IT'S "SCALITO"!

Numerous news agencies are reporting that President Bush will nominate Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The official announcement will happen at 8 AM today. If true, this is the perfect pick for those of us who want a knock-down, drag-out fight with the Democrats. His nickname, as alluded to in my headline, is "Scalito", referring to Justice Antonin Scalia.

His resume looks good and, from what little I have read about him, he has the experience, intellect and other qualifications that Ms. Miers didn't have. As long as there are no personal issues involved we will get a chance to see what kind of judge is considered an "extremist" by Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy. We will then get to see if Byrd, Snowe, McCain, et. al., agree with that assessment (the "Gang of Fourteen"). Either we will see a filibuster, followed by the "nuclear option", or we will see the RINOs exposed, or we will see Justice Alito. For movement conservatives, it's a win-win-win situation.

MIERS WITHDRAWS

Harriet Miers did the right thing today by withdrawing her nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, and President Bush did the right thing by accepting her withdrawal. While we cannot know if the decision to give up the fight was originated by Miers herself, or by the President, now is not the time for that discussion. Now is the time for the President to recover his footing. Tomorrow, the White House will in all probability be rocked by indictments. On Monday, the President can begin the process of reuniting his party. He can start by nominating a supremely qualified, demonstrably conservative jurist to take the place of Sandra Day O'Connor. He can follow that by demanding fiscal discipline from the GOP-led Congress, and by demanding that our immigration (legal and illegal) problems be solved. It is time for this President to stop worrying about avoiding political fights to enact an agenda. His poll numbers are already in the tank. It is (once again) time for him to fight for his agenda, including changing the direction of the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary. Movement conservatives are ready, willing and able to follow him into the fight. Let's get it on.

AN EXAMPLE OF MEDIA BIAS

This morning we have a textbook example of media bias. Here are the headlines and first paragraphs from the New York Times and the Washington Times about the Iraqi election results. Both stories are based on the same set of facts, the hard numbers concerning turnout and yes or no votes, and the same statements from Iraqi officials.

The New York Times:

Iraqi Officials Declare Charter Has Been Passed

By EDWARD WONG
Published: October 26, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 25 - Iraqi electoral officials officially announced Tuesday that voters had passed a new constitution, paving the way for parliamentary elections in December. But the constitution narrowly escaped defeat, as Sunni Arabs turned out in large numbers to vote against it.

The Washington Times:

Iraq voters approve new constitution

By Sharon Behn
October 26, 2005

BAGHDAD -- Final referendum results show Iraqis emphatically approved a new constitution, putting their country on a firm democratic footing and setting the stage for crucial legislative elections in just seven weeks, officials said yesterday.

Notice the differences. The Liberal, anti-war paper says in its headline that Iraqi officials SAY the charter has passed. Perhaps those lying officials rigged the vote, eh? The Conservative, pro-war paper says Iraqi VOTERS approved the constitution. Those brave, pro-democracy Iraqis had their say and voted yes. In the first paragraph, the Liberal, anti-war paper says the constitution almost went down to defeat because the Sunnis were against it, while the Conservative, pro-war paper says Iraqi voters EMPHATICALLY approved the document.

Both papers have the facts absolutely correct. We only know the vote passed because Iraqi officials said it did, but all the independent observers saw lots of Iraqis voting and there is a good, plausible reason why some places had over 90% yes votes and other places over 90% no votes. The Sunnis did overwhelmingly vote against the constitution, and if there had been enough no votes in one province the document would have been defeated. But, if you combine the total voting population, then the voters as a whole did overwhelmingly approve of the constitution.

Read both articles in their entirety. They tell the same story with the same facts, but with a clear difference in EMPHASIS. That is the key to understanding real bias in the media. It is about the FOCUS of your story, not the facts. How, then, do you filter out the bias? You need to take the time to read multiple accounts of any story you are interested in, whether it is the Iraq War or the Valerie Plame affair or the Miers nomination. You need to figure out the perspective of the writers and editors (if you can). You need to compare the facts (as some will be included, and others left out).

Because this is such a laborious process, most Americans don't have the time or the inclination to do it. Fortunately, the proliferation of new media outlets, like the Internet and Talk Radio, which are currently dominated by a Conservative worldview, is now effectively countering the MSM, which is dominated by a Liberal worldview (except for papers like the Washington Times). Unfortunately, primarily because of time constraints, most Americans are simply relying on the media outlets they feel comfortable with so, increasingly, they are getting only one side of the story. The polarization of the American body politic continues.

