I have to say I’m underwhelmed by the arguments for the judicial filibuster as it is now deployed by the Democrats. The president and his party won the election; and the president should be able to nominate judges and have them brought to a vote in the Senate. Maybe an exceptional case could justify a filibuster; but I don’t see the broad decision to block so many nominees as a matter of precedent. This piece of evidence struck me as persuasive. On the other hand, Stuart Taylor makes a very good case for the constitutional extremism of one of the president’s favorite nominees, Janice Rogers Brown. Whatever else she is, she does not fit the description of a judge who simply applies the law. If she isn’t a “judicial activist,” I don’t know who would be. (I might add I’m not unsympathetic to her anti-statist views. But she should run for office, not the courts.)
WHAT THE BRITS THOUGHT: Kevin Drum is right, I think, to notice the leaked British memo about the preparations for the war to oust Saddam. It’s one person’s assessment of what was going on in Washington. It’s not the last word and it isn’t proof of anything but the British government’s own view of Bush’s foreign policy aims in 2002. Still, I’m struck by two assessments:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.… The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
In retrospect, doesn’t this sound quite insightful with regards to the weaknesses of the Iraq war policy? I still support the invasion on moral grounds and “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” But the Bush administration’s faith-based treatment of intelligence and its failure to plan for the aftermath of war still stand out as pieces of reckless governance.
The Dish 