Is it a bad sign for Bush when one of his most supportive op-ed columnists, Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post, calls for him to withdraw Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court?

Krauthammer has alway been a tool of BushCo, truly believing that Bush is a leader non compare. Yet it’s most telling that he says this in today’s issue of the Post:

To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution.

This same sentiment can be applied to George W. Bush with regard to his fitness to be president – even today, when he’s held the role for over four years.

This is a prime example of “takes one to know one” synchronicity.

But Krauthammer does bring up a key point with Miers that can’t be overlooked. Without a doubt, this administration will be brought to task, via the legal system, with regard to its outright lies about the reasons for war in Iraq, as well as other “war on terror” issues. As the president’s legal counsel, Miers was privy to many decisions that led to the quagmire in Iraq – something seen as an asset by Ken Mehlman in yesterday’s “pep rally” conference call to Republican supporters and the press. However, Miers will be in a particular bind with regard to these cases:

For years — crucial years in the war on terrorism — she will have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much.

I’m not suggesting that any other Bush-selected nominee would be better than Miers. But these are questions that must be asked by the senate during confirmation hearings. She needs to be drilled and made to answer questions directly, not just in political avoidance-speak.

This’ll be an interesting turn of events….