Stuart Taylor notes the concern among some critics of the Sotomayor pick:
The choice of Sotomayor also puts Republicans and moderate Democrats who may be deeply unhappy with her jurisprudence in a lose-lose position, and Obama in a win-win position. If Republicans attack Judge Sotomayor’s more controversial actions, they risk provoking a backlash among Hispanic voters, who have already been moving into the Democratic column in droves.
Let me just observe the irony in those who criticize Sotomayor for declaring that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” themselves being subject to a tidal wave of complaints because no one can just go around questioning the intellectual bona fides of Latinas. Or something like that. The double standards leave you dizzy.
Howard Kurtz reports:
Some critics say Sotomayor’s Hispanic heritage and modest background should play no role in judging her fitness for the high court. But after Sotomayor spoke of being raised by a single mother in the South Bronx, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said: “I would hate to be a senator on the Judiciary Committee who tried to give that person a hard time.”
Wow, isn’t it grand to live in a country where a Latina can be nominated for the highest court and then treated with kid gloves because everyone is scared to treat her like any other nominee? Not so much, actually.
But let’s be honest: there is a political reality to what Taylor says. Senators, like all politicians, are remarkably sensitive to being labeled “racist” — or the less inflammatory version, “insensitive.” (No, it didn’t insulate Clarence Thomas from a political onslaught but the rules are different, we all know, for a conservative nominee.)
So what do conservatives do? Stick to the point. The point is impartiality. The point is whether, as Richard Cohen notes, it’s time to jettison the mindset of racial favoritism. (“Blatant affirmative action always entailed a disturbing and ex post facto changing of the rules — oops, you’re white. Sorry, not what we wanted.”) The point is what Sotomayor thinks her job as a judge is, as distinct from what the job of a legislator or president is.
After all, it is Sotomayor who must avoid playing the racial victim and convince the Senate and the country she’s not a proponent of a racial spoils system at odds with Americans’ sense of fairness. If she and her proponents balk at the same sort of questions John Roberts, Sam Alito, and others before them endured, the jig will be up.
So it’s simple, really: Ask the questions, let the judge speak. Let the country decide.
Still one of the worst strategic blunders im American history. Iran has the bomb and a new client state, all thanks to George W Bush. Afghanistan was allowed to backslide and will never be the success story it could have been, because W took his eye off the prize. Al Qaeda is alive and well in Pakistan, which becomes more unstable by the day.
The Bush foreign policy was a complete failure. It may have been eclipsed by his economic policy, also a complete failure.
But he did give us Obama and Democratic majorities in Congress. So thanks, Bushies. Heckuva job.
How many strategic non-sequiturs can Steve cram into one paragraph?
Don’t forget to give credit to the milbloggers and citizen journalists who reported from the front lines-Totten, Yon, Roggio, Badgers Forward, Teflon Don, Greyhawk, Blackfive and others. It was their on the ground reporting that helped me know that the cause of a self governing Iraq was not lost.
“And despite the cost, one can now argue that American interests will have been served in a war that critics once called the worst foreign policy mistake in our history. Thankfully, blessedly, they were as wrong as wrong can be”
I don’t see where you’ve made that point here. just because deaths are at a 6 year low?
if we hadn ‘t gone in there would be no deaths.
how were our interests served? what are we going to do if the next president of iraq starts talking about “nuclear energy” and wiping israel off the map? that’s what democracy has brought when offered in the rest of the middle east.
they are already STRONGLY allied with iran. what is a bigger foreign policy mistake in our history??
Lester: Now you’re worried about Israel’s survival? LOLOLOLOLOL
I have never understood why anyone thought this would be a short war, and here’s why: when we speak of the Iraqis, we mean Iraqi men–not so much as we once did, thank God, and Bush, and Petraeus–and that’s why I have always assumed it must be a long involvement. We need to see a generation of Iraqi women who have voted, a generation which can read and has taught its daughters to read, Iraqi women who imagine a future for their daughters that involves something beyond genital mutilation and honor killings. Have you heard of a generation happening overnight? I haven’t.
The JournoList will meet in emergency session to decide what the MSM stance should be tomorrow. Ignore the story altogether or scratch around for a pro-Obama spin?
