: 65
Robert Byrd: 87

Rangel should lead by example, and resign immediately. I'm sure the rest of the above will follow shortly. Trust us, Charlie ... trust us.

While various news organizations continue reporting that President Bush still hasn't made his decision on a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, the speculation on the candidates keeps widening. A newer name gets added today by MS-NBC, a potential stealth candidate that may appeal to the White House as a female version of John Roberts. Maureen Mahoney, who testified on behalf of Roberts during his confirmation hearing at the Judiciary Committee hearing, might rise to the top of Bush's list even as she flies mostly below the media radar:

There continues to be talk in legal circles that he could pick one of three longtime Bush loyalists: White House counsel Harriet Miers, the first women president of the Texas State Bar and Bush’s former personal attorney; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s longtime friend, who would be the first Hispanic on the court; and corporate lawyer Larry Thompson, who was the government’s highest ranking black law enforcement official when he was deputy attorney general during Bush’s first term.

Other candidates mentioned most frequently in recent days include conservative federal appeals court judges J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams, Alice Batchelder and Samuel Alito; Michigan Supreme Court justice Maura Corrigan; and Maureen Mahoney, a well-respected litigator before the high court.

Mahoney's name has not appeared on many short lists bandied about in the media, and the public knows little about her. A quick check into her background could generate some interest, as she not only resembles John Roberts in her background, but could even negate some of the smears launched against Roberts early in the confirmation process.

Mahoney litigates for Latham & Watkins as a partner specializing in appellate law. Like Roberts, she has experience before the Supreme Court, having argued thirteen cases. Her first case came in 1988 and her last just recently, when she successfully overturned the Arthur Anderson conviction in the Enron case. That could count as a strike against her with Democrats, who would love to paint her as a player in that kind of scandal, but no one would argue that Arthur Anderson should have been denied counsel in its appeals -- and she won the case on a unanimous decision. She also defeated the Bush administration in its affirmative-action case against the University of Michigan, a case that a few Judiciary Committee members tried to use to paint Roberts as a racist.

Mahoney has similar tenure within the US government as Roberts as well. She served with Roberts in the Bush 41 administration in the Solicitor General's office for a couple of years before getting a nomination to the appellate bench herself, one that went nowhere before Clinton took office, when she returned to L&W and continued her distinguished career as an appellate specialist. L&W lists among her accomplishments such recognition as this:

* Rex Lee Advocacy Award
* Nat'l Law Journal's naming her one of the top 50 female litigators
* Appointed by Rehnquist as Chair of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission

Also, like Roberts, Mahoney clerked for William Rehnquist prior to his elevation to Chief Justice. Mahoney never served on the bench, while Roberts had less than two years, but no one has insisted on appellate experience for a Supreme Court justice. Democrats even suggested nominating a Republican Senator instead of a practicing attorney for the last nomination, which makes a lack of appellate experience a non-starter for an argument against Mahoney. However, her conservative outlook seems beyond question, according to this blurb at the blog Underneath Their Robes:

--she was previously nominated for a federal judgeship under Bush I (but President Clinton took office before she could be confirmed);

--she is Republican, and she was on the Bush II transition team (and made the maximum contribution allowable under federal law to President Bush's 2000 presidential campaign);

--she was reportedly considered by the Bush Administration for the post of Solicitor General, before Ted Olson got the job, and also for a seat on the D.C. Circuit;

--she was picked, presumably by the White House Counsel's Office or the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, to testify on behalf of Judge Roberts at his recent confirmation hearings (alongside such conservative stalwarts as Jennifer Cabranes Braceras, Robing Room Report's Most Delicious Diva);** and

--Nina Totenberg has described Mahoney as "a very, very conservative woman Catholic."

If anyone wants to look for a surprise candidate, one that could duplicate many of the same problems for the Democrats that the Roberts nomination created, Maureen Mahoney might just be that nominee.

UPDATE: A couple of thoughts based on the comments posted thus far. I still prefer Janice Rogers Brown for the nomination. I just wanted to highlight what I think might provide an interesting choice for Bush if he wants to follow the John Roberts model for the next nominee. Mahoney hasn't received a lot of press attention to this point.

