Bush advisors: Miers “not equipped” to parry Dem investigations
posted at 10:11 am on January 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
That’s how WaPo describes their consensus opinion. She was good enough for the Supreme Court, you see, but not good enough for George Bush when he needs a shrewd, zealous legal strategist.
Miers, a longtime Bush loyalist whose nomination to the Supreme Court was withdrawn in 2005 as a result of conservative opposition, led an office that will oversee legal clashes that could erupt if Democrats aggressively use their new subpoena power. Bush advisers inside and outside the White House concluded that she is not equipped for such a battle and that the president needs someone who can strongly defend his prerogatives…
Republican advisers have been telling the White House to be ready for war, and many cited Miers as the wrong general. “The White House knew they needed to get a tough street fighter — that’s what this is about,” said one such adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve access to the White House.
The advice, according to this person, could be summed up this way: “You guys better lawyer up, and lawyer up in the right way. You better understand the need and the peril and the urgency. . . . You need somebody as tough as [Clinton aides] Harold Ickes or Bruce Lindsey. Because they’re coming for you.”
I give her resignation … a solid B+.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Nice.
Slublog on January 5, 2007 at 10:14 AM
You’re out, Tom.
Kid from Brooklyn on January 5, 2007 at 10:15 AM
If I were Bush, I’d want a pitbull arguing my case. Miers may be a good lawyer, but she’s no pitbull.
.
GT on January 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Johnnie Cochran could not be reached for comment.
natesnake on January 5, 2007 at 10:18 AM
“Because they’re coming for you.”
Oh, please. Does anyone truly believe that the Democrats are going to go on the warpath with a single vote majority? That would be suicide. But Nixon paranoia is still so entertaining.
spd rdr on January 5, 2007 at 10:20 AM
It really says something about the times when the Democrats are a) giddy over taking Cheney’s Hill office, but not so giddy over toppling Saddam or the Islamist defeat in Somalia; and b) zealous to go after the elected POTUS but not so zealous to go after the country’s actual enemies.
Bryan on January 5, 2007 at 10:20 AM
She’s not a Sicilian.
CP on January 5, 2007 at 10:22 AM
We make that observation because we lack nuance.
natesnake on January 5, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Didn’t the Democrats pinky-swear they wouldn’t go after the President?
natesnake on January 5, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I don’t know if they’ll go too far, but there will certainly be investigations.
The link you provided on your blog on how to stuff a dead mouse was the single most disturbing thing I’ve read this week.
Slublog on January 5, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Dang. Did the Administration suddenly grow a pair of, um, um…
[I just can't say it.]
dinasour on January 5, 2007 at 10:32 AM
That’s because the enemy isn’t afraid to shoot back.
.
GT on January 5, 2007 at 10:33 AM
It’s time to go to the mattresses.
Mallard T. Drake on January 5, 2007 at 10:34 AM
What about Jackie Chiles?
GWB: “Jackie, I need some help. The Democrats are prolly gonna start investigatin’ and I thought maybe you could help us out around here. You know, ‘cuz, I mean I gotta fight the war on ter’r”
JC: “Mr. President, These investigations are obscene, obstructive, and obtuse. They’re a distraction by an extreme faction.”
GWB: “Plus, they’re tryin’ to tarnish my place in history.”
JC: “Mr. Dubya, sir, yo’ place is my case.”
GWB: “I ‘preciate your service.”
JC: “I’m gon’ rangle with Rangel and when I get through, he’ll be nothin’ but a shrunken head!”
(Ok, maybe I’ve been watching a little too much Seinfeld)
CP on January 5, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Suicide? better look up the definition.
They are licking their chops over Rove, Cheney, Medicare, all with the help of the MSM. Every accusation will be front page news, every exoneration will be back page news. Cheney & Haliburton, front page news, Berger stealing national securtiy papers, barely a mention. Kennedy dealing with the Russians, barely a raised eye-brow, breaking in and raping Iraq women, front page news, exoneration…more like well we didn’t catch them this time.
It is going to be 12 months of investigation, and the news media will eat it up.
right2bright on January 5, 2007 at 10:39 AM
“not equipped” is hilarious.
