Mikaela says:
Check out these very important articles from today's Washington Post:
Diversity Gets Benched -- on the disappointment of yet another white, ivy-league judge being nominated to the bench.
Well, that certainly mixes things up. The first Supreme Court vacancy went to a white Catholic judge who went to Harvard College and Harvard Law School. The second, chances are, will be filled by a white Catholic judge who went to college at Princeton and law school at Yale.
At this rate, a WASP male from Stanford is going to look like a diversity pick. I also find it disturbing that the drive for diversity has been so quickly, so blithely abandoned: Been there, tried that, now we can pick who we REALLY want. Diversity at the expense of quality is no virtue, but quality without diversity is nonetheless a vice.
...
Questions of Trust in the Briefing Room -- laying clear the case against McClellan as lying mouthpiece for the administration. Also shows the increasing frustration of the press, who (now are starting to) refuse to be megaphones to the lying mouthpiece for the administration.
After three weeks of telling the world that Harriet Miers was the best possible Supreme Court nominee because she is a woman who was not an Eastern Ivy Leaguer serving on the appellate bench, McClellan made the case yesterday that the second-best possible Supreme Court nominee is Samuel Alito -- an Ivy League-educated man from New Jersey who has been on the appellate bench for 15 years.
Worse, McClellan personally vouched for White House officials Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, saying that they had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA agent's identity and that anybody who did would be fired. Libby was indicted in the case on Friday, Rove has been identified as a leaker but remains on the job -- and McClellan says that, on advice of counsel, he can't say a peep about the whole thing.
Instead of explaining himself, McClellan appealed for understanding.
The indictment of Scooter Libby on Friday was not just an embarrassment for the White House -- it also raised serious questions about the way President Bush's inner circle does business.
But rather than addressing any of these questions, Bush and his aides are stonewalling. Rather than taking steps to rebuild their credibility, they are trying to change the subject. Rather than apologize, they are refusing to admit anything is wrong. And yet something is wrong. Their credibility is damaged. And the questions won't go away.
|