What part of "you lost" do you not understand?

There is much to say about Bush's latest temper tantrum about keeping his advisers, mainly Karl "Walking Douche" Rove and Harriet "Brian Trust" Miers, from testifying under oath to Congress about the fired US attorney controversy. As has often been true in the past, what is most noteworthy is the vaunted Bush administration's inability to recognize a new reality that doesn't conform to their perceptions of what reality should be. On Sunday, Pat Leahy, the FUCKING CHAIRMAN of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said:

“I do not believe in this, ‘we’ll have a private briefing for you where we’ll tell you everything,’ and they don’t,” Mr. Leahy said on the ABC News program “This Week.” adding: “I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this.”

Later in the same article though we read:

In response to Mr. Leahy’s comments today, Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said the Bush administration was standing by its earlier promise that Mr. Fielding would give Democrats an answer on Tuesday.

“Fred has been talking with folks on Capitol Hill, analyzing various statements and conversations with folks on the Hill, and we will get back to them,” Mr. Snow said in a brief telephone interview.

We'll get back to them? This isn't Frist or Santorum or Cornyn or McCain or some other GOP Senator who doesn't talk to his or her mother before getting talking points from the White House. This is the oppositional party that is IN CONTROL OF A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WITH SUBPOENA POWER. That means if they say you have to come testify, YOU HAVE TO COME TESTIFY. Not that they are asking you, pretty please, if you have time. It is more like: don't come, go to jail.

Well, what did the White House come back with? From the first link:

Under growing political pressure, the White House offered to allow members of Congressional committees to hold private interviews with Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and two other officials. It also offered to provide access to e-mail messages and other communications about the dismissals, but not those between White House officials.

Except for the fact this is the exact opposite of what Leahy was demanding, he was totally happy with this situation. Oh, wait:

“I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome.

"Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day. Testimony should be on the record, and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability.“I hope the President will agree to be forthcoming. The straighter the path to the truth, the sooner we will finally know the facts.”

The President stood up for his decent, always truth-telling staff:

“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants,” the president told reporters in a brief and hastily convened appearance in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House.

Bush is right though. How dare the Democratic Congress turn a controversy over non-partisan political appointees possibly being fired for not prosecuting Democratic officials (an interpretation that arose after the repeated attempts to explain the "real" reason for their dismissals have been prove to be lies) in to a "show trial" with "sworn testimony". OH DARE YOU SIR!

How surprising is this really though? This is what is going to happen with the oppositional power in office, it is pretty basic 12 grade civics stuff. Plus, we live in a post-Lewinsky world where various Clinton administration officials were compelled to testify about the president's sex life. I don't know if people are going to buy the separation of powers has a liberal, pre-9/11 bias. Especially when no one believes a single word you say.