Also, don't get hung up on her clients. She represents people who pay for her services; just like John Roberts, she is a hired gun for appellate litigation. Her background and her work on behalf of the Bush administration will provide more guidance of her philosophy than her client list.

After having now been the target of al-Qaeda terrorist attacks at least four times over the last three years, the people of Bali openly wonder why Islamist terrorists have focused so much of their efforts on them. The French press service AFP reports that anger has risen among the Balinese as they survey the damage from this latest atrocity:

Anger is mounting over the latest bomb attacks by Islamic extremists in Indonesia, where yet again most of the dead have been locals and most of the damage has hit local businesses. ...

"Why is it only us? Why is Bali again the target of bombs?" asked I Gede Wiratha, the head of the Bali chapter of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Wiratha said strong rumors were circulating in predominantly Hindu Bali that witnesses heard one of the suicide bombers shouting "Allahu Akbar" or "God is great" before blowing himself to smithereens.

Made Mangku Sudita, 36, who owns a beach restaurant just next door to the cafe where the first blast occurred in Jimbaran, expressed the public mood when he called for vengeance against those responsible.

"We have to kill those terrorists", he told AFP.

Similar sentiments were aired by many others, including taxi driver Wayan Rampa who lost his job in the silver industry after the October 2002 bombings devastated Bali's tourism sector.

"There is no need to take them to prisons... they should be taken to Bali to be turned into skewered meat or be grilled," he said of the culprits.

The Balinese have, up to now, exhibited a kind of phlegmatic resignation in the face of the violence similar to that of the British in World War II during the Blitz. That now appears to have given way to some anger, and a questioning of motives that will sound oddly familiar to Americans. After the one devastating attack on the US that left thousands dead, many asked the same question: why us? The American Left had many answers ready for that question. Perhaps we can see whether they apply to the Balinese.

* A policy of support for Israel? Well, Bali remains part of Indonesia, which can hardly be accused of being an Israeli ally. Like all Muslim nations, it opposes Israel's occupation of the West Bank and does not have diplomatic relations with Israel.

* Supporting Middle East tyrants in order to steal the oil from the devout Muslims of the Arabian peninsula? Indonesia has plenty of its own oil.

* Occupation of holy lands? The Balinese do not have troops on Saudi soil, or anywhere else other than Bali.

* Occupation of Iraq? Not hardly.

It seems that all the usual answers Americans hear for their responsibility in provoking the Islamists' rage don't apply to Bali or the Balinese. What could keep al-Qaeda coming back to bomb the people and businesses of Bali? Perhaps the fact that Bali, part of mostly Muslim Indonesia, has a majority Hindu population could have something to do with Jemaah Islamiyah's obsession with bombing the Balinese. It provides the only consistent thread for AQ's attacks around the world: an all-out holy war against all non-believers, simply on the basis of their non-belief.

This should dispense with all of the blather about how our foreign policy of global engagement creates terrorism. Let's quit blaming the victims and start really fighting the war that the terrorists have declared on us.

This revelation didn't receive a lot of notice, but the lawyer for Judith Miller told reporters yesterday that he asked Patrick Fitzgerald for essentially the same deal a year ago that sprang Miller from prison last week. This seems to indicate that Fitzgerald really wanted testimony from Miller on another matter and later on settled for testimony about Scooter Libby instead:

Floyd Abrams, the attorney for New York Times reporter Judith Miller, said Sunday he had tried a year ago to reach an agreement with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald concerning Miller's testimony about the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity. ...

Appearing Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Abrams said: "I tried to get a deal a year ago. I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby."

The Times reported that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was Miller's source. In a statement Thursday, Miller said, "My source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations." She appeared before the grand jury Friday.

Miller held out, Abrams said Sunday, in part because "she has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them." Before she finally testified, Fitzgerald promised to limit his questioning to the Libby contacts regarding Plame.

This changes the context of the new agreement in a couple of subtle ways. First, the jailing of Miller never had anything to do with Libby or his statements to Miller. According to Abrams, the grand jury could have heard that testimony from Miller at any time as long as Fitzgerald agreed to only ask about Libby. Fitzgerald refused, which seems to clearly indicate that his investigative thrust didn't include Libby as a potential target. If so, it means that Fitzgerald's belated acceptance of this limitation acknowledges that he lost the battle with Miller and wanted to wrap up her situation before the grand jury mandate expired later this month.

