Victory, but for who?

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court today, with whoops of 'got the bitch' from myself, but who is this a victory for?

Harriet Miers nomination confused a lot of people. There was definitely no clarity on the issues at hand. One could see evidence of her being a staunch right winger, then there was hints of gay rights, or at least no fire and brimstone comments against gays.

Right wing conservatives certainly did not like her nomination. They didn't like the fact that they couldn't prove she was a conservative through a paper trail, and Bush told the country we 'had to trust him' in picking someone who shared his political and judicial philosophy, which obviously many far righters were not prepared to do.

But are we to take from this, however, that she was not a clear cut far right conservative? Bush said she shared his philosophy, which has been proved to be of the far right persuasion, ala the now dead Defense of Marriage amendment, the Patriot act and tax cuts for the rich. However, Democratic Minority leader Senator Harry Reid praised her nomination, and even today blamed far right religious fanatics in the republican party for trampling on Harriet Miers nomination. So was Harriet the best liberal appeasement we could have expected from the Bush White House? Will Bush now appoint a clear cut Far Righter such as Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen? Or will Bush take this as the opportunity to appoint a real consensus candidate such as Edith Clement or even possibly Alberto Gonzales, who has shown to be moderate in teen abortions anyway, but has been criticized by Democrats for his approval of torture and of the unconstitutional 'Patriot Act'?

The shortlived Harriet Miers nomination, however, could also highlight the complete incompetentcy of the Bush administration in proposing a candidate which angers his base, has absolutely zero judicial experience, a limited knowledge of Constitutional law, and an inherent bias and questionable independence in dealing with any case which involved the Bush administration.

Miers owed just about every job she has had to George Bush, and would also have owed her place in US history and to become one of the most important women in America to Bush, thus compromising her ability to be independent should a case arise involving Bush, or should Bush ever appear before the Supreme Court after being impeached.

Could Bush have been so stupid? It is almost unbelievable that Bushes brain, Karl Rove, would have let him pick a person like this. Rove must have known that she would have been contentious to the Republican base despite Bushes' continued pleas that she believes the same things as him, and her being religious. Puting aside the total uncostitutional factor in nominating someone because of their 'religious belief's' why on earth would he have wanted to have someone controlling the Swing Vote on the Supreme Court who's only qualification was that she was an ally?

In a seemingly unrelated story, Washington is waiting to hear who is going to be indicted in the CIA-Plame case. Karl Rove, the man behind Bush and Scooter Libby, Cheney's CoS, are likely to become criminal defendants. It may become clear during their trial, if they are indicted, that it was the Vice President himself who authorized the leak, as it seems unbelievable that Libby or Rove would be able to authorize this, and as Libby received information from Cheney just before he met with reporters. It seems even more unlikely to me that Dick Cheney would have leaked the name without even informing the President.

So if we hypothetically follow this leak up the chain of command, there is the possibility that Bush was aware of, or authorized the leaking of Plames name as a CIA agent to discredit her husband, a harsh critic of the Presidents Iraq policy. Therefore were this to come out in any criminal case involving Rove and Libby, the President would face impeachment at the hands of the Supreme court, and of course, it would be in the Presidents intrestes to have an Associate Justice who owed everything she had to Bush.

Now of course this is all just an idea, but it is an idea that makes sense to me. I don't understand why Bush would nominate someone who so angered his base, and got approval from Democrats otherwise? Where is that Political Capital he promised to spend in appointing a hardline ideologue? But an ideologue who is against abortion is possibly not someone who is in favour of Presidents breaking the law to discredit political opposition.

In summary, I believe the President, George W. Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plames name, and then nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to protect his back as the Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, closed in on the top White House staff.

The withdrawal of Miers nomination may not be directly related to this, however, as conservatives disliked her anyway, and many people questioned her experience, or total lack of. But I think the withdrawal does represent a huge blow to the safety of Bush in the CIA case, and a President in trouble. A Victory, perhaps, for all the Bushwhacker Liberals out there who want to see Bush exposed and convicted for the criminal he is.