Michael Yon has a detailed post about the recent election in Iraq, and compares it to the election in January. It is the most concrete piece of evidence I have seen so far that details the truly remarkable progress that is being made in that country. Truly, we and our Iraqi allies are WINNING.

While some are starting to sense a 1994-style realignment coming for 2006, this fact may just prevent it.

John Fund thinks the Miers nomination will be defeated.

I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers will withdraw or be defeated. Should that happen, it is important President Bush understand how it really happened. While he acted out of sincerity, the nomination was quickly perceived by many as merely a means to a desired end: getting another vote for his views on the court. While some conservatives backed her because they honestly believed she would rule independently with an understanding of the limited role of judges envisioned by the Founders, that message was drowned out by accusations of cronyism and mediocrity.

The president also was let down by seven senators in his own party who in May agreed to scuttle plans to end judicial filibusters blocking nominees from ever getting a vote. It wouldn't have been unreasonable for him to think the Senate wasn't in a position to confirm a nominee with a long paper trail.

But he may soon have a chance for a fresh start and no choice but to have a fight over substance. When Douglas Ginsburg asked to have his nomination to the Supreme Court pulled in 1987 after allegations he had used marijuana, Ronald Reagan won unanimous confirmation in a Democratic Senate for Anthony Kennedy, then a judge with a decade-long conservative track record on a federal appellate court. Similarly, Mr. Bush recovered quickly from losing Linda Chavez as his nominee for Labor Secretary and Mr. Kerik as Secretary of Homeland Security. The damage to his relations with his conservative base would blow over quickly if Mr. Bush were to quickly name a well-qualified nominee who was not a sphinx when it came to judicial philosophy. Perhaps this time he might even expand the talent pool to include--gasp--men.

Frederick W. Kagan has a blueprint for victory in Iraq. I agree with him. Make the Sunnis understand they have been defeated, and that violence will not enable them to restore their dominance in Iraq.

Cathy Young examines the blogosphere's reaction to the suicide bomber in Oklahoma. I'm all for journalistic standards, for bloggers and the MSM. Right now, though, the suicide bomber story aside, it's the MSM that has been stumbling the most of late.

Could White House officials be laying the groundwork for a Miers withdrawal? Please let it be so.

Derrick Jackson is optimistic about the elections recently held in Liberia. Let's hope he is right.

Robert Kuttner says the UAW's deal with GM is a desperation move. He also uses it as another justification for universal health care. His use of the examples of Japanese and German automakers is flawed, I think, because he doesn't point out the fact that our economy continues to grow at a much faster rate than theirs. In Massachusetts, the legislature may actually grapple with one of the keys to our health care dilemma, which is the fact that health care is tied to our employers, rather than to individuals. While the proposal to require individuals to carry health insurance (with subsidies for people at the bottom of the income ladder) is a good first step, it won't solve the problem until we completely re-establish the link between the consumer of medical services (the patient) and the provider of those services (doctors, nurses, etc.) on the basis of price.

Can Saddam get a fair trial in Iraq? Not if his lawyers keep getting bumped off.

Can the devastated regions of the Gulf Coast recover? Not if they can't rebuild the infrastructure.

America's image is improving in the quake-ravaged regions of Pakistan.

If Karl Rove is indicted, Fred Barnes says he is irreplaceable.

James K. Glassman speculates that (horrors!) Americans might be turning into Europeans. He might be right.

Eugene Robinson says Judith Miller of the NYT is a "piece of work". I'm sure he's right.

Syria implicated in Hariri killing. As Claude Rains famously said, "I'm shocked...shocked".

I recently read a history of the Royal Navy called To Rule the Waves by Arthur Herman. I was struck by the final chapters concerning how the British Government deliberately dismantled what was once the greatest navy in the world. Today, an article in the Weekly Standard looks at how the British elites dismantled their empire, and speculates about the U.S. traveling down the same road.

The Belmont Club describes our navy's efforts to meet the new threats of the 21st century.