Kind of makes you wonder whether the Post’s word choice was deliberate.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM
10 bucks says that Bush could get these guys on his team with one simple action: pay them. That’s about all it takes to gain the loyalty of people like Lindsay, Ickes, Lanny Davis or David Kendall.
wiserbud on January 5, 2007 at 10:43 AM
She’s not tough enough? Maybe she has a career in border patrol?
windbag on January 5, 2007 at 10:47 AM
You can count on Nancy the She Wolf and her pack to ignore the nation’s business and try to exact revenge for their 12 years in the wilderness. War on Terror? What War on Terror? Illegal Immigration? Ha.
pistolero on January 5, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Needed Fixin WaPo.
fogw on January 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM
What I find funny, in a sad, pathetic way, is the “condition of anonymity to preserve access to the White House” statement in the article. Translation; Don’t out me guys so I can keep feeding you stories making the administration look bad. Looking back on history, and with the passing of Gerald Ford, perhaps the worst legacy of Watergate has been the cottage-industry it sprung to life known as the “leak”, on “condition of anonymity”, and my fav., the “un-named source”. We the people have a right to know, most things yes, national security matters no. But the incessant use of this type of reporting is way out of control. It’s even worse than the polls-as-news garbage the media has dumped on us. Now that I’ve thunk about it, perhaps the worst legacy of Watergate has been the ethical downfall of an entire profession; Journalism. Thank you Allah(God) for alternative media………..
ritethinker on January 5, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Absolutely. Slublog mentioned investigations. They will come fast and furious. If they don’t hold continual investigations, every Dem utterance will be blasted by “de-escalate, investigate, troops home now”. So even if the subpoenas are just a bone-toss to shut up your internal opposition, they’re still subpoenas.
eeyore on January 5, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Seems like all the acceptable Corleones in the GOP are of the old school before the neo-con wussification. What is G. Gordon Liddy up to?
Valiant on January 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Where are all the Harriet Miers defenders now? You remember, those that said that Miers’ detractors were taking the conservative movement over a cliff by opposing her nomination?
I’m sure Miers is a decent human being, but if she’s not qualified for hand-to-hand legal combat with the Democrats then she is certainly not qualified to sit on the highest court in the land, and those that opposed her nomination have been completely vindicated.
thirteen28 on January 5, 2007 at 11:18 AM
succinct and terrifyingly correct!
shooter on January 5, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I agree with your basic premise. But the dynamic that is not factored into the equation is the star power of Michelle Malkin reporting from Iraq. CNN will have to play ball and actually show something coming out of Iraq besides death tolls and IED footage. I think that can carry over into how they report on Bush. I think it will at least make it a little more difficult. Democrats cannot hide from their voting record (in support of the war) by claiming ignorance.
Theworldisnotenough on January 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM
It would seem that only Bush thought she was good enough for the SCOTUS. And it seems he was wrong…
Theworldisnotenough on January 5, 2007 at 11:23 AM
HM rode the affirmative action wave to various high posts in the Dallas and Texas legal communities, and topped it off by parlaying her friendship with Bush into a parking space at the White House.
She is not a great lawyer, by any means. She is a nice person who is reasonably smart, and who plays politics well.
Labamigo on January 5, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I hear knives and forks being sharpened.
Kini on January 5, 2007 at 11:53 AM
No..because that wasnt very nuanced and they had their fingers crossed behind their backs.
OK..you want a TOUGH LAWYER? Go get that old coot(not a slur!) Cheney shot..now HE is TOUGH! I would take him in a heartbeat!
labwrs on January 5, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Off topic…but BUSH, Bless his heart, looks OLD.
seejanemom on January 5, 2007 at 12:01 PM
This story, like the departure of Scott McClellan last year, raises the inevitable question – Why the bleeding holy heck didn’t Bush do this before?
This White House just sits back and lets everyone pound the crap out of them with no response, ever.
Slublog on January 5, 2007 at 12:06 PM
They’re coming for Bush. God bless them. After what I’ve seen at the borders, he deserves impeachment.
PRCalDude on January 5, 2007 at 12:22 PM
That was a real good Seinfeld homage there. Funny stuff.
EFG on January 5, 2007 at 12:28 PM
WTF is going on in the press nowadays. It seems like every single source now is anonymous because they aren’t allowed to speak to the press, Jamail Hussein, or because they want to keep access etc. The press in this country actually do a far better job of protecting the identities of their sources then they do the actual national security and intelligence secrets.
The more and more they rely on this method the less credibility they have in my eyes. In the MI (Military Intelligence) world this is called battlefield deception and it is used to tell the enemy what he wants to hear and see, what he expects to hear and see, and then allows him to base his predetermined decisions on this information.
