Jay Reding.com

“Scooter” Libby has, or I should say had, a reputation as a smart and gifted lawyer. Why in the world he’d be dumb enough to purger himself in front of a grand jury is beyond me. However, it seems quite clear that Patrick Fitzgerald has his ass in a sling. Fitzgerald’s no slouch when it comes to running a tight investigation, and Libby’s own idiocy has been his downfall. If he doesn’t go to jail, it will be by the skin of his teeth.

At the same time, all the Democrats with visions of Karl Rove getting “frog-marched” out of the White House were disappointed. Fitzgerald essentially said that had Libby not lied, no crime would have been committed. What Libby did was no worse - and probably far less damaging to national security - than what Sandy Berger did when he destroyed valuable evidence related to the attempted millennium terrorist attacks. Then again, the facts don’t matter to the raving partisans of the left. They’re convinced that Valerie Plame was some super-secret agent, and that an anonymous star at the CIA designating the loss of a covert CIA agent is the result of her “unmasking” despite the fact that the star also corresponds to the war in Iraq. For some, facts aren’t what’s important, just partisanship.

Glenn Reynolds wraps it up quite well:

ONE OF THE THINGS I’VE NOTICED in the Judy Miller / Scooter Libby coverage is the development of a new history that’s very convenient for a lot of the people peddling it. The new story is that:

1. We only went to war because of WMDs — that was the only reason ever given.

2. Bush lied about those.

3. He told his lies to Judy Miller, who acted like a stenographer and reported them.

4. Everyone else gullibly went along.

There are lots of problems with this, beginning with the fact that it’s not true. I’ve addressed much of this — especially parts 1 & 2 — in earlier posts like this one, this one, and especially this one. It gets tiresome having to repeat this stuff, but the new history, despite its falsity, is just too convenient for too many people to be stopped by anything as simple as the truth.

Democratic politicians who supported the war want an excuse to tack closer to their antiwar base. Shouting “It’s not my fault –I’m easily fooled!” would seem a substandard response, but it is a way of changing position while pretending it’s not politically motivated. Meanwhile, journalists, most of whom were reporting the same kind of WMD stories that Miller did (because that’s what pretty much everyone thought — including the antiwar folks who were arguing that an invasion was a bad idea because it would provoke Saddam into using his weapons of mass destruction), now want to focus on her so that people won’t pay much attention to what they were reporting themselves. This makes Judy Miller a handy scapegoat.

But, as I say, the biggest problem with this revisionism is that it’s not true. I guess we’ll just have to keep pointing that out.

And indeed we will.

The left continues fighting over 2002, while the most basic nature of the war has changed since the fall of Saddam. Right now the people of Iraq are fighting alongside us in a battle against a group of radical Islamic fascists who have every intention of plunging Iraq into civil war - or worse. Nobody who has even the slightest interest in a more peaceful world can advocate turning our backs on Iraq. But it isn’t about Iraq, or world peace, or anything else. It’s all about the hatred of George W. Bush. It’s all about political ideology and political power. And trying to distort history by repeating the same old pack of lies over and over again is exactly what the left does best.

Scooter Libby did something phenomenally stupid, and he deserves to face the punishment for it. However, if being stupid were a crime, we’d have to turn California into a prison and put a good fraction of the Democratic Party there. Fitzmas fizzled for the left, but no doubt it won’t reduce their zealotry one iota.

Reynolds also notes something very important that is getting utterly missed in the discussion of this case: the fact that the CIA royally screwed up:

THE BIG LOSER in the Libby affair, it would seem to me, is the CIA. At least it will be if anyone pays attention.

Consider: Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative — something that’s not actually quite clear from the indictment — the chain of events looks pretty damning: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson’s oped appeared, Plame’s covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care.

This leaves two possibilities. One is that the mission was intended to result in the New York Times oped all along, meaning that the CIA didn’t care much about Plame’s status, and was trying to meddle in domestic politics. This reflects very badly on the CIA.

The other possibility is that they’re so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they’re so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism, that this is just business as usual. If so, the popular theory that the CIA couldn’t find its own weenie with both hands and a flashlight would appear to have found some pretty strong support.

Either way, it seems to me that everyone involved with planning the Wilson mission should be fired. And it’s obvious that the CIA, one way or another, needs a lot of work.

