Bush to American people: "Whatsa matter? Don't you trust me?" Froomkin today:

The most telling restriction built into the White House offer to make senior aides available for private interviews about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys is that no record of those aides' words would be allowed. ...

[The offer] would deny the public any reliable record of what was said.

It would remove the pressure from senior aides, most notably White House political guru Karl Rove, to come clean on their involvement in the firings -- while denying the public an opportunity to assess their veracity.

(As Kos said, they want to reserve the right to lie.)

It never does hurt to say the obvious, although, for some reason, the obvious somehow evaded the NPR analcyst's this morning.

But that was just a stretching exercise. Now Froomkin starts the warm up: Read more…

It's always a pleasure to see the Amazing Froomkin stop emulating Broderella--Ouch! It was a joke!--and become a little less the nice-guy, mild-mannered, Clark Kent figure that we know and love.

But enough is enough:

Indications of Obfuscation

Don't you love that word, obfuscation? It even sounds obfuscatory! Let's use it, often:

Among the many lessons of the Scooter Libby trial is this one: That when the White House issues squirrelly statements under fire, the most cynical interpretations may well be the closest to the truth.

So there's really no longer any excuse for letting President Bush get away with carefully parsed denials, hairsplitting and non-answers.

In that spririt, my takeaway from Bush's comments yesterday on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys is that the president may well be aware that his critics are correct -- and that at least some of the prosecutors were ousted because top White House officials felt they had not performed their duties with sufficient loyalty to the Republican Party.

You thought that was shrill? That was reportage. Now comes the Shrill: Read more…

Dammit, I've got to go be in meatspace now, so I can't watch the fireworks. Here's some links for those researching the story. Don't hang any of the traitors until I get back.

Geiger has a bombshell.

NDN interviews Lam.

Klein on Iglesias.

Bullshit protector for when you hear "Clinton did it too."

FDL action alert.

Fitzgerald's real rating and more.  Read more…

I'm just a dumb blogger, and like me, thousands have spilled ink upon a subject in which their expertise is limited. Still, it feels good to have these guys saying what we've been saying here at Corrente for years. I'm having some issues pasting sections, so just go read it. The bottom line: Congress can end this war, by setting limits on the number of troops, the area of authorized conflict, and by controlling the purse strings. There is plenty of precedent, and the SCOTUS has said so not only to other Presidents, but to Bush himself three times now. Thus, an end to the war, beyond all the bullshit, is simply a matter of will on the part of the majority. It's not just me saying this, but professors of law from Yale, Georgetown, Chicago, Harvard, Indiana, Fordham...will anyone in Congress take these voices more seriously than the unelected and uneducated bobbleheads in the media? Read more…

We can't say "Constitutional crisis" often enough. Krugman always satisfies:

There’s something happening here, and what it is seems completely clear: the Bush administration is trying to protect itself by purging independent-minded prosecutors. Read more…