I didn't agree with the signing of those two bills. How does my disagreeing with W. on those two instances disqualify me from trusting the man in this particular instance?
Did you vote for W. in 2004? If you did, you voted for him after he had signed those two bills. You in effect voted for a man that you don't trust.
Changing the subject with a snide comment doesn't work. I support the war in Iraq and as a Vietnam veteran, I consider it an insult that you would link me with Sheehan, Fonda, and their ilk. I know when I am winning an argument when the other side resorts to personal attacks rather than discuss substance.
I regret if you consider my suggestion of how you can hold W. (accountable) after he leaves office as being offensive. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Could W. have gotten a better candidate? Without a doubt. If Pukin Dog is correct, then Miers is the best that could be gotten under the circumstances.
At any rate, I do feel that in the Rove,Plame,Libby,Wilson matter, we have a really nasty problem ahead. That is going to make the current squabble over SC nominees seem irrelevant in comparison.
Because you are supporting his nomination of Miers strictly on the criterion of trust.
Did you vote for W. in 2004? If you did, you voted for him after he had signed those two bills. You in effect voted for a man that you don't trust.
I voted for him in 2000 and 2004 despite his votes on those issues. I didn't introduce the word trust into this equation, you did. I voted for him because I thought he was the best person for the job. I don't have to agree with him on every issue to vote for him.
Could W. have gotten a better candidate? Without a doubt. If Pukin Dog is correct, then Miers is the best that could be gotten under the circumstances
This is where we part company. I believe he could have picked a better candidate (with a proven track record) even under the circumstances. It was a fight worth having. Better the libs attack Bush than having fellow conservatives attack one another. The mid-terms are coming up next year. We need a motivated, supportive base.
At any rate, I do feel that in the Rove,Plame,Libby,Wilson matter, we have a really nasty problem ahead. That is going to make the current squabble over SC nominees seem irrelevant in comparison.
The Dems sense weakness. They will redouble their efforts against Rove, Delay, Frist, Libby, et. al. The nomination of Miers has contributed to the problem and the perception that the GOP is in disarray. Although the Dems may not control Congress and the WH, they act like they do, which is enough to intimidate the GOP. Appeasing them with Miers will not satiate their appetite for Rep hides.