It also exposes the PR last week from the New York Times as yet another bit of grandstanding flackery. The Times made it appear that Libby kept Miller in jail by refusing to issue an unequivocal and clear release for Miller's testimony. Libby responded by letter and phone to point out all the waivers he had issued (and Power Line has the original waivers that clearly show he wanted Miller to testify). Despite the Times' assertions from last week and their overall self-congratulation over the protection of journalistic sources -- especially in comparison to Time Magazine's cooperation with Fitzgerald -- this shows that the Gray Lady had no problem coughing up sources of a certain (Republican) kind, as opposed to others that might have less political conflict with its editorial board.

Does this indicate that Fitzgerald has given up on any indictments in the Plame controversy? Possibly. However, the main effect applies to Miller and the New York Times, both of which demonstrate a large measure of hypocrisy in their public statements this week.

The New York Times reports that the Palestinian Civil War may have already begun, less than a month after the withdrawal of the Israelis, as a series of gun battles tore through Gaza City after the ruling Fatah government attempted to disarm Hamas terrorists. The results from the first confrontation attempted by the Palestinian Authority against its internal nemesis left one police officer dead and dozens of people wounded, overflowing the local hospital:

Palestinian police officers and Hamas gunmen waged running gun battles on Sunday night in Gaza City. The shooting began when the police tried to confiscate illegal weapons.

At least two Palestinians were killed, including one policeman, and about 40 people were wounded in the fighting, the worst internal Palestinian violence since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip last month.

Last week, the Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, began enforcing a prohibition against militants carrying weapons in public in Gaza.

But when police officers stopped a car carrying Hamas members on Sunday evening, shooting erupted and spread through two neighborhoods in Gaza City that are known as Hamas strongholds, witnesses and the Palestinian security forces said.

Again, we see that the PA has done little to improve its security approach. The "road map" required Mahmoud Abbas to streamline security so that all armed forces operated under his command, and that all militias get disarmed. Until now, Abbas has refused to implement this policy, which led to numerous "rogue' attacks on Israel.

Now, with the Israeli presence removed from Gaza, the PA had no further excuse to allow Hamas and Islamic Jihad to remain armed. Hamas refused to disarm, and in a further provocation, held a demonstration while brandishing live arms in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal. Their incompetence in handling the weapons resulted in an explosion which killed and wounded dozens attending the rally. Unable to admit their own culpability in that incident, Hamas blamed Israel instead and shot a few Kassams over the border from Gaza -- which resulted in a long and deadly response from their former occupiers.

That left Abbas with no other options. Either he needs to control Hamas or cede Gaza to the people with the weapons. Hamas will refuse to accept Fatah control -- and civil war will result. It looks like it has already begun, and unfortunately, neither side shows much promise as partners for a two-state peace plan.

The AP reports that a "senior administration official" confirms that President Bush will nominate Harriet Miers, currently the White House Counsel, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Miers has never served as a judge at any level, and her nomination appears to give the President an opportunity to push a "stealth" candidate onto the Supreme Court:

President Bush has chosen Harriet Miers, White House counsel and a loyal member of the president's inner circle, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, a senior administration official said Monday.

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court.

Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Without a judicial record, it's difficult to know whether Miers would dramatically move the court to the right. She would fill the shoes of O'Connor, a swing voter on the court for years who has cast deciding votes on some affirmative action, abortion and death penalty cases.

After the tussle back and forth on the day the White House announced Roberts' nomination, I'd normally take this with a grain of salt. However, at the same time that the AP reported this, the GOP sent out an info sheet on Harriet Miers confirming her nomination. They want to provide plenty of ammunition for the President's supporters on the choice of Miers, so it doesn't appear that this is a trial balloon or a dodge for a different candidate.

Miers does answer two big criticisms of John Roberts raised by the Democrats during his confirmation hearings. Miers has extensive trial litigation experience, and she also has held public office, although she limited her political career to the Dallas City Council. Her work on cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission will look good in terms of real-world experience, and her connections at the American Bar Association will also smooth some rough sailing.