…it’s not unfair to say that this iraq war could have been one of the worst foreign policy blunders/disasters in post WW2 american history….the idea that it was – at any point in time – a bigger or costlier mistake than, say, viet nam, displays an appalling ignorance of history and the sort of ideological blinders that lester and warpublican wear so well…
the assertion that iraq is now a cat’s paw or buddy-buddy with iran is not something even a juan cole would now make with a straight face…indeed, would it be in america’s best interest if iran and iraq were now actively hostile?
but we’d be foolish to crack open the veuve cliquot because it’s still far from clear whether iraq will come to resemble a post war germany, post war japan, post war lebanon or post war korea…or something that is bad for the iraqis, bad for the region and bad for us…
….what america has undeniably succeeded in doing is put iraq in the position to succeed as iraq – not as a gelb/galbraith tri-partite grab bag of regional ethnicities….
…the army people i’ve spoken with are guardedly optimistic but genuinely concerned…as they – and we – should be about the future…
…and let’s not expect the iraqis to manifest overt gratitude, either…for one, their sacrifices have been greater than ours; for another, the french, the koreans and more than a few germans aren’t all that grateful for america either…we’re fools to believe people should be grateful; let’s do what we usually do best – try to do the right thing based on the best available information…and try to leave things better than we found them…
god – and allah – knows america has done that for iraq…
“Iran has the bomb and a new client state”
It has neither…
Afghanistan was allowed to backslide and will never be the success story it could have been,
Wow. Does Steve really think installing a democracy in Afghanistan is
a) ever possible and
b) more strategically significant than a democracy in Iraq?
Afghanistan itself, what happens inside those borders, means nothing to the US, excepting if a group like Al Qaeda sets up bases there. The “success story” of Afghanistan was accomplished long ago, and frankly I don’t get why we persist in thinking we can do much more than we’ve done. I wouldn’t abandon the place, but I wouldn’t want to waste our time, blood and treasure in trying to do the impossible task of turning Afghanistan into a modern country.
I heard Thomas Ricks the other night on Charlie Rose confidently state the Iraq invasion was the worst military decision in the history of the US. Even Charlie Rose was taken aback, citing Vietnam as maybe worse. Ricks would have none of it. Vietnam, he said, was easy to get out of, compared with Iraq. I was flummoxed. This guy is a highly respected military correspondent, but that’s just crazy. As we understood things in 2003, Iraq presented us with an urgent situation. Iraq is 100 times more significant, strategically, to the global economy and peace than Vietnam. Maybe 1000 times. Vietnam was, at best, an opportunity to show our muscle to the Soviets and Chinese, but was otherwise of zero significance. And if Vietnam was so easy from which to extricate ourselves, how come it took more than 10 years and half a million lives to do it?
Some of the commenters might counter by saying, “Yeah but look how much more powerful and dangerous Iran is now, thanks to our invasion of Iraq.” Well, nice work guys. Your left-wing brethren of the 1980s, who found our realpolitik-based protection of Hussein morally repugnant, would be outraged, but the spirits of many Republican foreign policy apparatchiks, including Donald Rumsfeld, would have been pleased. Just keep on making war with Iran, Hussein, and we won’t bother you about anything else. That’s what they thought, and apparently that’s what you think now. I reject that premise, and I reject the cost of maintaining the status quo pre-invasion.
Afghanistan the “prize”? That is ridiculous. Not to disparage Afghans or their country, but Iraq, at the heart of the Arab world, is, has, and always will be an order of magnitude more significant and consequential to the overall struggle…
PETER doesn’t want to go certain places.
1} What if the price of the success of the surge was allowing Iran to go nuke? Tehran was causing all kinds of difficulties in theater, yet all of a sudden, those problems began to go away, ———————— now why was that? The interest that Tehran had in sowing turmoil in Iraq never ceased to obtain, their desire to shed the blood of the infidel didn’t diminish, ——————– so what was it?
2} A significant portion of our population, THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PORTION of that population, wasn’t just ready to toss in the towel, ————————– that’s an understatement, a TREMENDOUS understatement. That portion of the population WAS DETERMINED upon failure, and was determined that nothing else should result in our campaign in Iraq. Any other descriptive is so wildly off as to beggar description.
