Next Supreme Court Judge?

[sam i am]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus

Who do you think it will be? How much change will there be in the next Court?

My prediction is a Hispanic.

[DroppinScience]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus

Who do you think it will be? How much change will there be in the next Court?

My prediction is a Hispanic.

Gonzalez? I hope not...

[sam i am]

Gonzalez? I hope not...

Probably not. I've heard about Consuelo something or another a lot recently. I THINK she's a Hispanic woman. How great would that be? Maybe she's hot, too...... :D

[sam i am]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court

My prediction was wrong. He went with Miers : follow links in the above article to find out more....

Let the Dice Fly! Veni Vidi Vici!

[valvano]

she gave money to clinton and gore back in the early 90s

bush is going to catch some heat from conservatives about this pick

[DroppinScience]

If she gave money to Clintax ( :p ) and Gore, I'm happy with that. :D

She just seems pretty unqualified, don'tcha think? NO judicial experience and you're now nominated for Supreme Court justice? :confused:

[enree erzweglle]

Shouldn't a supreme court justice have actual experience being a judge?

[infidel]

It must scare the shit out of the cons that Demo leader Reid recommended and endorses Miers.
They think...
just what do those pesky libs have up their sleeves and do they know something we don't?

After the nomination was announced, Sen. Reid issued this statement:

"I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

"In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

"I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/3/112632.shtml

[D_Raay]

And then there is this:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_051003_immediately_oppose_t.htm

I hope you are feeling the same level of outrage as I am. You have been handed a nomination that smacks of pure cronyism, an instant replay of the vice presidential nomination—where the person delegated to help select the nominee selected herself.

We have a nominee who accepted a plum partisan appointee job as Lottery director for six years. This is not in itself, bad, but it is not good enough for a member of the supreme court. A person who takes a job like this is allowing herself to coast, unchallenged by growth opportunities, accepting an easy path to comfortable income. This is not the character we want in a member of the supreme court.

Based on this nomination, president Bush must believe we must have zero good judges who have enough experience and competence.

This woman is a purely partisan player who promises to make Michael Brown look good.

Even Chris Matthews says that this is patronage.

How partisan is she? David Frum, White house speechwriter, reports, “In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met,"

As an attorney, as someone who respects the law, you must find this nomination an obscene abomination—a total disregard for the sanctity and integrity of the supreme court.



Will Bunch, columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, reports on his blog

"But she does know better than just about anyone else where the bodies are buried (relax, it's a just a metaphor...we hope) in President Bush's National Guard scandal. In fact, Bush's Texas gubenatorial campaign in 1998 (when he was starting to eye the White House) actually paid Miers $19,000 to run an internal pre-emptive probe of the potential scandal. Not long after, a since-settled lawsuit alleged that the Texas Lottery Commission -- while chaired by Bush appointee Miers -- played a role in a multi-million dollar cover-up of the scandal."



And it gets much worse. Bunch reports how Michael Isakoff describes Miers' "initial foray in the morass of Bush's Guard service:"

The Bushies' concern began while he was running for a second term as governor. A hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers was retained to investigate the issue; state records show Miers was paid $19,000 by the Bush gubernatorial campaign. She and other aides quickly identified a problem--rumors that Bush had help from his father in getting into the National Guard back in 1968. Ben Barnes, a prominent Texas Democrat and a former speaker of the House in the state legislature, told friends he used his influence to get George W a guard slot after receiving a request from Houston oilman Sid Adger. Barnes said Adger told him he was calling on behalf of the elder George Bush, then a Texas congressman. Both Bushes deny seeking any help from Barnes or Adger, who has since passed away. Concerned that Barnes might go public with his allegations, the Bush campaign sent Don Evans, a friend of W's, to hear Barnes's story. Barnes acknowledged that he hadn't actually spoken directly to Bush Sr. and had no documents to back up his story. As the Bush campaign saw it, that let both Bushes off the hook. And the National Guard question seemed under control.

[Ace42X]

I'm currently looking for work, would y'all like to appoint me to the supreme court? My salary requirements are very modest.