All that being said, I find this pick mystifying. Miers just turned 60 years old, not exactly ready to retire but potentially giving up at least a decade for the Bush legacy on the Supreme Court. Other women with judicial experience and/or a stronger track record of conservatism could have been found. She didn't graduate from a top-drawer legal school (SMU), and she didn't clerk for a highly influential jurist (US District Judge Joe Estes).

Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn't even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued cases at the Supreme Court, and worked within the Deputy Solicitor's Office after clerking for William Rehnquist? Better yet, why not nominate J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, with their brilliant and scholarly approaches to the law and undeniable qualifications through years of judicial experience? Why not Edith Hollan Jones, if Bush wanted to avoid the confrontation that Janice Rogers Brown would have created?

Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.

Two years.

5,556 posts.

53,148 comments.

12 million visitors and counting.

Thank you for two years of pure blogging bliss. I have so many people to thank that I no longer dare to go into specifics. I have too many friends to count, and that is by far the best blessing I could ever have received. My deepest appreciation goes out to all of them, as well as the entire CQ community.

UPDATE: It's the second blogiversary for Sister Toldjah, too!

Before we on the Right get a head of steam on what I believe to be completely justified disappointment in the Harriet Miers nomination, I would urge all of us to reflect on a few points made by others with a more optimistic approach. The Anchoress and Hugh Hewitt appear to think that Miers will turn into some kind of Derek Jeter on the Supreme Court, and Dick Cheney predicts that we will thank George Bush ten years from now for picking Miers for this opening. Marvin Olasky tells us all about Miers based primarily on her private life instead of her legal practice.

Miers could well surprise all of us and turn out to be another Scalia or Thomas, or more likely a Rehnquist. Even if she turned out to be an O'Connor with a bit more consistency, it still moves the court to the right. If outcome-based nominations were all that interested us, that would certainly prove satisfactory.

However, we have long argued against such a strategy. Conservatives have waited a very long time to have both a Republican president, a GOP-controlled Senate, and an opening on the Supreme Court that allowed us to nominate not just any lawyer willing to pay lip service to the philosophy of judicial "humility", as John Roberts put it, but someone with a track record of putting it into practice. We had a one-time shot, with the Democrats having to play defense for a potential retirement of John Paul Stevens, to have another true constitutional scholar and conservative philosopher confirmed to the Supreme Court.

What did we get? Another long-term Bush buddy getting a lifetime job on the basis of proximity instead of excellence.

Don't get me wrong; I'm certain that Harriet Miers is a fine attorney in private practice and has performed admirably as one of Bush's long-term aides. However, nothing in her career shows that she has any remarkable experience or aptitude for this assignment. As Brant at SWLiP (an attorney himself) points out, Miers came from a second-tier law school with no law-review experience, no noticeable record of scholarship or significant practice at constitutional law. That describes thousands and thousands of fine attorneys around the country with whom I would place my trust to sort out my personal legal struggles. For a Supreme Court selection, that background at best can only be called remarkably unremarkable.

With Harry Reid recommending her and running interference for her on Day One, as the Washington Post reports, she won't get much opposition on the Hill for her confirmation:

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week, in a statement. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

Later when meeting with Miers at the Capitol, Reid noted that 39 other people have been appointed to the Supreme Court without having experience as a judge. He praised her experience as a trial lawyer, an occupation he shares with her.

"So anyone with that background makes me feel good -- someone who has been a courtroom, tried cases, answered interrogatories, done all those things that lawyers need to do," Reid said.

Reid supposedly urged Bush to consider Miers during their consultations on the open court seat. It's unlikely that any but the most knee-jerk Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers, like Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy, will vote against her with Reid shilling for the confirmation. If Reid did suggest Miers, he can hardly vote against her -- and if he did, that would give Bush an opening to jettison all future consultations on judicial nominations.

The only way that Miers doesn't get confirmed, therefore, is if the GOP decides to derail the nomination -- and I would urge people not to push that option. First and foremost, I do trust Bush to nominate someone who will at least vote correctly once on the Court. We really didn't have much more on which to rely for Roberts; the difference between the two was the remarkable experience and scholarship that Roberts had gave him so much more credibility than his critics. Bush knows Miers very well, even if we don't, and I'm certain that he wouldn't pick a Souter. (Incidentally, that's also why I didn't think Gonzalez would be another Souter; I just think he has too much political baggage to be an effictive nominee.)

