Missing the Big Picture with Miers Withdrawal

[kerrygoddess]

Missing the Big Picture with Miers Withdrawal
October 27th, 2005

Late last night it appeared that the story of the day on the Miers’ nomination today, was poised to be “her views of the Bush administration’s detention of suspected terrorists in the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, making clear he remains uncertain of her command of complex constitutional issues.” But this morning, Miers withdrew her nomination under what most are calling pressure from Bush’s conservative base.

Senator Arlen Specter in a letter to White House counsel Miers, announced “he intends to question her about constitutional issues in the war on terror, including the administration’s policy of open-ended detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” In the letter, Specter “asked how she would decide which cases were inappropriate for her to hear, given her current role as an adviser to the president.”


Referring to cases involving the detainment of “enemy combatants” at a U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Specter noted that the administration contends that most of the detainees are kept in custody “not for punishment” but to keep them for interrogation and prevent them from returning to the battlefield.

“Are there any limitations as to how long detainees may be held for the purposes identified by the government?” he asked, setting out the first in a series of questions he intended to pose at the hearings. Pentagon policy on the issue makes no mention of a time limit on the detentions.

Additionally, Specter posed a series of questions about the authority of the president to detain aliens outside U.S. borders.

These questions all appeared to involve controversy for Miers, since she has advised Bush privately about the war on terror, and the president has long insisted that advice offered within the White House is off-limits to outsiders.

Specter cited issues that “may resurface at the Supreme Court in the future.” Also of note in Spector’s letter were “questions relating to Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war.”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=966

[texpatriot2004]

1. Specter's questions made them think twice, and withdraw to

keep their secrets. That's the issue.

A snip from the last part of this blog

With the PlameGate indictments looming and the torture issue being a hot button topic for sometime now, the rush to war in Iraq looms uglier everyday for the Bush administration. While the MSM is playing up the conservative heat over the Miers nomination, one can’t help but wonder if too much information might just have surfaced during the nomination hearings for Miers. A quick withdrawal, under the circumstances, certainly keeps much underwraps, which is precisely the way the Bush administration likes things.

Bush, obviously was not thinking clearly when he nominated Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. Whatever the answers are to the letter from Specter, we may never know. But certainly, let’s not forget the bigger picture and chalk her withdrawal up to pressure from Bush’s conservative base. There’s more to this than meets the eye. I highly doubt that Bush was reluctant to accept her withdrawal, I view this as a highly calculated move.

[enough]

2. So why didn't Specter ask Roberts some of these questions.

[kerrygoddess]

3. I think Harriet is in deeper that Roberts...

Listening to Randi Rhodes today she suggested that Harry Reid knew what he was doing when he reccommended Miers.

[hollowdweller]

4. I guess the "up or down vote" thing doesn't apply to the right.