Will the Stonewall Work?

· "Now, are you saying that the President is not taking any action in response to that?"

· "Scott, what was the President's interaction today with Karl Rove? Did they discuss this current situation?"

· "[A]re you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?"

· "Scott, at this point, are we to consider what you've said previously, when you were talking about this, that you're still standing by that, or are those all inoperative at this point?"

Live Online

I'll be Live Online tomorrow at 1 p.m. ET, taking your questions and comments .

Bloglust

Howard Kurtz writes on washingtonpost.com today: "The liberal blogosphere is aflame with animosity toward Karl Rove, now that he's been sucked deeper into the Plame probe. . . .

"Legally, what Rove said to Matt Cooper on 'double super secret background' (according to this Mike Isikoff piece) may or may not have violated the law against identifying intelligence agents. . . .

"But politically, this is a bombshell."

Kurtz asks: "What does Rove do now? Give a couple of interviews and explain his role? Or remain in the background while his lawyer issues carefully parsed statements?"

On the left:

The Nation's David Corn writes: "Everybody in the room -- and out of it -- should review McClellan's exchange with the reporters to see how he and this White House do business. After what transpired, no reporter should take McClellan's word at face value (if they ever did). Moreover, the larger issue is not his -- and Bush's -- credibility, but the wrongdoing committed by a senior White House official and the apparent lack of a response from the White House. . . .

"With McClellan providing no answers related to the Rove scandal, the question is whether the White House's we-can't-comment stance will allow it to dodge yet another troubling and inconvenient reality."

Garance Franke-Ruta writes at the American Prospect Online: "If there is one thing that reporters hate, it's being played for patsies. McClellan has publicly humiliated some of the most prominent reporters in the country by persistently feeding them information that has now been revealed to be false, and I'm pretty darn sure that they are not going to grant him any favors and extend him the benefit of the doubt in the future."

On the right, the criticism is mostly aimed toward the media:

Michelle Malkin writes: "I actually have no problem with McClellan getting justifiably barked at during his daily briefings. . . . But isn't it funny how Beltway reporters who get all prissy and whiny about one Fox News Channel reporter asking the DNC chairman one mildly aggressive question have no problem turning pack-rabid on McClellan?"

Lorie Byrd writes: "I don't even know how to describe the journalists' questions in the briefing. I guess I could say they were disrespectful and disgraceful, but that does not quite do it justice."

Opinion Watch

From a Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial: "The president would bring credit to himself and his administration by firing Rove immediately. Whether or not Rove violated the law, his actions on behalf of the administration broke trust with the American people and with the president's own stated view of the matter. Minimally, enough is known that the president must suspend Rove and cease all contacts with Rove until the investigation is complete. Rove, it appears, cannot be trusted with the United States' secrets."

From a Philadelphia Daily News editorial: "There is no easy way to explain this away. And the White House shouldn't even try. Rove must go."

From Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer : "To try to conceal the fact that the president had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth."

From Slate's Timothy Noah : "For a White House official to be so reckless as to reveal, even unknowingly, the identity of an undercover CIA employee is a firing offense. Period. That Rove did so for the purpose of smearing a political enemy makes the whole episode even more distasteful. He's outta there."

In Other News

Bush yesterday gave what was billed as a major speech on the war on terror. But it wasn't.

Jim VandeHei writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush yesterday defended the White House strategy for preventing future terrorist attacks and warned that the London bombings were part of a broader campaign to scare the United States and its allies into retreat."

Nedra Pickler cuts to the chase for the Associated Press: "Bush said nothing new in his speech. He repeated the same themes and indeed much of the same language that he used over the weekend in his radio address and in speeches on Independence Day and before a prime-time audience at Fort Bragg last month."

David E. Sanger finds something to write about in the New York Times: "It was the second time in the last week that he has begun to describe the terror groups as having an ideology; in the past the White House has said, in the context of Iraq, that they have nothing to offer the people of Iraq, and no governing philosophy other than attacking the United States and its allies. But now that tone appears to have changed, in what a senior White House official said last week was an effort 'to define the stakes more clearly.'"

Supreme Court Watch

Reuters reports: "President Bush heard the views of Senate leaders on Tuesday on whom he should pick for a Supreme Court nominee and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he believed Bush would seek a 'consensus candidate.' "

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "Laura Bush, meanwhile, said she hoped her husband would pick a woman.

" 'I would really like him to name another woman,' Mrs. Bush said Tuesday on NBC's 'Today' show, in an interview from Cape Town, South Africa, where she is traveling. 'I admire and respect Sandra Day O'Connor, but I know that my husband will pick somebody who has a lot of integrity and strength.' "

Cox News's Ken Herman , who has been covering Bush on and off since 1993, writes: "George W. Bush has a penchant for appointing Supreme Court justices with compelling personal stories to tell, the kind of tales that can cement an image.

"As Texas governor, Bush appointed four state Supreme Court justices, including current attorney general and potential U.S. Supreme Court nominee Alberto Gonzales, a Hispanic from humble beginnings.

"Bush also picked a wheelchair-bound man who lost the use of his legs when a tree fell on him while jogging and a woman whose work as a special-education teacher led her to a career in law."

What, Me Worry?

Marc Humbert reports for the Associated Press: "Republicans took aim at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday for a speech comparing President Bush to Mad magazine's freckle-faced, 'What, me worry?' kid, Alfred E. Neuman. . . .

"Clinton's attack on the president came Sunday during a speech in Colorado.

" 'I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington,' Clinton said during the inaugural Aspen Ideas Festival, organized by the Aspen Institute, a non-partisan think tank."