Moreover, it was in the first presidential campaign debate in 2000 that, in Bush's presence, it was said quite clearly that he intended to put justices on SCOTUS "who were in the mold" of a Scalia or a Thomas. Bush had every opportunity to deny it, or to modify it, but he let . . . it . . . ride.
That, my friends, is a powerful tacit admission that he fully agreed with the statement.
Bush rode the wave of conservative support to victory in TWO presidential elections because his conservative supporters were absolutely persuaded he would appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court. Bush did not disabuse them of this notion. He darn well knew they expected it. Indeed he fed that expectation with his constant praise for Scalia and Thomas whenever the issue of SCOTUS vacancies came up.
Now Miers' supporters are saying, "But HE DIDN'T USE THOSE WORDS!"
What the Miers supporters are doing is stealing a page from Bill Clinton's word game playbook to argue that the irrefutable is not merely refutable, it never happened.
Do they really think the rest of us are that stupid?
The people saying "you can't find where he said that" are basically trying to advance the argument that "Bush didn't promise strict constructionists."
An that argument works directly against their "trust him" rationale for supporting Miers.