Porter Goss has been doing exactly that over the last few months, but cleaning up the CIA will be a major effort indeed. Wilson’s trip seems to me to be a deliberate effort by rogue elements of the CIA to attempt to influence and discredit our Iraq policy - which means that the CIA was trying to act as an unelected branch of government rather than an intelligence service. Allowing the CIA to have a say in policy is always a dangerous thing - see Pigs, Bay of - which is why it’s as crucial as ever that the CIA be reigned in. Thankfully, DCI Goss seems to understand the need to reform the CIA and restore it to performing its core mission rather than playing partisan politics, but changing the culture of an entrenched bureaucracy is a task of nearly Sisyphean proportions. Someone at the CIA screwed up, and unless that mess is cleaned up, we’re going to have plenty more “intelligence failures” - something that in a time of terrorism is absolutely intolerable.

It appears as though the rumor mills are true - President Bush will nominate Justice Samuel Alito of the 3rd Circuit as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Alito’s a safe pick, but safe picks are what’s needed. He’s a solid conservative, but not an ideologue. He has an extensive judicial record, is known for writing quality opinions, and has the right temperament to be an effective judge. In many ways, he closely resembles Chief Justice Roberts in terms of judicial philosophy and experience.

If the Democrats try a filibuster, it will likely lead to a collapse of The Deal, and it seems like the Gang of 14 will find Alito an acceptable choice.

Alito represents a safe, but solid, choice for the Supreme Court. After the Miers debacle, that’s exactly what the President needs.

In non-Miers, non-Fitzgerald news (which, yes, does exist), the President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel at a major Islamist convention in Tehran. While Middle Eastern leaders have always hated the existence of Israel and fanned the flames of anti-Semitism, Ahmadinejad’s comments have caused a major international firestorm - Israel has demanded Iran be expelled from the United Nations and even Kofi Annan has had to publicly disavow the Ahmadinejad’s statements.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair has directly called Iran a threat to global security. Meanwhile, Blair has also highlighted the connection between terrorist activity in Iraq and the Iranian government.

The Iranians are playing a dangerous game. Their nuclear program continues unabated, and if Iran’s increasingly hostile President gets ahold of nuclear weapons, a preemptive strike to remove that capability may become necessary. However, this saber-rattling may not be as much a sign of strength as a sign of weakness. Iran has a significant anti-government pro-democracy underground, and the “election” of Ahmadinejad in the aftermath of the more reform-oriented Mohammad Khatami has only exacerbated the tensions just underneath Iran’s society. As Ahmadinejad holds massive - and likely paid - anti-Israel demonstrations in Tehran it seems possible that he’s using the old Middle Eastern trick of inflaming anti-Semitic tensions in order to relieve pressure elsewhere.

Despite the high price of oil, the average Iranian is feeling the effects of Iran’s weak economy, which has led to high prices on consumer goods and a sense of economic malaise. The Tehran stock exchange has dropped 20% since Ahmadinejad was elected. Iranian companies are redirecting capital to the much more liberal states in the Middle East such as Dubai and the United Arab Emirates. Despite the high prices for oil on the world markets, the Iranian economy is still sputtering - and having Ahmedinejad make wild anti-Israel statements is not the sort of thing that will make foreign investors consider Iran a good bet.

Given the situation in Iran, it seems clear that Ahmadinejad is using anti-Semitism as a shield against rising discontent in Iran. However, that is a dangerous game. Push things too far and he could end up inviting an Israeli reprisal. Back off too soon and he could look weak in the eyes of his people, only furthering the level of discontent. Ahmadinejad has put himself into an untenable position with his rash words, a position that will only further Iran’s economic slide and exacerbate the tensions within the country. However, so long as Ahmadinejad doesn’t decide to suicidally follow through with his threats, Iran’s saber rattling will ultimately weaken the mullah’s hold on government as the Iranian people begin to demand the same rights and freedoms that their neighbors in the Arab Middle East enjoy. Especially as their co-religionists in Iraq find themselves gaining political power, the pro-democracy movement in Iran will only grow over time. It is not a question of if there will be a democratic groundswell in Iran, but when - and the more Ahmadinejad isolates Iran, the greater that chance becomes.

UPDATE: Syria is also feeling political pressure to reform - so much so that they’re resorting to some very nice pro-government Protest Babes™ to bolster their position. However, with Iraq now well on the path to democracy, Syrian Kurds and other groups aren’t going to let themselves be marginalized anymore. As Samuel Huntington noted, democracy travels in waves, and a wave of democratic sentiment is sweeping the Middle East - leaving leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar al-Assad seeking anything they can hold on to as to avoid being swept away in it.