[DroppinScience]

I'm currently looking for work, would y'all like to appoint me to the supreme court? My salary requirements are very modest.

Who knows? Maybe Clarence Thomas plans on retiring soon? :p

[adam_f]

Uncle Phil?

[sam i am]

If she gave money to Clintax ( :p ) and Gore, I'm happy with that. :D

She just seems pretty unqualified, don'tcha think? NO judicial experience and you're now nominated for Supreme Court justice? :confused:

10 out of 34 since 1933 have had NO judicial experience, including one of the all time greats - Byron White. BTW, he was also a great football player - did that disqualify him because he was a jock?

[Documad]

Out of curiousity, what made White so great?

[milleson]

FYI - Meirs graduated from my college. *cough* SMU *cough*

We had camera crews on campus today, but I had no idea why until I got home.

Just though I'd share.

[Medellia]

Well she's a little more qualified than I originally thought, but I still don't feel comfortable with her as the nominee.

http://www.slate.com/id/2127361?nav=nw

[QueenAdrock]

My main concern is: could it be worse? If her vote is blocked, then who ELSE might Bush nominate?

I'd go for a moderate, or slightly conservative - moderately conservative. It's those crazy-ass narrow-minded far-right wingers that scare me. :(

[sam i am]

Out of curiousity, what made White so great?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/23/ctv.dorf.roevwade/

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issues/issue_byronwhite.php

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/981029/hutchinson.shtml

"He relished verbal debate." That quote is enough to qualify him as one of my favorites right there

http://www.jollyroger.com/hatteras/byronwhite.html

Anyhow...there's a lot more. My point is that he was a great CONSERVATIVE legal mind, much more in touch with the Originalist concept than most of the Warren court.

[D_Raay]

You know what really bothers me about this appointment is that Bush's personal attorney could very well end up being one to rule on a possible conpiracy charge against him.

[yeahwho]

You know what really bothers me about this appointment is that Bush's personal attorney could very well end up being one to rule on a possible conpiracy charge against him.

Very astute observation, D_Raay.

And, here's the stunner, in all likelihood she'll get confirmed to sit on the Court and none of us will really learn anything about her. Because, I'm almost positive, anything she has done working for Bush will be priviledged information and beyond that, what do we have to go on? Her being the president of the Texas Bar Association, perhaps. But what sort of constitutional issues did she deal with there? Her service on the Dallas City Council? Likewise.

Bush could have done a lot worse, I guess. I don't know that much about the woman or her judicial philosophy (or even if she has one). Bush could have put up Judge Rudy Moore, the Ten Commandments judge from Alabama. But, at least with Moore, you have more than a guess what he's going to be like. Here, we have nothing. And I believe that, if we're talking appointment for life to the highest court in the land, the American people are owed some sort of clue as to what to expect.

[D_Raay]

Very astute observation, D_Raay.

And, here's the stunner, in all likelihood she'll get confirmed to sit on the Court and none of us will really learn anything about her. Because, I'm almost positive, anything she has done working for Bush will be priviledged information and beyond that, what do we have to go on? Her being the president of the Texas Bar Association, perhaps. But what sort of constitutional issues did she deal with there? Her service on the Dallas City Council? Likewise.

Bush could have done a lot worse, I guess. I don't know that much about the woman or her judicial philosophy (or even if she has one). Bush could have put up Judge Rudy Moore, the Ten Commandments judge from Alabama. But, at least with Moore, you have more than a guess what he's going to be like. Here, we have nothing. And I believe that, if we're talking appointment for life to the highest court in the land, the American people are owed some sort of clue as to what to expect.

Yes you're quite right... Is it just me or does the Republican objection to this appointment seem to be a smoke screen?

[D_Raay]

I've been thinking about this and I have to say it just doesn't make any sense to me. This nomination has left me scratching my head wondering why, in the face of accusations of cronyism, he would appoint a crony? There are a number of highly qualified, intellectually capable conservative judges out there, and he just blew them off to nominate the former head of the Texas Lottery Commission? We saw this with Michael Brown as well.

What I am driving at is the possibility that he could be this stupid. I mean did he just wake up one morning and say "OK I am nominating the lady down the hall"?

What adds to my puzzlement is an endorsement of this woman by Harry Reid. People with sense and intelligence in this country are, no doubt, apalled by the nomination and by some of the comments made from unlikely sources. Something stinks here. There is NO WAY this woman should be put into a position of power such as the Supreme Court of the US having at one time said that "George Bush is the most brilliant man I have ever known", and is known to absolutely worship the ground he walks on.
The Supreme Court is the check to the Executive branch. This is quite obviously a conflict of interest, and there should be more outrage over this.

[sam i am]

Hmmmmm....

Well, I guess the only thing I have to say right now is to wait and see how she comes across during her hearings.

If D_Raay and his crowd are correct in their assessment, I guess she'll not be confirmed and Bush'll have to come up with another selection.

If she's decent and does half as well as Roberts did, she'll be confirmed.

I'm guessing that the Demos on the Judiciary Committee (especially Schumer) will pry into her ability to vote on any of Bush's legal problems, assuming he has any, while the Republicans I've heard so far are more than willing to go after her as well.

Doesn't SOUND, thus far, like anyone TRUSTS Bush's judgment on this one, so the sparks are likely to fly....

Stay tuned....

[sam i am]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051010/ap_on_re_us/miers_church

More info. on Miers.

Sounds like a solid evangelical thus far, with the moxie to split from a large congregation to go to more of a traditionalist view of worship.

Will this be her style in the Supreme Court as well?

Also, I found it kind of funny that they talk about who she's dating, as if that is really important....

[DroppinScience]

Also, I found it kind of funny that they talk about who she's dating, as if that is really important....

OMG is she dating Brad Pitt?!?!?


:rolleyes:

If she was, she'd make the covers of "Us" and the tabloids in a flash...

[D_Raay]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051010/ap_on_re_us/miers_church

More info. on Miers.

Sounds like a solid evangelical thus far, with the moxie to split from a large congregation to go to more of a traditionalist view of worship.

Will this be her style in the Supreme Court as well?

Also, I found it kind of funny that they talk about who she's dating, as if that is really important....
You don't endorse this nomination do you?

[sam i am]

You don't endorse this nomination do you?


I'm really torn. I have to admit that I don't know enough to have a cogent opinion yet. I'm glad we're hearing more about her and finding out tidbits about her life so that I can form an opinion.

The truth is that I'll really be watching carefully when she's up against the Judiciary Committee and hope I get some insight as to her character.

As long as she's an Originalist and will not be OVERLY active on the bench, I'd still tend to err on the side of allowing the Prez his choice.

I'll also note, for the record, that I did support Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Scalia. I was disappointed by Souter, and that gives me some cause for hesitation with Miers, as she may be in Souter's mold.

In the interests of full disclosure, I also did support Ginsberg and O'Connor and Breyer when they were nominated and confirmed.

I guess the bottom line is that I give a lot of leeway to the Prez in this kind of situation. He's the one who has that particular power and he/she is entitled to use it. I DON'T appreciate all the preening and posturing from the Senate when it comes to the questioning surrounding the confirmation process, as it tends not to reveal anything except their own vanities....

[sam i am]

OMG is she dating Brad Pitt?!?!?


:rolleyes:

If she was, she'd make the covers of "Us" and the tabloids in a flash...

I hear she may be a.........





















wait for it.........





























a LESBIAN!!!!!! :eek: You know, she's never been married and she LOOKS like she might be gay....... :D

[D_Raay]

I'm really torn. I have to admit that I don't know enough to have a cogent opinion yet. I'm glad we're hearing more about her and finding out tidbits about her life so that I can form an opinion.

The truth is that I'll really be watching carefully when she's up against the Judiciary Committee and hope I get some insight as to her character.

As long as she's an Originalist and will not be OVERLY active on the bench, I'd still tend to err on the side of allowing the Prez his choice.

I'll also note, for the record, that I did support Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Scalia. I was disappointed by Souter, and that gives me some cause for hesitation with Miers, as she may be in Souter's mold.

In the interests of full disclosure, I also did support Ginsberg and O'Connor and Breyer when they were nominated and confirmed.

