← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 20586 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2005-10-09
2005-10-09 19:27 | User Profile
Miers Pick 'Cause for Concern' for Military
A leading activist on military personnel issues has come out against the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, citing her perceived stance on women in combat and gays in the military.
In a letter to "Opinion Leaders and Commentators," Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, writes:
"I am very disappointed by the president's choice for the Supreme Court, and regret that I have no choice but to explain the apparent implications of the nomination of Harriet Miers.
"Ms. Miers does not have a judicial 'paper trail,' but her record as White House Counsel is a legitimate cause for concern. Democrats and liberals who are willing to use the military for purposes of social experimentation have reason to be pleased."
According to Donnelly, Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's "illegal" assignments of women in units required to be all male, or was "oblivious" to the possible consequence of those assignments - that is, a future court ruling requiring young women to register with the Selective Service on the same basis as men.
"In either case, Harriet Miers has apparently allowed the administration to flout the law."
Donnelly surmises that Miers also approved of the administration's "incomprehensible" retention of Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) regulations regarding gays in the military, which are different from the 1993 law that Congress actually passed.
"Again, either Miers is for Clinton's indefensible, expendable policy, or she does not understand the implications of DADT," Donnelly writes. "President Bush could have eliminated that administrative policy early in his administration while upholding the law."
Court of Appeals Judge Michael Luttig "wrote unequivocally about the difference between the law and DADT," according to Donnelly. "Instead of naming Luttig or someone like him to the Supreme Court, Bush has named a less-than-stellar nominee because she is an old friend ...
"We now have a nominee who is likely to confuse the issue of what the administration's position is on women in combat, registering women for Selective Service, and gays in the military."
President Bush, Donnelly concludes, "has let the military down."
NewsMax.com
2005-10-10 17:44 | User Profile
My concern is that reports have her as a ex-Catholic. Not a liberal Catholic or a phoney Catholic, but one who has rejected the Church in favor of Protestantism--a convert from Catholicism. No offense to our Protestant members but that gives me the creeps. With some exceptions in certain places, normally it is the other way around.
(Granted, some would say the modern American Catholic Church has become de facto Protestant, and I would agree.)
But with so many good candidates around, why should we settle for a minor leaguer?
2005-10-10 18:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]My concern is that reports have her as a ex-Catholic. Not a liberal Catholic or a phoney Catholic, but one who has rejected the Church in favor of Protestantism--a convert from Catholicism. No offense to our Protestant members but that gives me the creeps. With some exceptions in certain places, normally it is the other way around. It doesn't seem like its a problem to me :lol:. Actually you misunderstood I think. She was basically a lapsed Catholic, who started going to Church again, this time in a Protestant one. One that seems fairly conservative. I think traditionalists really could find much worse. That is if she keeps going - always a question among these types.
QUOTE [/QUOTE] Some would say Protestantism is become de facto Catholic, minus the good (bad) points. (No one hassles you over divorces, abortion, or practically anything, as long as you drop your contribution in.
But with so many good candidates around, why should we settle for a minor leaguer?[/QUOTE]You mean "Bush Leaguer"? (I couldn't resist).:biggrin:
2005-10-10 18:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]My concern is that reports have her as a ex-Catholic. Not a liberal Catholic or a phoney Catholic, but one who has rejected the Church in favor of Protestantism--a convert from Catholicism.[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm sure you agree that we certainly don't want Rome dictating American policy and/or law.
2005-10-10 20:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE]A leading activist on military personnel issues has come out against the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, citing her perceived stance on women in combat and gays in the military.[/QUOTE] The author misses quite a few points. Modern war does not have a secure rear, the non combat distinction is irrelevant, though the qualifications for a particular MOS is still in need of work.
Regardless of whether or not one makes the idiotic decision to put women into light infantry (for example) -- where they simply can't cut it -- any and everyone in uniform has to know how to use and employ fundamental small unit tactics. Hackworth authored some excellent tirades on that in his closing years, pointing to the Marine's approach as being more utile.
It doesn't matter that a regulation written by social engineers is on paper. Not all regs survive combat intact. It is criminal (on the part of Congress and the High Command echelons) to send soldiers into the field, male or female, insufficiently prepared and equipped.
Consider Little Big Horn, Task Force Smith, Kaserene Pass, Savo Island, and for that matter, Washington's initial fights in and around New York. There was a work called "America's First Battles" that is quite enlightening on how badly American troops fare when sent forth poorly trained and prepared.