A Spanish judge wants to put three American soldiers on trial for the death of a Spanish cameraman during the battle of Baghdad in 2003. The sooner these Euro-fools fade into irrelevance, the better.

Victor Davis Hanson says we are winning in Iraq...and nobody cares.

Bob Novak has today's must-read column, about the trouble facing Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers...

George W. Bush's agents have convinced conservative Republican senators who were heartsick over his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court that they must support her to save his presidency. But that does not guarantee her confirmation. Ahead are hearings of unspeakable ugliness that can be prevented only if Democratic senators exercise unaccustomed restraint.

Will the Judiciary Committee Democrats insist on putting under oath two Texas judges who are alleged to have guaranteed during a conference call of Christian conservatives that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Will the Democrats dig into Miers's alleged interference nine years ago as Texas Lottery Commission chairman intended to save then Gov. Bush from political embarrassment?

Officials charged with winning Miers's confirmation told me neither of these issues is troublesome, but in fact they suggest incompetence and neglect by the White House. To permit a conference call with scores of participants hearing close associates of the nominee predict her vote on abortion is incompetent. To nominate somebody implicated in a state lottery dispute in the past without carefully considering the consequences goes beyond incompetence to arrogant neglect.

Read the whole thing. I think the stuff about the Texas Lottery is particularly interesting and will, I suspect, get the Democrats frothing at the mouth.

Miers is also getting slammed by the Judiciary Committee, even before she gets to testify.

Fred Barnes has it right (at least to some extent) about the conservative revolt against the President.

George Will writes about General Motors and health care. He predicts the end of the corporate welfare state, followed by the state-run welfare state. As we are seeing in Europe, the state-run aspect will be quite resilient, since governments can always tax their way into the black, an option not available event to the biggest businesses.

John Stossel explains the dangerous myths about gun control.

David Frum is over 5,000 and counting in his petition drive opposing the Miers nomination. He also has some good thoughts about the consequences of the White House effort to publicize Miers' personal view about abortion (she is against it).

Last night, Hurricane Wilma was a Category One, this morning, a Category Five. Fortunately, it looks as if it will weaken before it turns to strike Florida. Unfortunately, it will still be a hurricane.

Some people, at least, are recognizing that the election in Iraq is a historic moment, and another victory in the battle against the terrorist fanatics.

George W. Bush now talking tough about illegal immigration. Probably because conservatives have finally begun divorce proceedings against him, according to Bruce Bartlett.

Christopher Hitchens is right about the factions in Iraq. You probably don't know what you think you know.

OPPOSE THE MIERS NOMINATION

If you wish to express your opposition to the Miers nomination, go to David Frum's page on the National Review website. He is running a petition drive to ask the White House to withdraw the nomination. I have added my name, I hope you will as well. Not because we are sexist, or opposed to friends of George W. Bush, but because we believe that this extraordinary opening on the U.S. Supreme Court deserves someone who stands above the crowd in terms of intellectual power, judicial experience and temperament, and who has a demonstrable set of ironclad conservative credentials. The country deserves a knock-down, drag-out fight over such a candidate, not an under-the-radar crony of the President (who, by the way, according to John Fund of the WSJ, is being sold to religious conservatives as a lock to vote for overturning Roe v. Wade).

THE NEW CAMBODIA

This story from the New York Times caught my eye this morning. It describes some of what is happening along the Iraq-Syrian border. It also brought to mind a historical analogy:

A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials.

The firefight, between Army Rangers and Syrian troops along the border with Iraq, was the most serious of the conflicts with President Bashar al-Assad's forces, according to American and Syrian officials.

It illustrated the dangers facing American troops as Washington tries to apply more political and military pressure on a country that President Bush last week labeled one of the "allies of convenience" with Islamic extremists. He also named Iran.

One of Mr. Bush's most senior aides, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, said that so far American military forces in Iraq had moved right up to the border to cut off the entry of insurgents, but he insisted that they had refrained from going over it.

But other officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say that as American efforts to cut off the flow of fighters have intensified, the operations have spilled over the border - sometimes by accident, sometimes by design.

Some current and former officials add that the United States military is considering plans to conduct special operations inside Syria, using small covert teams for cross-border intelligence gathering.