In the corporate world this allows the boss to CYA and blame Bill the janitor for falling profits.
LakeRuins on January 5, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I think about the only person who didn’t “age” in the White House was Ronald Reagan.
.
GT on January 5, 2007 at 12:57 PM
They’re coming for Bush. God bless them. After what I’ve seen at the borders, he deserves impeachment !!!
— —- — —-
I agree. He needs to be impeached on the borders/amnesty issue – he has betrayed the country.
One of Bush’s main problems is croneyism. He hires his “favorite” loyal pals and they seem to be incompetent but he defends them anyway. I’m afraid the mess in Iraq is one of the results. I think we could’ve won it at an earlier point but now, I just don’t know. I hope the end result is at least somewhere in between and not a total failure. Sadaam’s gone – that’s a good thing.
stenwin77 on January 5, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Mr. Schumer and others need air time. The media need ‘excitement’ and ‘gotcha’, even if from smoke…
Mr. Silvestre Reyes needs cover from his shortage on intelligence matters…
Some of the 2008 candidates need coverage from their emptiness…
The lack of ideas, on both sides, on how to fight the WOT needs coverage too…
However, none of these hearings and investigations will be as interesting as Clinton’s. And, yes, some ‘pay-back’ is also involved.
And lots of lawyers will make lots of money, much time and effort will be wasted, the masses will be entertained, focus on the war will be diminished…but we are represented well.
Entelechy on January 5, 2007 at 1:23 PM
“Malkins,” dinasour, the word is “malkins.”
thebookkeeper on January 5, 2007 at 1:56 PM
> “Malkins,” dinasour, the word is “malkins.”
Poor Michelle.
She’s going to be hearing this stuff from her grand kids some day.
dinasour on January 5, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Yet Bush wanted her on the Supreme Court?
Hilts on January 5, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Did I get accidentally redirected to DemUnderground?
And does this place have to resemble a cheering gallery for the WashedUpPost?
They never miss an opportunity to belittle, criticize, carp and just generally be snarky about the Bush Administration. Never.
Maybe HM’s is just tired–she’s been there 6 years and it’s been a long war.
Given the beating that she took regarding her judicial accumen–and this thread is just today’s example–because she didn’t go to Yale or Harvard Law School, but lowly Southern Methodist University’s, the fight would probably go out of me, too.
We’ll never know whether she would have made a good SCOTUS judge and there’s reason to believe she’d have been far better than Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg or Kennedy and perhaps capable of holding her own with Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
The Dhimmicrats can try to have investigations and/or start impeachment, but I don’t think it will go far…and don’t they know there’s a war on?
The Dhim majority doesn’t exist in the Senate and it’s not that large in Congress, no matter that Nancy had her coronation ball with Tony Bennet, the Grateful Dead (half of whom are actually dead) and feta cheese ravioli.
Jen the Neocon on January 5, 2007 at 3:21 PM
so this is what they meant by “bi partisan”.
loverly. Kinda saw this coming. It’s the age of Kos Democrats and the Socialist take over.
There’s a fight going on in our nation between good and evil. I know which side I’m on, and we’re losing … badly.
One Angry Christian on January 5, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Good greif.
THeDRiFTeR on January 5, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Grief, osrry!
THeDRiFTeR on January 5, 2007 at 4:38 PM
So she was “good enough” to battle the onslaught of sodomy and baby killing that the SCOTUS is facing but a subpoena? Oh, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…..
My God, If this doesn’t make you doubt Bush’s intelligence and competence, I don’t know what will.
Soothsayer on January 5, 2007 at 8:54 PM
One hundred percent with you there PRCalDuDE, I’m living in Van Nuys, Ca which might as well be called Mexico Norte, or something. I hope they nail Bush’s feckless, fake Christian, non-marriage ammendment activating ass, to the wall and then turn the screws. Perhaps it’s because I was such an ardent supporter that I feel so betrayed. I actually feel like someone who’s been cheated on by an adulterous spouse or something. I’m sure they must feel at some point that they never really knew the person that they were married to, y’know? When I see him smiling and talking about bi-partisanship and his hopes that he can, ( NOW THAT HIS PARTY’S OUT OF THE WAY), enact his “comprehensive” American GIVEAWAY, it makes me want to puke. I despise him. I honestly do
Soothsayer on January 5, 2007 at 9:01 PM
I know I’m not the only one thinking..
“Ultimate Warrior”.
Reaps on January 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM