If, after the two previous nominees Harry wasn’t happy the Prez knew his thoughts on who should or shouldn’t be nominated, then Harry is a complete moron.

It’s not like it’s been 6 years since the last nominee, it’s been six weeks.

I have changed, and please accept my apology.

I will try to be good from now on.

1. The level of consultation leading up to the Miers nomination for the O’Connor spot on the Supreme Court was unprecedented.
2. No consultation took place for nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.

The first statement simply refutes the second one. The consultation took place. It just didn’t take place after Miers withdrew.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html

http://demsquotewmd.8m.com/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051101/pl_nm/security_terrorism_dc

Reid is the leader of at least HALF of the population of the country. In your world of terrorism and fascism democracy doesn’t matter – but to americans and not fascist israelis like you it does.

Are you fvcking kidding me?

You can’t post this:

“In other words – all those parties that saw the same intelligence and AGREED with the pre-war assessments given as cause for war.”

Then follow up with this:

“Of course the French, Russians & UN were against going to war”

You can only take one side of an arguement.

And Ed, how do you feel about Gino’s second post where he contradicts what he said in the first one?

“In other words – all those parties that saw the same intelligence and AGREED with the pre-war assessments given as cause for war.”

The Fench, Russians and the U.N. were all against going to war in Iraq. We did it without any of their consent.

This is direct conflict to Fitzgerald’s statement after the indictment:

” This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person — a person, Mr. Libby — lied or not.
The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone’s who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
They will be frustrated and, frankly, it would just — it wouldn’t be good for the process and the fairness of a trial. ”

So, true to form, Reid and the Dems will use any means necessary, including politicizing a criminal indictment which the prosecutor himself stated “wouldn’t be good for the process and the fairness of a trial.” But, the Dems aren’t concerned about a fair trial, are they? They’ve convicted Libby before the indictment was announced. They’ve forgotten all the comments from their side of the aisle prior to the war which were in agreement with what the President was saying….
Politics is ugly…but only when the Republicans are doing it….right people?