The broadening military effort along the border has intensified as the Iraqi constitutional referendum scheduled for Saturday approaches, and as frustration mounts in the Bush administration and among senior American commanders over their inability to prevent foreign radical Islamists from engaging in suicide bombings and other deadly terrorist acts inside Iraq.

Increasingly, officials say, Syria is to the Iraq war what Cambodia was in the Vietnam War: a sanctuary for fighters, money and supplies to flow over the border and, ultimately, a place for a shadow struggle.

While I agree with the use of the Cambodia analogy, and while I find nothing wrong with the tenor of this article (and I recommend that you read the whole thing), I hope most people reading the article will understand that the Iraq War is not going the same route as the Vietnam War.

First, the insurgents in Iraq do not have the active, overt help of a nation-state. There is no Ho Chi Minh Trail equivalent and, especially important, there is no NVA equivalent in the field fighting with them.

Second, they do not have a superpower sponsor, as was the case with the Viet Cong and the NVA.

Third, the government in South Vietnam was never seen as legitimate by the people of South Vietnam, and for good reason. In Iraq, the people have voted once, are voting again today, and will vote again in December. While violence has permeated the process, more Iraqis are participating at each juncture.

The war will go on. But, if I am right about what is happening in the political process, then inexorably the Iraqi government will grow stronger and more self-sufficient, and the insurgency will suffer as a result. When the rulers of Syria (and Iran) decide it no longer pays to support the insurgents, the war will be over.

OPTIMISM ABOUT IRAQ

This story is encouraging...

Four days before Iraqis are to vote on their country's proposed constitution, Shi'ite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish power brokers reached a breakthrough late yesterday that revived dying hopes of winning Sunni support for the charter and defusing the Sunni-led insurgency by political means, Iraqi political leaders said.

The tentative accord, which would allow the constitution to be changed early next year, was reached through closed-door deals made largely by political party chiefs rather than members of Iraq's constitution committee. A parliamentary leader questioned whether enough time was left for the National Assembly to give it legal approval before the referendum.

But after weeks of stalemate over a draft constitution that largely shut out the demands of Iraq's disempowered Sunni Arab minority and raised fears of even greater sectarian and insurgent violence, some Sunni negotiators accepted yesterday's changes with relief.

''With the changes, I will give my full support to the constitution," said Mishan Jabouri, a Sunni Arab who was involved in negotiations. An opponent of the previous draft, Jabouri earlier had said he stayed in talks only at the coaxing of Middle Eastern diplomats.

''Before now, I felt like I am losing. We are losing our power, we are losing our country, and I am like a foreigner living here," Jabouri said. ''Now everything has changed. This constitution, I think any Arab Sunni can support it."

''I believe the key part of the Sunni community will come on board," said another senior Iraqi official close to the talks. ''We have come very far at the very last minute."

If the Iraqi people turn out in large numbers to vote on the proposed constitution, including the Sunnis, and they approve it, it will be difficult to make the argument that the new constitution and the government created by it is illegitimate. If the Shiite, Kurd and Sunni political leaders can continue to make deals, even backroom deals, without violence, they will have taken a giant step toward the day when the insurgency is defeated, and our troops can come home.

PESSIMISM ABOUT IRAQ

As I recall, Jackson Diehl was opposed to the Iraq War back in 2003, so it is not a surprise that he continues to oppose it. But his column today in the Washington Post is worth reading because it is not a reiteration of his views but, rather, the sobering views of two Iraqis who were very much in favor of the U.S.-led invasion.

Three years ago Kanan Makiya and Rend Rahim were among the most persuasive advocates of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Both liberal Iraqi intellectuals and eloquent English speakers, they made the case that Saddam Hussein's removal was a cause to be embraced on moral and human rights grounds, and that its result could be the replacement of the Arab world's most brutal dictatorship by its first genuine democracy.

That's why it was so sobering to encounter Makiya and Rahim again last week -- and to hear them speak with brutal honesty about their "dashed hopes and broken dreams," as Makiya put it. The occasion was a conference on Iraq sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, which did so much to lay the intellectual groundwork for the war. A similar AEI conference three years ago this month resounded with upbeat predictions about the democratic, federal and liberal Iraq that could follow Saddam Hussein. This one, led off by Makiya and Rahim, sounded a lot like its funeral.