We have expressed our disappointment in clear and factual terms. Unlike the Julie Myers nomination to ICE, that should satisfy us, absent any disqualifying revelations in the next few weeks. If Bush knows his counsel well enough, we will have avoided a bloody battle and won most of the war. Let us continue to insist that future nominees to all posts demonstrate a level of excellence that makes all of us proud to support, instead of a level of proximity that leaves us all scratching our heads.

UPDATE: A clarification:

No, this does not mean that we let up on the Senate. In my opinion, the lack of leadership in the Senate made this choice possible, although given the odd nature of some of Bush's recent nominees -- like Myers -- it might have happened anyway. It doesn't mean we let up on Bush and his instinct to pick nominees from his close circle of friends. We need to insist on excellence, especially for lifetime appointments.

But at the same time, we have to be realistic. The choice has already been made. I don't want to inflict unnecessary political wounds now, especially at a critical juncture with the Iraq elections and Iranian nuclear proliferation on the foreign-policy table. Pulling Miers off the table for even a Maureen Mahoney, who would have been a much more remarkable "cipher" candidate, would trigger the war that we could have fought on much better terms had Miers never been nominated at all. It would have been worth fighting under the right political conditions, but now would make Bush look like a puppet to the "radical right" and play into the hands of the Exempt Media.

Bush blew it, but Miers may still surprise us, so let's not compound the mistake.

Let's get through the Iraqi parliamentary elections and focus on conservative, fiscally responsible, and excellence-supporting candidates in 2006. The next stage will be to create a new fundraising machine that will challenge the GOP to match its rhetoric with concrete actions; perhaps we will take Not One Dime More or some other mechanism in that direction next year...

The Big Three liberal dailies -- the LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post -- all issue similar verdicts on the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court in this morning's editorial pages. While the East Coast papers seem more optimistic about the potential for Miers, the LA Times sees little for which to cheer except her gender. And if George Bush hoped to get a pass on a big political fight at the Judiciary Committee, it won't come with the blessing of the Big Three.

The LA Times echoes the disappointment of many conservatives when first told of the Miers nomination:

This pattern of relying on advisors he knows and trusts was also on display with the export of several White House confidants, including Condoleezza Rice, Margaret Spellings and Alberto Gonzales, to various federal departments after Bush's reelection.

Extending the pattern to the Supreme Court, a separate branch of government, is more problematic. Is being a Bush crony Miers' chief qualification for serving on the Supreme Court?

The president's desire to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with another female justice is welcome, and Miers is undoubtedly an accomplished lawyer. But she and her White House patron will have to make the case in coming weeks that she is more than just that, because Americans want truly exceptional jurists to serve on the highest court, not merely smart loyalists to the president.

The Gray Lady, on the other hand, sees more daylight than darkness in the choice. The editorial refers to the "odd routes" taken by some of the best Supreme Court justices to the bench, and expresses hope that Miers' work in the ABA and corporate law will moderate any conservative impulses she has -- one of the worries of the conservative base's concerns. They note that the efforts of Senators Reid, Schumer, and other senior Democrats to moderate nominees may have paid off with Miers, but once again wants to get Miers on record committing to policy support as a prerequisite to confirmation:

The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Senator Charles Schumer of New York and other Senate Democrats made it clear that an extremist nominee would face a tough confirmation battle, and they may have helped convince Mr. Bush not to nominate a judge or law professor with a long record of opposing privacy rights, civil rights and other freedoms. But choosing Ms. Miers, a member of his team who was also his own personal lawyer, is still very much in character with the president's tendency to reward familiarity and loyalty over independence and a reputation for excellence.

The American people are certainly entitled to know a lot more about Ms. Miers. As a non-judge who has largely operated behind the scenes, she does not have a lengthy record of judicial opinions, law review articles and public comments. While this page complained about the lack of information available about John Roberts, the new chief justice was a veritable font of background records compared with this new nominee.

This administration likes to argue that Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to say much about her views when she was nominated. But she had been a federal appeals court judge for more than a decade, and her approach to judging was well known. The Senate needs to ask Ms. Miers directly where she stands on important legal issues, and it should not confirm her unless she makes clear her commitment to well-settled rights that Americans take for granted.

