Former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully offers a testimonial to Harriet Miers in the New York Times today that includes this passage about her work as staff secretary from 2001-2003:

It is true that Harriet Miers, in everything she does, gives high attention to detail. And the trait came in handy with drafts of presidential speeches, in which she routinely exposed weak arguments, bogus statistics and claims inconsistent with previous remarks long forgotten by the rest of us.

So does that mean we can hold her responsible for all the weak arguments, bogus statistics and inconsistent claims that Bush made in speeches from 2001-2003? (See Spinsanity and All the President’s Spin for more.) Also, if the speeches that were delivered were dramatically improved by Miers’ edits, I can only imagine what the speechwriters were giving her.

Update 10/16: Matthew Scully again draws attention to the White House’s low standards for factual accuracy in a New York Times interview about Miers:

“Sometimes when you’re doing these speeches, you sort of think, ‘This can slide, nobody is going to challenge this,’ but that was not a high enough standard for Harriet.”

It’s useful to know that those are your standards, Mr. Scully, but look at how much she didn’t challenge! Clearly, as I argued, she’s better qualified to be press secretary than Supreme Court justice.