[Updates below on blogosphere, media coverage.]

The only problem with firing all the attorney’s who weren’t “loyal Bushies” and who were investigating Republicans—Lam—or wouldn’t smear Democrats—Iglesias?

The Explainer didn’t do his job. But then, does he ever? From Bush’s speech today at 5:45:

[BUSH] The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these changes has been confusing and, in some cases, incomplete. Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled.

I’ll bet.

We’re determined to correct the problem.

And how! Er, I mean, and how?

[BUSH] It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available.

Sweet Jeebus! Since when is testifying under oath about potential obstruction of justice a “show trial?” Talk about overheated rhetoric! And since when does the executive determine who gets to testify before the legislative branch? And who said the exective gets to throw out chaff and then call it “unpredented disclosure”? Gosh, it’s almost like Bush wants to be the judge and jury in his own case, isn’t it?

Unbelievably, Bush takes questions. (So where’s “Jeff Gannon” when we need him to throw The Explainer some softballs? Under Karl’s desk?)

And speaking of obstruction of justice, Bush doesn’t speak of it:

[BUSH] Kelly O’.

Q Sir, in at least a few instances, the attorneys that were dismissed were actively investigating Republicans — in San Diego, in Arizona, in Nevada. By removing them, wouldn’t that have possibly impeded or stopped those investigations?

Right on the money.

And, sir, if I may also ask about the Attorney General. He does not have support among many Republicans and Democrats. Can he still be effective?

BUSH: Yes, he’s got support with me. I support the Attorney General. I told you in Mexico I’ve got confidence in him; I still do. He’s going to go up to Capitol Hill and he’s going to explain the very questions you asked. I’ve heard all these allegations and rumors. And people just need to hear the truth, and they’re going to go up and explain the truth.

After answering the second question first, Bush stonewalls, and dumps the key question off on Al. (“Nice knowin’ ya, pal.”)

[BUSH] If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed [and let me determine what information they see]. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there — which will harm the President’s ability to get good [for some definition of good] information, Michael — is — I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate.

Well, I believe that kleig lights are the best disinfectant.

Can’t somebody give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?

NOTE It’s really the Iraq Studly Group all over again, isn’t it? The old Republican wise man steps in to save Bush from himself—and the Republican brand from complete besmirchment—and Bush winds up telling him to go fuck himself and does the opposite of what they recommend. First, James Baker, now Fred Fielding.

UPDATE The Good Glenn goes to the mattresses at LexisNexis and digs up every statement from those who were against executive privilege when The Clenis tried to exercise it—and who will shortly be cranking up The Mighty Wurlitzer to be all for it now that Bush’s mantits are caught in the same winger—starting with Pony Blow.

UPDATE Leahy on Bush’s “reasonable offer”:

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.

UPDATE How the Republican operatives running Justice [snicker] ranked Fitzgerald, from WaPo:

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below “strong U.S. Attorneys … who exhibited loyalty” to the administration but above “weak U.S. Attorneys who … chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.,” according to Justice documents.

Sweet Jeeebus! Fitzgerald didn’t indict Shooter, and they’ve got problems with his loyalty? What more do they want? His nuts in a jar?

As Fitz’s supervisor, Mary Joe White says:

Mary Jo White, who supervised Fitzgerald when she served as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and who has criticized the firings, said ranking him as a middling prosecutor “lacks total credibility across the board.”

“He is probably the best prosecutor in the nation — certainly one of them,” said White, who worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations. “It casts total doubt on the whole process. It’s kind of the icing on the cake.”

And… Wait a minute… I’m having a feeling of cognitive dissonance… didn’t Bush, during His angry ranting at 5:45, say something like…

[BUSH] The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country.

Can they really believe that “exhibiting [political] loyalty [to Bush]” is equal to “serving the country?

Wait! Yes! They can! They’re authoritarians! Service to the country and fealty to The Leader are the same thing!

UPDATE TPM has the smoking gun on “performance related”: documents showing Justice hacks drafting reasons for firing the DAs after the firing actually took place.

UPDATE I love stories with leads like this. AP:

A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Translation: “Defiant” means loser.

UPDATE Interestingly, WaPo coverage also uses the “defiant” word:

A defiant [loser] President Bush today promised a court showdown with congressional Democrats if they continue to insist that his top aides testify under oath about the Justice Department’s firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

I assume Bush has already made the call to Scalia, hoping for Son of Bush v. Gore. If this goes to the Roberts Court, and they uphold this power grab by Bush… I guess all I can say is that I predict problems.

UPDATE Kagro X on Son of Bush v. Gore (via The Good Glenn), except he uses nicer words:

Enforcement of the contempt power falls to the U.S. Attorneys — the political strong-arming and contamination of which brought us to this crisis in the first place. Heck, you’d almost think they… planned it.

[W]hen it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush’s understanding of the presidency, the President’s team has been planning for what one strategist describes as “a cataclysmic fight to the death” over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is “going to assert that power, and they’re going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.”

Realize that the resolution of this stand-off will determine the extent to which the Congress is able to investigate everything that’s still on their plate. If they lose this showdown, they lose their leverage in investigating NSA spying, the DeLay/Abramoff-financed Texas redistricting, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, the political manipulation of science, the Plame outing… everything.

And that’s why Bush is playing it this way. Remember, too, that his “administration” is populated by Watergate and Iran-Contra recidivists, chief among them Dick Cheney, who has wanted to relitigate the boundaries of executive power since forever. Cheney and others on the inside believe that this time, with a friendlier judiciary, these issues can be decided the “right” way, overturning the victories won against Richard Nixon’s insane theories of executive power.

Their thinking is that they’ll either win it in courts, or run out the clock trying.

And the day they get five Justices to say they’re right, everything you thought you knew about checks and balances becomes wrong.

UPDATE Stripped of the Bushit, here’s the “fair, reasonable, and respectful” offer as Fred Fielding proposed it to Leahy and Conyers:

“Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas,” Fielding said in his letter.

Translation: Fielding to Congress: Let’s settle this outside…. I mean, no fucking transcript? That’s “respectful”? That’s “reasonable”? “Unprecedented,” now that it may be.

He said the documents released by the Justice Department “do not reflect that any U.S. attorney was replaced to interfere with a pending or future criminal investigation or for any other improper reason.”

No, they wouldn’t, would they? And I’m absolutely certain that the parts of the documents they gave that are blanked out are that way for the most high-minded of reasons, and that all the relevant documents have been suppplied. [Where’s that damn bucket? ’Scuse me. There. That’s better.]

UPDATE (and goodnight) Lord Kos:

kos: What the White House is really saying is, “We reserve the right to lie.” Otherwise, if they intend to tell the truth, why would it matter whether they’re under oath or not?

Bingo.

UPDATE (one more) McClatchy (yes!) on one of the attorney’s who wasn’t fired. Go read, then dig. Remember Krugman says that’s where the real story is.