[QUOTE]Democrats and liberals who are willing to use the military for purposes of social experimentation have reason to be pleased." [/QUOTE] That is the least of worries.
[QUOTE]According to Donnelly, Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's "illegal" assignments of women in units required to be all male, or was "oblivious" to the possible consequence of those assignments - that is, a future court ruling requiring young women to register with the Selective Service on the same basis as men.[/QUOTE] Until men and women are equally eligible for the draft, and as such equally eligible for federal education loans, there is
No Equal Protection Under The Law
Once assigned to a combat theatre, you have to be trained and prepared. See above.
[QUOTE]"Again, either Miers is for Clinton's indefensible, expendable policy, or she does not understand the implications of DADT," Donnelly writes. "President Bush could have eliminated that administrative policy early in his administration while upholding the law."[/QUOTE] No he couldn't, Congress write the laws and rules that govern the administration of the military. That is per the Constitution. Clinton learned to his chagrin that this was so when he tried to force the butt pirates into open military status. That fool went to law school, but he forgot to read the Constitution, it seems.
[QUOTE]"We now have a nominee who is likely to confuse the issue of what the administration's position is on women in combat, registering women for Selective Service, and gays in the military."[/QUOTE] Since America itself is confused, and since the last 30 years of "stuck on stupid" social engineering has made a complete mess of all this, how does this woman's appointment matter in the least? It doesn't.
[QUOTE]President Bush, Donnelly concludes, "has let the military down."[/QUOTE] Snort. For other reasons, perhaps.
Ae
2005-10-11 14:01 | User Profile
What bothers me most is Bush, the source of the appointment. Bush, like his father is no Conservative, so why should I trust him to appoint one to the Supremes. I don't. When he says, "trust me", what he really means is trust me to appoint someone who reflects my views, not yours. In that he's being very truthful.
2005-10-11 14:33 | User Profile
DB,
Remember, this is a "faith based" administration, so we are expected to have faith in Bush.
2005-10-11 15:18 | User Profile
[url]http://stillangryblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/et-tu-w.html[/url]
here's a funny take on the aprehension within the "conservative" movement through the eyes of the die hard bloggers, a la Shakespeare.
best line: "I am no orator, as Bush is"
check out the comments as well
2005-10-11 17:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well, I'm sure you agree that we certainly don't want Rome dictating American policy and/or law.[/QUOTE]
Tex:
You're a friend, but that thinking is so old, it makes me sad. :sad:
2005-10-11 22:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Well, I'm sure you agree that we certainly don't want Rome dictating American policy and/or law. Tex: You're a friend, but that thinking is so old, it makes me sad. [/QUOTE] No worries, Tex or Buster. The ACLU is here to protect you from ANY Evangelical intrusion into our secular based governance. Of course you will get legalized marrige between goat and man, NAMBLA chapters in the schools, and open borders, but no problems from those pesky religious zelots.
2005-10-12 02:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well, I'm sure you agree that we certainly don't want Rome dictating American policy and/or law.[/QUOTE] [size=4] [/size][font=Times New Roman][size=4]AMEN to that!
I told the Whore of Rome goodbye forever back in 1992 and never looked back![/size][/font]
2005-10-12 04:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Miers Pick Bush 'Cause for Concern' for Military[/QUOTE]
That's what this should be about.
2005-10-13 03:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]That's what this should be about.[/QUOTE] I'll get the double entendre out of the way. This line
[QUOTE]Bush 'Cause for Concern' for Military [/QUOTE] should read
[QUOTE]Bush an Eternal Obsession for Military[/QUOTE] I observed that most in the military have a primary and compelling concern with bush. This includes the non trivial lesbian population in uniform. Remember the Norton Sound . . .
OK, back back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
AE
2005-10-15 11:37 | User Profile
Interesting to me that Gabby posted this! I believe there's hope for her.:thumbsup:
2005-10-16 04:50 | User Profile
i believe that true objective historians will look at the post-reagan years (bush-clinton-bush... - clinton?) as one long uninterrupted seamless criminal enterprise puncutated by bouts of fake obstreperousness between friends pretending to be dire enemies.
and they may include the reagan years since except for a couple of acts... reagan did what rogenfelder wanted him to do anyway.
more than anything else, bush is worried about bush's tush, hence miers.
the last president who was truly worth a damn was president jackson.
the last one who understand and abided by the constitution, any constitution, was president davis.