National Review has a piece on the legacy of Mier’s failed nomination. My opposition to Miers was based less on ideology (although I don’t think she would have been a strict constructionist), but on qualifications. In the words of Hamilton, Miers struck me as little more than an “obsequious object” of Bush who simply didn’t have the intellectual rigor to be a member of the Supreme Court.

A justice on the Supreme Court needs a sharp and incisive legal mind, and Ms. Miers writing and statements indicated that she simply didn’t have what it takes. She may be a nice person, a good litigator, and is clearly an individual of character, but that doesn’t qualify one for the highest court in the land.

The editors of NR are right - this is no cause for celebration. It is a cause for relief. The President put Miers in an untenable position, and that reflects as badly on the White House’s utter lack of vetting as it does on Ms. Miers.

President Bush has an opportunity to do things right - to find a justice with the right legal qualifications who will see the Constitution as a set of enduring guiding principles rather than a roadblock to be overcome. There are plenty of people with excellent legal credentials and diverse experiences who would serve this nation well and ensure that our founding document is treated with the respect that it deserves.

UPDATE: Well, my prediction was very much correct. Harriet Miers has withdrawn herself as a nominee to the Supreme Court. Already, Erick Erickson has some insights as to who might be taking her place.

My prediction: Miers will withdraw within the next 48 hours. I can’t see this nomination continuing.

Captain Ed is off the fence and against Miers. Paul Mirengoff has done a 180 and put himself with the majority who oppose Miers. Leonardo Leo of the Federalist Society, one of the people responsible for helping Bush with the nomination has dropped out of that position.

The Miers nomination is DOA. If she doesn’t withdraw, she won’t make it through the Judiciary Committee, and she almost certainly does not have the votes to be nominated on the Senate floor. GOP Senators know quite well that there’s absolutely no political price to pay for defying the Bush Administration (see Senators McCain, Frist, Thune, etc…), so they have no reason to alienate their conservative base and vote for Miers. Democrats love to see Bush fail, and they’ll get yet another chance to draw blood with Miers.

This whole sordid affair has completely blown up in the already beleaguered faces of the Administration. Miers has demonstrated that the she’s not only unqualified for the position, but that her core beliefs are as changeable as the season - neither of which are appropriate for a strong conservative Supreme Court justice. President Bush has divided his base at the worst possible time, done a ham-fisted and half-assed job of supporting his nominee, and given plenty of new ammo for his critics - and even some of his friends.

It is simply time for Miers to go before this particular sinking ship takes more people down with it.

I’m going to make a not-so-bold prediction that the Miers nomination will collapse by the end of the week. Already Eric Erickson’s White House sources are indicating that the vetting process for a replacement has quietly started. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes that the Miers nomination was a debacle from the beginning and that Bush is now realizing his position is untenable.

Fund’s analysis is a good one:

The botched handling of the Kerik nomination was a precursor of much that has gone wrong with the Miers nomination. This time, the normal vetting process broke down, with Mr. Card ordering William Kelley, Ms. Miers’s own deputy, to conduct the background checks–a clear conflict of interest. Even Newt Gingrich, a supporter of Ms. Miers’s nomination, says that “the president believes in her so deeply, he is so convinced she’s the right person, that I don’t think it ever occurred to him to go through the kind of normal opposition research and normal vetting.”

Miers was basically thrown to the wolves - unintentionally to be sure - but the effect is the same. The White House had nothing they could use to defend her, and based on her flimsy record, she wasn’t a defendable candidate to begin with. Bush wanted a woman, and Miers turned out to be one of the few candidates that the White House thought would survive a Senate confirmation. It was a major tactical mistake, and a major black eye to the White House.

The Miers nomination was one of the single biggest political mistakes of Bush’s political career. It’s the first time that Bush’s conservative base has truly begun to fracture, and that is severely hurting the Administration. Conservatives are no longer willing to ignore the fact that the Bush Administration is only playing lip service to key elements of the conservative agenda. The Bush Administration has been trying to engage in a series of increasingly ineffective tactics to salvage the Miers nomination, all of which have only exacerbated the problem.

Bush needs to have a “come to Jesus” moment with the conservative base. He needs to realize that he’s eroding his own base of support, and conservatives political loyalty is based on advancing an agenda, not just filling seats. When a Republican President has National Review calling for a judicial nominee to be defeated it is clear that the battle has already been lost.

Miers was a poor choice to begin with, and there’s little point in continuing to make things worse. It is time for her to gracefully bow out and allow the process to go forwards with a qualified nominee.