I guess the bottom line is that I give a lot of leeway to the Prez in this kind of situation. He's the one who has that particular power and he/she is entitled to use it. I DON'T appreciate all the preening and posturing from the Senate when it comes to the questioning surrounding the confirmation process, as it tends not to reveal anything except their own vanities....

Bork was certifiable...

[sam i am]

Bork was certifiable...

I would respectfully disagree. His real problem was being TOO honest in what he believed, and he was excoriated for it.

AS far as his intellectual capacities, they were surely on par with any of the leading lights that have been on the Supreme Court : he was simply the wrong nominee at the wrong time in history. He wouldn't have been OK'd by the Senate with it's makeup at that time unless he'd been willing to state, categorically, that he would uphold Roe v. Wade.

[EN[i]GMA]

Why do we get Conservatives?

I want a Libertarian on the court. Ressurect John Jay and bring his Founding ass back; that would make for some good SCOTUS.

[DroppinScience]

a LESBIAN!!!!!! :eek: You know, she's never been married and she LOOKS like she might be gay....... :D

So she's dating Jennifer Aniston?!??! She totally ruined their marriage. :(

[sam i am]

So she's dating Jennifer Aniston?!??! She totally ruined their marriage. :(

No way, dude.....Ellen DeGeneres was seen macking on Jennifer Aniston AND J-LO!

Miers was all like..."Can I have a quadrangle with y'all?"

And Jennifer Aniston was all like..."No way, you ugly old bitch....I'm gonna make out with J-Lo, then tap Hillary Clinton's ass with a strap-on...."

Miers is still pissed about it, but I hear she's getting plastic surgery to make her look younger and, THEN, she's gonna be all over Vince Vaughn....you know, to, like, totally get back at Jennifer Aniston cuz she's, like, SUCH a bitch...

[DroppinScience]

No way, dude.....Ellen DeGeneres was seen macking on Jennifer Aniston AND J-LO!

Miers was all like..."Can I have a quadrangle with y'all?"

And Jennifer Aniston was all like..."No way, you ugly old bitch....I'm gonna make out with J-Lo, then tap Hillary Clinton's ass with a strap-on...."

Miers is still pissed about it, but I hear she's getting plastic surgery to make her look younger and, THEN, she's gonna be all over Vince Vaughn....you know, to, like, totally get back at Jennifer Aniston cuz she's, like, SUCH a bitch...

Man, I can't wait for the confirmation hearings. :D

[sam i am]

Man, I can't wait for the confirmation hearings. :D


Should be fun. Think we can get those celebs to testify? (y) :D :eek:

[King PSYZ]

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-27T133328Z_01_MOR619553_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-MIERS.xml

and so it begins again...

[DroppinScience]

Maybe Judge Judy will be the next nominee? It's about time she got the recognition she deserves...

[yeahwho]

President Bush just made his announcement, the Nominee is Former First Lady and his Mom, Barb Bush. :p

[D_Raay]

President Bush just made his announcement, the Nominee is Former First Lady and his Mom, Barb Bush. :p
The silver douchebag herself...

[infidel]

Shit, I was hoping for Ahmad Chalbi

[DroppinScience]

Hooray. Antonin Scalia, Jr. is nominated. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html

[King PSYZ]

i think this was the plan all along. nominate someone with zero qualifications and without the capacity for the job and also someone who wouldn't be able to share their work history openly due to bush holding out info knowing full well they'll either concede defeat or be rejected.

then you bring in someone who's qualified for the job but is so extremist right wing that our nations highest court would no longer be running on an even keel but be a tool of the republican party.

now the democrats will have to fight this based solely on political alliances rather than qualifications.

[yeahwho]

Daily Press Conference,

"Scott ... the President had said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?" -- CBS Correspondent John Roberts.

[catatonic]

I beliewve we can't control him economically, but politically we can get answers out of him and let him know we're keeping watch to keep from meddling this department. I'm just as uniformed as you guys.

