Photo Op Bites Back

" 'You were given an opportunity to interview the leader of the free world and you blew it,' she began. . . .

" 'You were more vicious than any of the White House press corps or even some of them up on Capitol Hill. . . . The president leads the interview,' she said.

" 'I don't agree,' I replied, my initial worry now turning to frustration. 'It's the journalist's job to lead the interview.' . . .

"A man's voice then came on the line. . . . 'And, it goes without saying, you can forget about the interview with Laura Bush.' "

Back Again -- and Live Online Tomorrow

I'm back, after a vacation during which I had very little contact with the news. Did anything much happen?

I guess I have some catching up to do.

I didn't even realize Bush had held his first press conference since May until I read about it in the International Herald Tribune on the plane home yesterday.

I caught dribs and drabs of the often toxic reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination, and saw an occasional headline about Judith Miller, Karl Rove and the gang.

And unless I dreamt it, I'm pretty sure I caught a clip of Bush on CNN International actually criticizing Osama Bin Laden for being a child of wealth and privilege who sends young people to their deaths but never offers to go along with the ride.

Did that really happen? Yup. Here's that speech . Did anyone else notice that?

Anyway, I'm reading like crazy and will even be Live Online tomorrow at 1, hopefully able to answer at least some of your questions.

Plame Watch

Some of the latest, top stories:

Adam Entous writes for Reuters: "A New York Times reporter has given investigators notes from a conversation she had with a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney weeks earlier than was previously known, suggesting White House involvement started well before the outing of a CIA operative, legal sources said.

"Times reporter Judith Miller discovered the notes -- about a June 2003 conversation she had with Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby -- after her testimony before the grand jury last week, the sources said on Friday. She turned the notes over to federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and is expected to meet him again next Tuesday, the sources said. . . .

"Miller's notes could help Fitzgerald show a long-running and orchestrated campaign to discredit Wilson, which could help form the basis for a conspiracy charge."

David Johnston writes in the New York Times on Saturday: "The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case is exploring a range of possible crimes, lawyers in the case say, suggesting that the investigation has moved well beyond its initial focus on whether anyone in the Bush administration illegally disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. operative.

"In recent days, the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has accelerated the pace of his inquiry in an apparent effort to conclude the case before the grand jury's term expires on Oct. 28. Mr. Fitzgerald has indicated to several lawyers that he might be preparing to bring charges, but he has not yet made a decision."

Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei write in Friday's Washington Post: "A source close to Rove said Bush's chief political adviser and his legal team are now genuinely concerned he could face charges. But, the source said, his lawyers are hoping that Fitzgerald's warning of the chance of indictment is simply the move of a conservative, by-the-book prosecutor wrapping up a high-profile investigation. . . .

"It is highly unusual for a person who has any risk of being indicted in a white-collar case to offer to go before the grand jury, say veteran defense lawyers and former prosecutors. But the rare exceptions, they say, are almost always high-profile figures and politicians. Public figures can expect that an indictment will end their careers, and that refusing to cooperate in an investigation could do the same, criminal lawyers said."

John D. McKinnon writes in the Wall Street Journal: "Among the problems besetting the White House, the CIA leak investigation appears most threatening. That is because one of those under scrutiny, deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, is far more than merely the strategist behind President Bush's campaign victories.

"Mr. Rove is the administration's indispensable man, the connective tissue between the policies and constituencies needed to win elections and govern. . . .

"The evolution of Mr. Bush's statements on the CIA leak case indicate how loath he is to lose the man he has described as his political 'architect.' Early on in the controversy over the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, the president vowed to fire anyone involved. Later, after testimony implicating Mr. Rove became public, Mr. Bush expressed a looser standard, saying he would remove aides who committed crimes. Last week, amid speculation that Mr. Rove might face charges from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Mr. Bush wouldn't say whether he would remove an aide under indictment."

Michael Isikoff writes in Newsweek: "The White House's handling of a potentially crucial e-mail sent by senior aide Karl Rove two years ago set off a chain of events that has led special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to summon Rove for a fourth grand jury appearance this week. . . .