Makiya began with a stark conclusion: "Instead of the fledgling democracy that back then we said was possible, instead of that dream, we have the reality of a virulent insurgency whose efficiency is only rivaled by the barbarous tactics it uses." The violence, he said, "is destroying the very idea or the very possibility of Iraq."

The Iraqi liberals can fairly blame the Bush administration for not listening to them: for failing to deploy enough troops, for refusing to quickly install the provisional government they advocated, for rejecting the Iraqi fighters they offered to help impose order immediately after the invasion. But Makiya, a former adviser to the Iraqi government in exile who now heads the Iraq Memory Foundation, instead scrupulously dissected "our Iraqi failures." Chief among these, he said, was an underestimation of the rootedness of Hussein's Baath Party inside Iraq's Sunni community and its latent ability to mobilize the insurgency that has bedeviled reconstruction while dividing the country along ethnic and religious lines.

The relentless violence had, he said, made political accord impossible and instead was driving Iraq toward a three-way division, accompanied by a civil war that could endure for decades. This course had been crystallized in the Iraqi constitution, which -- hurried toward a ratification vote this Saturday at the insistence of the Bush administration -- is "a fundamentally destabilizing document," he said. "The deal we have is a patently unworkable deal. To the extent that it is made to work it will work toward fratricide."

Rahim, a former ambassador of the interim government in Washington, picked up where Makiya left off, first endorsing his conclusions and then settling in to explain precisely why the constitution threatens Iraq with catastrophe. The draft, she said, was "written as a reaction to Iraq's history" of dictatorship and oppression of minorities; it creates a central government so weak that "when you look at it, there is no 'there' there."

By contrast, the Kurdish and Shiite "regions" -- really more like mini-states -- provided under the constitution will have so much power, including their own armed forces, that they will be able to ignore the national constitution's provisions for human rights, respect for minorities and limitation of Islamic clerical power. "There's a high probability that these alignments in the constitution will eventually spin the state out of control," Rahim concluded.

I recall reading Makiya's dispatches during the run-up to the war and in it's early phases. Many supporters of the war, myself included, used Makiya's and Rahim's words to buttress the case for war. It is indeed disheartening to hear their pessimistic conclusions about where we are in Iraq in 2005. Could it be that our fallen sons and daughters died in vain? No weapons of mass destruction, and no democracy too? I can only hope that their analysis is too pessimistic. If it is not, then the war will truly be seen as a failure, and the implications of that are difficult to contemplate.

A SUPREME PROBLEM

There is a great deal of hand wringing going on in the Conservative movement these days relative to the President's selection of Harriet Miers as his nominee for the Supreme Court. Many Conservative activists were all geared up to fight the Libs to the death over a principled, highly qualified, demonstratively Conservative candidate. The President had many to choose from, even some women and minorities. And yet, he punted. He chose a personal crony who is a complete enigma to everyone. She could be David Souter. She could be Sandra Day O'Connor. She could be Clarence Thomas. I have absolutely no idea, and I have yet to read or hear from anyone who does.

Peggy Noonan puts her finger on the real problem that is illustrated by this fiasco.

Supreme Court justices are more powerful than ever while who and what they are is more mysterious than ever. We have a two part problem. The first is that no one knows what they think until they're there. The other is that they're there forever.

I find myself lately not passionately supporting or opposing any particular nominee. But I'd give a great deal to see Supreme Court justices term-limited. They should be picked not for life but for a specific term of specific length, and then be released back into the community. This would involve amending the Constitution. Why not? We'd amend it to ban flag-burning, even though a fool burning a flag can't possibly harm our country. But a Kelo decision and a court unrebuked for it can really tear the fabric of a nation.

Bingo. It is not necessary for a judge to have a life-tenure in order to ensure judicial independence. In New Hampshire, Supreme Court Justices must retire at 65. In some states, judges serve fixed terms, in others they are elected. How about appointing U.S. Supreme Court justices for one ten year term. Grandfather the current set, so that as they die or retire new people would be appointed, thus creating staggered terms so that the entire court would not be turned over at the same time. A ten year term would give the justice ample time to learn the ropes and leave a legacy, but it would also allow us to know that the court could be re-shaped over time in a consistent manner, subject to the will of the people as expressed by their choices for President and U.S. Senate. It would create at least some degree of accountability in a body that is now, because of the lifetime tenure, completely unaccountable.