Dan-
I think part of the reason Iran’s ability to cause problems went away is because we took it away. We figured out who their operatives were and took them out. Destabilizing Iraq became too expensive an operation.
I doubt if it was a quid pro quo.
The Iraq war was one nail in the coffin for a preemptive strike at Iran-there was no way we could start another Middle East War without huge worldwide outrage,unless IRan exploded a nuke. It kust wasn’t going to happen. The leaked NIE that said that Iran had stopped its nuclear program was icing on the cake, since it took away any reason to start one.
I’d like someone to explain how Iran would have been significantly weaker if we had left Saddam in power. I’ve seen this absurd-on-its-face moronic talking point spewed over several weblogs, and yet to see an explanation of how exactly that would have worked.
#14 – assuming Saddam & His Sons were still in power. No one knows or ever will know what the Persian Gulf region would look like today if we hadn’t acted. The only thing we can assume is that it wouldn’t be the same as it was in 2002 – the same sanctions, the same disagreements, the same commitments, the same forces, the same participants and personalities, the same political background, and so on – and yet that’s the premise that most critics start with. Iran’s drive to gain a nuclear weapon and to achieve regional dominance didn’t begin in 2003: The former began in earnest in the ’90s; the latter began thousands of years ago – if not earlier.
One wonders what the leftists and others pushing the “Iran won” theories (based on little more than a desire to perturb Iraq triumphalists) think that the US or any combination of allies should or would have done about Iran that our intervention in Iraq prevented us from doing. Surely, such critics wouldn’t have favored armed intervention in Iran. If they imagine us somehow taking a stronger position – through greater pressure, augmented forces, etc. – then, according to their usual rationale, we would have increased Iran’s motivation to achieve nuclear deterrence. If they imagine us backing off, then how would we have been able to prevent Iran from pursuing greater regional influence, including in Iraq?
Oh well, I gave up hoping for logic and accountability from the “worst blunder in history” camp a long time ago.
Vail Beach, I think ” Does Steve really think…” requires either a (sic) or the reply “Negative!”.
John Irving, this “… Iran… significantly weaker if we had left Saddam in power” is an article of Faith. I believe the string (theory) runs like this: Members of armed forces being killed+President Bush=”This Wahr is Lost, Surge will never work…” etc. Since the Prime Directive says “No wars are worth winning”, when members of the armed forces are no longer being killed in the headlines, the only possible conclusion is, “Iran is stronger”, as any other position, such as, we won, is also not permitted. The short version of this latter is, “Soldiers dying, we’re losing, all is lost, “Run away! Run away!”, “Soldiers no longer dying, Iran is stronger.” I realize I’ve just written a tangled mess, but you should see the source documents.
The modern United States has a history of turning, against all odds, a despotic regime into a democracy–i.e. Japan, Germany, Korea. We should be cautiously optimistic about Iraq.
Yes, the amount of money spent and lives lost on these projects is staggering, but in the long run, the sacrifice is worth it.
Wasn’t it former UK PM Tony Blair who said democracies don’t go to war against one another?
We are well on our way to having another democracy in the Middle East–Iraq can join Israel in that enlightened community of representative governments.
And the George W. Bush Administration can be rightfully proud of this achievement.
…Japan, Germany, South Korea, Italy, Taiwan…
#10: “Does Steve really think installing a democracy in Afghanistan is
a) ever possible”
But democracy in Afghanistan exists already…
Protecting it from its enemies is our problem –
not installing it.
Steve is as wrong as the day is long.
Strategic blunder? Gee, get that Scowcroft/Baker DNA off your frigging chin and get your OsamaBama kneepads brushed off, boy. I would say more about your nonsense, but expletives are not allowed.