"[L]awyers close to the case, who asked not to be identified because it's ongoing, say Fitzgerald appears to be focusing in part on discrepancies in testimony between Rove and Time reporter Matt Cooper about their conversation of July 11, 2003."

Murray Waas writes for the National Journal: "White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors. . . .

"Sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation say that Rove's personal assurances to the president and his initial interview with the FBI are central to whether the grand jury might charge Rove with making false statements to investigators or with obstruction of justice."

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, "asserted that any misstatements that his client might have made to the president, the FBI, or other public officials, were not purposeful and were due to incomplete records and faulty memories," Waas wrote.

The President's Lawyer

Ralph Blumenthal and Simon Romero write in the New York Times: "'You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect,' Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997. She also found him 'cool,' said he and his wife, Laura, were 'the greatest!' and told him: 'Keep up the great work. Texas is blessed.'

"Ms. Miers, President Bush's personal lawyer and his selection for a Supreme Court seat, emerges as an unabashed fan in more than 2,000 pages of official correspondence and personal notes made public on Monday by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in response to open-records requests. . . .

"The documents, including many minutes of meetings of the Texas Lottery Commission, which Ms. Miers headed, shed little light on her legal thinking, but underscore her ties to Mr. Bush. Because of their closeness and her lack of a judicial record, some critics have dismissed Ms. Miers as a crony unworthy of nomination to the court but for her confidential service as the president's lawyer.

"Others question whether their bond could undermine the separation of powers of the executive and judicial branches."

Nancy Gibbs writes in Time: "The driving force was chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., who took over the vetting role. 'This is something that Andy and the President cooked up,' the adviser told TIME. 'Andy knew it would appeal to the President because he loves appointing his own people and being supersecret and stealthy about it.'

"Relations between Rove and Card have always been strained, and this adviser said the nomination has reignited the tension. Another Republican involved said it reflected Bush's isolation. 'Somebody just like her should have told him, 'Mr. President, no. This is a mistake.' But he picked the picker, so there was no one there to tell him no.' "

What Did Rove Tell Dobson?

David D. Kirkpatrick writes in the New York Times: "Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and several Democrats on the committee said Sunday that they were considering calling the evangelical conservative James C. Dobson to testify on what he has been told about Harriet E. Miers, the president's Supreme Court nominee. . . .

"Mr. Dobson, the influential founder of the conservative evangelical group Focus on the Family, has said he is supporting Ms. Miers's nomination in part because of something he has been told but cannot divulge. He has not disclosed the source of the information, but he has acknowledged speaking with Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, about the president's pick before it was announced."

Meanwhile, an alert reader e-mails me to note that in this morning's broadcast , Dobson said that he has gotten Rove's permission to discuss their conversation and will do so on tomorrow's show.

"That conversation that I had with Karl Rove was leaked to the media by one of my close friends, for reasons that I have not yet figured out," Dobson complained. "Now it has become something of a national obsession."

About That Catching Up

Here are a few stories that helped me get up to speed:

Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote in the New York Times on Sunday: "The conservative uproar over Ms. Miers underscores how difficult it has been for Mr. Bush to pull his own party together as he faces a variety of problems on other fronts: his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina; a leak investigation involving his chief political adviser, Karl Rove; the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, who was the House majority leader; and, most recently, the decision by a top Justice Department nominee to withdraw amid questions over his ties to a Republican lobbyist accused of fraud.

"Only a week ago, Republicans were saying they looked forward to a new Supreme Court nominee because it would give them something to rally around, providing a welcome distraction from the Bush administration's problems. But the nomination of Ms. Miers only served to roil a party that is already divided over domestic matters like Social Security and how to pay to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

"Now, having alienated his conservative backers, Mr. Bush must go forward on the Miers nomination alone, without the help of many of the advocates who led the charge for the last nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr."

And here's a David S. Broder op-ed from Sunday's Washington Post: "Three front-page stories on a single day last week testified to the unraveling of the Bush presidency." Here are stories one , two and three .