Again we see the theme of the previous rules not applying to the new candidate that we expected no matter whom the President nominated, but I suspect that many conservatives might feel similarly with Miers. The Washington Post also calls for strict questioning of Miers once in front of the committee, but perhaps comes closest in ferreting out the true reason why Bush selected Miers in the first place -- one we may have missed yesterday:

IN REPLACING Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, President Bush could have opted for ideological confrontation and an automatic confirmation battle. His nomination of Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, may save the country from that ugly outcome. Ms. Miers, like Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is not known as an ideologue or a cultural warrior. A corporate lawyer, she served as president of the State Bar of Texas and was active in the American Bar Association, an organization of which many conservatives are suspicious. In her bar activities, she pushed for greater legal representation for the poor. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) suggested that Mr. Bush consider someone like Ms. Miers. Mr. Bush's decision, particularly in light of the heat he is now taking from the right, seems like a significant gesture of conciliation.

That's the good news. It also should be said that Ms. Miers's background is not insubstantial: She has managed a major law firm and been a prominent corporate litigator; she served on the Texas Lottery Commission and the Dallas City Council. Her combination of bar activity and legal practice calls to mind that of the late Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. There's something to be said for a diversity of legal experience on the court; not every justice has to be a former federal appellate judge and constitutional scholar.

And yet, Ms. Miers is not the most evidently qualified nominee available to the president -- far from it. Her clearest distinction is her service and loyalty to Mr. Bush. She has served on his White House staff from the inception of his administration; she was on his transition team when he became governor of Texas; she has done personal legal work for him as well. She and Mr. Bush have a long and close relationship -- and this is an administration that puts an enormous premium on political loyalty.

Of the three papers, the Post's editorial board has usually remained the most supportive of Bush's efforts, and I wonder if they come closest to the mark here. Harry Reid's chief of staff remarked to Salon yesterday that Reid mentioned Miers' name as one that could gain easier confirmation, although he says Reid stopped short of outright promising his public support (which Reid provided anyway yesterday, at least initially). Considering Miers' long record of service to Bush and her lack of judicial experience, that offer may have intrigued him and gave him the idea that a Miers confirmation could help resolve the generation-long impasse over judicial nominees.

Bush, like most second-term presidents, wants to leave a substantive legacy after the end of his term. One of the initial promises he made to the people during his first presidential campaign was the oft-cited vow to be a "uniter". Unfortunately, with the radical Left in charge of the Democrats these days, the opportunity to fulfill that role has not often appeared. With Reid giving Bush a pass to nominate an evangelical with little record of legal scholarship to the Supreme Court as a political peace offering, he may have hoped to cement his place in history by not only confirming one of the brightest legal minds of the era as Chief Justice but in using his second pick as a bridge to an era of better cooperation between the White House and Senate -- while still getting a conservative on the bench.

Will it happen? The Post not only seems to believe so, it wants to celebrate it. If Bush knows Miers as well as he believes -- and after more than a decade of close service, he should -- then he may well have pulled off the biggest hat trick of his career. We will soon find out when Miers starts her confirmation hearings at the Judiciary Committee.

The grudge match between Ronnie Earle and Tom DeLay went from blatantly political to surreal yesterday after Earle managed to get an indictment within hours of empaneling a grand jury that had eluded him for months with a previous panel. After DeLay's attorney Dick De Guerin filed an expected motion for an expected dismissaal of the indictment Earle issued, one that lacked any mention of lawbreaking on DeLay's part, Earle's sudden ability to add money laundering to the charges raised eyebrows throughout the legal world:

The new indictment was brought on the first day of deliberations by a newly empaneled grand jury in Austin. The grand jury that brought the original conspiracy charges against Mr. DeLay, and which had been investigating the lawmaker for months, was disbanded last week.

Without an explanation from the prosecutors, local criminal law specialists seemed perplexed by Mr. Earle's actions, saying they may reflect an effort by the prosecutor to ensure that some charge sticks to Mr. DeLay even if the conspiracy indictment is dimissed.