President Bush did disappoint me greatly on several fronts, Iran being one of them, but where I was NOT disappointed was the liberation of Iraq from the bloodthirsty Nazi-worshipping Sadam Husayn, the friendship established with the Afghans (and the first successful liberation of that nation since Alexander the Great), and the global reach of the war on terror, from the Horn of Africa to the Far East. We established a solid combat-experienced cadre in our armed forces, overcame the flawed logic that an “insurgency” could not be successfully defeated, made great advances in anti-missile technology and established close, lasting ties with Eastern Europe, and after years of holding firm in the face of TREASNOUS actions by the Left aided by an “aid and comfort to the enemy” media, established a lasting representative republic in two nations written off as incapable of operating on the principle of one man, one vote.
The COWARDS who mewled and whined at every day of the GWoT (Stevie-poo and Code Stink, I’m talkin’ to YOU), and the wusses parading as Republicans (Scowcroft, Baker et al), and the sleazebags in the Bush Administration who used access to the President in a pay-for-play scheme (Richard Perle and Mary Cheney, now my finger points at YOU) all ended up with egg all over their faces when the situation in Iraq stabilized in direct contravention to all of their best efforts.
Iraq today is free, stable, and is developing as a beacon to other Arab populations struggling under the burden of dictatorships. Iraq will be a catalyst in the MidEast as their economy prospers and heavy industry begins to move in, creating a solid middle class that will be the envy of all Arab countries.
God Bless President George W Bush, and God Damn to Hell EVERY scumbag who voted for the Marxist Kenyan FRAUD who succeeded him. President Bush wasn’t perfect, but he is an incredibly decent man who cares deeply for the freedom of the individual and who carries within his soul a deep and abiding respect for the electoral process and the concept of a representative republic.
Oh, and don’t overlook the fact that the situation in Iraq is not hidden from the Iranian people. They know that their daily lives are WORSE than the people living on the other side of their long border, despite the best efforts of their terrorist government to strangle in the cradle the nascient Iraqi nation. Ever day that Iraq grows stronger and more stable, the weaker and more instable Iran becomes. The grip that the Iranian regime has on its own people is weak, support for the government is minimal, but unfortunately, the election of the despicable terrorist sympathizer in the US gave the Mullahs a badly needed shot in the arm.
Additionally, the 2007 NIE was based on information provided by Iranian Revolutionary Guards double agents, and completely WRONG. Current news out of Iran shows it was completely off-base, and yet the lunatics on the Left continue to use it as proof they were correct?
Iran WILL be using their nuclear weapon, and very, very soon. What scares the living hell out of me is the most probable reaction of OsamaObama: NOTHING.
mds- “the assertion that iraq is now a cat’s paw or buddy-buddy with iran is not something even a juan cole would now make with a straight face…indeed, would it be in america’s best interest if iran and iraq were now actively hostile?”
not, I didn’t add the three dots seperating those two contradictory views. mds simply has so many excuses she/ he blurts them out ad nauseum.
Yes, iran and Iraq are buddy buddy. take it to the bank and they will speak farsi there wether it is in iran or iraq. shias are a monority in the muslim world and stick together like glue.
“Oh, and don’t overlook the fact that the situation in Iraq is not hidden from the Iranian people. They know that their daily lives are WORSE than the people living on the other side of their long border, despite the best efforts of their terrorist government to strangle in the cradle the nascient Iraqi nation.”
yuo think life in iraq is BETTER than life in iran??/ holy crap i don’t think there are too many people who will agree with you on that one. when 6 million iranians flood syria maybe I’ll believe you
“Additionally, the 2007 NIE was based on information provided by Iranian Revolutionary Guards double agents, and completely WRONG”
whoah okay you are totally crazy
“Iran WILL be using their nuclear weapon, and very, very soon”
lol you should get a chair at the hoover institute or some other beltway crap factory
“but where I was NOT disappointed was the liberation of Iraq from the bloodthirsty Nazi-worshipping Sadam Husayn”
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg
“God Bless President George W Bush, and God Damn to Hell EVERY scumbag who voted for the Marxist Kenyan FRAUD who succeeded him. ”
Thank you, Rev. Wright…
for lester #23
…umm, dude, happy to break it to you but those two statements are COMPLETELY complementary…it would be a bad thing for the US – and the region – if iran and iraq had yet another shooting war…don’t you agree…that there is a ‘cold war’ or ‘cold pieace’ between the two is a good thing for iran, iraq and, yes, the west…
…and which bank should i take your keen insight to? one the president is about to nationalize?