[Ali]

then you bring in someone who's qualified for the job but is so extremist right wing that our nations highest court would no longer be running on an even keel but be a tool of the republican party.'zakly (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20051101/cx_bs_uc/bs20051101)

[sam i am]

i think this was the plan all along. nominate someone with zero qualifications and without the capacity for the job and also someone who wouldn't be able to share their work history openly due to bush holding out info knowing full well they'll either concede defeat or be rejected.

then you bring in someone who's qualified for the job but is so extremist right wing that our nations highest court would no longer be running on an even keel but be a tool of the republican party.

now the democrats will have to fight this based solely on political alliances rather than qualifications.

Wow.

How......machiavellian of Bush.

But, wait a second......I thought he wasn't SMART enough to come up with things like this? :confused: Or IS he.......bbwwwhahahahahahaha..... :D

[D_Raay]

Wow.

How......machiavellian of Bush.

But, wait a second......I thought he wasn't SMART enough to come up with things like this? :confused: Or IS he.......bbwwwhahahahahahaha..... :D
Oh come on, like he has anything to do with anything. His handler's on the other hand...

You have to admit sam the GOP is really grasping at air lately. They are looking more foolish by the day.

Nothing against you brother, for I know you are a true Republican and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the lies that bother me.

Oh , and I agree with Enigma... why a conservative or a liberal (fat chance)?
Where are the other candidates? I'm sure there are a few libertarians or progressive's out there.

[DroppinScience]

Oh , and I agree with Enigma... why a conservative or a liberal (fat chance)?
Where are the other candidates? I'm sure there are a few libertarians or progressive's out there.

I know I'm being some radical extremist here, but...

Can't we just get judges that aren't so... well, ideological? You're interpreting laws, not bending them to fit your politics. :rolleyes:

[D_Raay]

I know I'm being some radical extremist here, but...

Can't we just get judges that aren't so... well, ideological? You're interpreting laws, not bending them to fit your politics. :rolleyes:
Exactly, and I think you'd be more likely to find that outside of the two parties...

[King PSYZ]

Wow.

How......machiavellian of Bush.

But, wait a second......I thought he wasn't SMART enough to come up with things like this? :confused: Or IS he.......bbwwwhahahahahahaha..... :D
Don't give him too much credit, it's something plain enough even a dolt like him could see it. I mean he knows already what it takes to have one of his nominations rejected.

[sam i am]

Oh come on, like he has anything to do with anything. His handler's on the other hand...

You have to admit sam the GOP is really grasping at air lately. They are looking more foolish by the day.

Nothing against you brother, for I know you are a true Republican and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the lies that bother me.

Oh , and I agree with Enigma... why a conservative or a liberal (fat chance)?
Where are the other candidates? I'm sure there are a few libertarians or progressive's out there.

Ok. Truth is that the SCOTUS was turned quite to the "Left" for the better half of the Twentieth Century, finding things like "penumbras" etc. to drive a much more liberal agenda than most of the country was ready for. Roe v. Wade, no matter which side of the debate you are on, was BAD LAW. The findings were created out of whole cloth to support an agenda that was neither constitutional nor based in case law leading up to it.

So......

Conservatives now want to have the Constitution interpreted MORE literally than it has since the SCOTUS has been a majority center-Left for the past 70 or so years. It's about time for the law to be based not on judicial activisim but rather on good case law, precedent, and the interpretation of the Constitution. Period.

THAT is what conservatives stand for.

And, in reference to the GOP "grasping at air lately" well, I disagree. As far as polls go, you can solace yourself that things are bad now. Even the Harriet Miers thing turned out to be a disappointment, if not an embarrassment.

However, look at WHEN all this negativism and deterioration is taking place. It's November 2005, not 2006. The next election cycle is 12 MONTHS away, which is a lifetime in politics. Look at the economic news, which is almost universally upbeat DESPITE the impact of Katrina and Rita on the economy. Look at the fact that congressional elections will not occur until a year from now, when the GOP has nowhere to go but up from here. The Demos may be crowing now, but they'll NOT gain a majority in the 2006 elections.....mark my words.

2008 is even farther away, and the elctorate in the US is notoriously short-minded when it comes to economic and world news. IF the US can make significant more strides in Iraq and IF the economy remains bouyant, 2008 will be another GOP Prez with an even GREATER majority in Congress.