George E. Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas and a specialist in criminal procedures, speculated that prosecutors "saw a potential problem" with the conspiracy counts "and didn't want to hassle over it, so they went with a legal theory on money laundering that wouldn't present the same problems." He said if that was the case, it could be embarrassing to Mr. Earle because "it is a little awkward to have to change a theory before your horse is out of the gate." ...

Within hours, Mr. Earle responded with the new money-laundering indictment, brought before a grand jury that was in its first hours of operation. Mr. DeGuerin said in a telephone interview that the new grand jury could not have understood what it was approving: "These are 12 people who are newly sworn in, and just getting them oriented takes them all day."

Earle, in other words, appears to have abused the grand jury system to get an indictment that his previous panel denied him, and rightfully so. As has been pointed out numerous times, if the Republicans laundered money through the transactions Earle uses as evidence, then the Democrats did exactly the same thing -- and yet Earle, who raised over $100,000 for Democrats last May talking about this case, has done nothing to pursue them for either conspiracy or money-laundering:

At stake in 2002 was control of the Texas legislature, which was to redraw congressional district lines. Corporate contributions to legislative candidates are illegal in Texas. The DeLay aides stand accused of violating that prohibition, along with eight companies like Sears Roebuck that provided the funds. The corporate money, however, never went to the candidates. Instead, it went to a much larger fund for state elections controlled by the Republican National Committee in Washington. That committee made contributions to Texas legislative candidates, constituting what Earle now charges is "money laundering."

The only problem is that similar transactions are conducted by both parties in many states, including Texas. In fact, on October 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party sent the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $75,000, and on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $75,000. On July 19, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000 and, again on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000. On June 8, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000. That very same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000.

District attorneys represent all of the community and as officers of the court have strict responsibilities to enforce the law equally, without bias or prejudice. Their actions can have far-reaching consequences as they have access to fairly one-sided legal mechanisms that can cause great havoc in the lives of citizens. For that reason, most states require DAs to hold to a high standard of personal conduct in their role as the legal representative of The People.

The quick issuance of this additional indictment shows that Earle not only has focused on DeLay for strictly personal and political reasons -- fixated might be a better word -- but that he fully understands that his original indictment had no chance of being upheld. He betrayed the trust invested in him as an officer of the court and used those mechanisms to push his personal, political goals. Not only should the state of Texas start an investigation into Earle's activities in abusing his office, but the state Bar should begin questioning his standing to remain an attorney at all.

In what may soon be known as The Long Good-Bye, Gerhard Schroeder finally and publicly acknowledged that his reign as Chancellor has all but ended, after backroom manueverings have failed to vault him over Angela Merkel. The CDU/CSU leader who took the conservative union to a disappointing plurality will shortly become the first female German chancellor, barring a last-minute reprieve by political parties hardly fond of Schroeder:

In the latest twist in the post-election political tap dance, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his Social Democrat party he would not stand in the way of it forming a government, even if it meant he would not be leading his country. His comments, which appeared to pave the way for his resignation, represented a U-turn after his assertion on election night two weeks ago that only he could lead a stable government. ...

Mr Schröder yesterday placed his political future in the hands of SDP party members negotiating a grand coalition with Mrs Merkel's Christian Democrats.

"It is not about me," said Mr Schröder. "It is about the leadership position of the SPD. I do not want to stand in the way of the continuation of the reform process I have started or the creation of a stable government.''

Some have floated a compromise that would have Schroeder continue as Chancellor for two years, followed by two years of Merkel. If someone wanted to gin up certain gridlock and failure, they could hardly design worse. Two years gives little time for any serious reform, only patchwork pandering that would take Merkel's two years to undo. The arrangement guarantees two two-year terms of lame ducks and dooms the Germans to the status quo until the next election. It looks remarkably like the arrangement Gerald Ford tried pushing onto Ronald Reagan when he offered Ford the VP slot in 1980 before giving it to George HW Bush.

The SPD wants to believe it still has a majority, but must eventually come to terms with its minority, second-place finish. That no-confidence motion from the German voters meant something significant -- they want a change at the top. The sooner the SPD understands that and quits trying to manipulate Rube Goldberg solutions to desperately hang onto the reigns of power, the sooner they can start working to restore voter confidence in their leadership. Schroeder quit listening to the voters and suffered the consequences, and now the SPD wants to try the hair of the dog that bit them as a hangover remedy.