…with limited respect for your middle eastern scholarship, iran and iraq are ‘buddy buddy’ the way the US and mexico are ‘buddy buddy’
mds- you are INVENTING the idea that iran are both not too close and not enemies because it fits your argument. you have absolutely no actual basis on which to make that claim.
IN fact, trade and diplomacy between iran and iraq are both robust as both are majority shia.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/160721735.html
“lester”: Perhaps a few lessons in English language and coherent writing would be in order.
And, Warr, you bet that damnation was aimed right at you. Rot in hell, you filthy son of a …. Michelle Obama.
Lester said “… Iran and Iraq are buddy buddy. take it to the bank and they will speak farsi there wether it is in iran or iraq. shias are a monority in the muslim world and stick together like glue,” and he said it I believe in order to show that we strengthened Iran by strengthening Iraq.
Is there perhaps some overlooked reason why the Iraqis and the Iranians might not be so buddy buddy and over the centuries? Is there some reason a boundary was set after World War I between Iraq and Iran when the British ceded over the Palestine and Trans Jordan Mandate. Is there a crucial difference that Lester might have missed? Could it be that while Iraq has a majority Shia population, they they are Arabic and speak Arabic with an Arabic national culture, while Iran has a Persian Shia supermajority that speaks Farsi with an entirely Persian culture?
“And, Warr, you bet that damnation was aimed right at you. Rot in hell, you filthy son of a …. Michelle Obama.”
Oh Gee – there’s another Zionista, Dual Loyalty, Anti-American X-Mas gift I won’t be getting…
greg- because those western powers knew as little as the western powers of today about the region.
Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki visits Iran
He hopes to use the two-day visit, including a meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, to allay Tehran’s concerns about U.S. influence over Iraq.
By Kimi Yoshino
January 04, 2009
Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Maliki arrived in Iran today for a two-day visit with top leaders, in which he is expected to allay Tehran’s concerns about the United States’ continuing influence over Iraq.
The visit is Maliki’s fourth since he was elected and comes just days after the U.S. handed over military control of the Green Zone to Iraq and began a drawdown calling for the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Iran initially opposed the pact, accusing Americans of seeking to maintain its dominance over Iraq. American officials, for their part, have complained of Iran’s influence in next-door neighbor Iraq, including its ability to sway radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia.
Iran’s influence in Iraq has grown significantly since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which toppled the Sunni-dominated government of President Saddam Hussein, a longtime foe of Shiite-run Iran.
Maliki, himself a Shiite, met today with Iranian Vice President Parviz Dawoodi.
Maliki is expected to discuss economic, transportation and electricity issues with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday.
“Our security achievements and redeeming Iraq from the sectarian war gave us the chance to exert more efforts to accelerate the process of reconstruction and development, which needs the presence of neighboring countries’ companies,” Maliki said in a statement.
Parliament member Abdul Hadi Husseini, a member of Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party, said Maliki’s visit was aimed, in part, to “make Iran more comfortable and to remove any fear that Iraq could be used as a base” in the future by Western military forces. “This has been a sticking point for some time between Iran and America and Iran and the rest of world,” Husseini said.
Iraq’s minister of education, Khudair Khuzai, also a member of Maliki’s party, said Maliki had an additional aim: seeking to help improve relations between the U.S. and Iran.
“We believe that having any tension between those countries will reflect negatively on Iraq,” Khuzai said. “Iraq wants to be a [bridge] between both countries.”
Iraq’s ministers of trade, transportation and electricity traveled to Iran with Maliki. Husseini said Iraq was seeking to buy power from Iran and revive supply lines between the two countries into southern Iraq.
#29
…i’m inventing what’s going on right before the eyes of the world; i’m thrilled that there is trade and diplomacy between iraq and iran…just as i am thrilled that there is trade and diplomacy between the US & mexico and india and pakistan…
…i know facts that disagree with your ideological blinders are a terrible inconvenience for you but, you know, suck up and deal with them…
alternately, you can do what you seem happiest doing: insult folks who disagree with you and make up ‘facts’ that you think matter…then again, shia happens…
yeah I made up both those articles. aren’t i clever