[D_Raay]

Ok. Truth is that the SCOTUS was turned quite to the "Left" for the better half of the Twentieth Century, finding things like "penumbras" etc. to drive a much more liberal agenda than most of the country was ready for. Roe v. Wade, no matter which side of the debate you are on, was BAD LAW. The findings were created out of whole cloth to support an agenda that was neither constitutional nor based in case law leading up to it.

So......

Conservatives now want to have the Constitution interpreted MORE literally than it has since the SCOTUS has been a majority center-Left for the past 70 or so years. It's about time for the law to be based not on judicial activisim but rather on good case law, precedent, and the interpretation of the Constitution. Period.

THAT is what conservatives stand for.

And, in reference to the GOP "grasping at air lately" well, I disagree. As far as polls go, you can solace yourself that things are bad now. Even the Harriet Miers thing turned out to be a disappointment, if not an embarrassment.

However, look at WHEN all this negativism and deterioration is taking place. It's November 2005, not 2006. The next election cycle is 12 MONTHS away, which is a lifetime in politics. Look at the economic news, which is almost universally upbeat DESPITE the impact of Katrina and Rita on the economy. Look at the fact that congressional elections will not occur until a year from now, when the GOP has nowhere to go but up from here. The Demos may be crowing now, but they'll NOT gain a majority in the 2006 elections.....mark my words.

2008 is even farther away, and the elctorate in the US is notoriously short-minded when it comes to economic and world news. IF the US can make significant more strides in Iraq and IF the economy remains bouyant, 2008 will be another GOP Prez with an even GREATER majority in Congress.

I completely disagree. Assuming they can stay out of trouble for the next 12 months, let alone 3 years, is something in and of itself. That being said, there are things here that will not be forgotten for quite a while. Boy, nobody talks about Watergate or Vietnam anymore do they?
And you can say the Libby thing is not Watergate, as so many of the bloated right wing pigs are on the TV, that doesn't make it so. Especially with this investigation far from over.

[sam i am]

I completely disagree. Assuming they can stay out of trouble for the next 12 months, let alone 3 years, is something in and of itself. That being said, there are things here that will not be forgotten for quite a while. Boy, nobody talks about Watergate or Vietnam anymore do they?
And you can say the Libby thing is not Watergate, as so many of the bloated right wing pigs are on the TV, that doesn't make it so. Especially with this investigation far from over.

But do you really think he'll be convicted? Did he actually commit a crime? If he lied to the Grand Jury, he'll lose his license to practice law. He'll not lose his freedom (ie, jail time) as the precedent has already been set with Clinton that it's OK to lie to a grand jury.

As far as Watergate and Vietnam - well, people do still talk about it, but many of the laws enacted after Watergate preclude that particular boondoggle from occurring again. And Vietnam, well....are you still advocating that Iraq is like Vietnam? Be more specific in how so.....

[D_Raay]

But do you really think he'll be convicted? Did he actually commit a crime? If he lied to the Grand Jury, he'll lose his license to practice law. He'll not lose his freedom (ie, jail time) as the precedent has already been set with Clinton that it's OK to lie to a grand jury.

As far as Watergate and Vietnam - well, people do still talk about it, but many of the laws enacted after Watergate preclude that particular boondoggle from occurring again. And Vietnam, well....are you still advocating that Iraq is like Vietnam? Be more specific in how so.....
Iraq is our generation's Vietnam whether you like it or not. Be it factually correct doesn't matter, it is percieved that way by the majority.

And yes Libby is almost sure to be convicted. Fitzgerald does not indict without being completely sure he's getting a conviction.

[sam i am]

Iraq is our generation's Vietnam whether you like it or not. Be it factually correct doesn't matter, it is percieved that way by the majority.

And yes Libby is almost sure to be convicted. Fitzgerald does not indict without being completely sure he's getting a conviction.

Well....we'll see with Libby. The jury is literally out in this case.

I'm curious what result you'd get if an actual opinion poll were taken comparing Vietnam to Iraq. Has there been one? Do you have a link or a newspaper article or a TV show that has stated such?