But let me ask you, why are you intentionally taking such a minor point as if it is important, and blowing it all out of proportion.
The vetting process involves a lot of people. Miers as secretary simply carried the job she did then, to her new title when she got that.
Why the hell is this a issue? And why are you engaging me on this like I just fell off a fricking turnip truck?
That's a mistake! Just like screwing this nomination before it got to committee.
Who's side are you really on? I wonder.............
btw, just to prove you wrong:
http://volokh.com/posts/1128975191.shtml
Well, you see, Cold Heart, it is like this ... a minor point here ... a minor point there ... and, before you know it, you have accumulated enough points to ... well, maybe even to take down a poorly qualified judicial nominee.
G'night, Cold Heart.
Gonzales, as WH Counsel, did the vetting that Miers did, as WH Counsel. The activity comes primarily with the job title and function.
... why are you intentionally taking such a minor point as if it is important, and blowing it all out of proportion.
It goes to the matter of credibility. Intellectual honesty requires that participants in debate work from some agreed base, which is usually facts. When one side in the debate is persistent in using debunked facts, it weakens that person's standing in the debate.
A good advocate would concede the point, if not finally, at least tentatively until other evidence is available.