Triangulating on the Truth

No Excuse for Stonewalling

And a White House Watch reader who prefers to remain anonymous e-mailed me yesterday with an excellent point: "We should be asking EXACTLY what was dropped. The White House can't (probably will, but they have no argument) stonewall on this, citing 'security', because those portions of the program have supposedly been dropped.

"So, if those portions of the program are no longer in use, were likely illegal and therefore not likely to be used in the future, why can't they tell us? It's not like you'd be tipping of the 'terrorists', because you'd be telling the world about extinct practices."

What Bush Said

At today's short joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- Blair's last before he steps down next month -- Bush and Blair traded compliments. And Bush ducked the one question he was asked about Comey's testimony.

NBC's Kelly O'Donnell asked Bush if he personally had sent former Chief of Staff Andrew Card and then-White House counsel Gonzales to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's sickbed to get him to approve the wiretapping program. Bush acknowledged "a lot of speculation" but said: "I'm not going to talk about it." He instead reiterated his support for the program he wouldn't describe, and warned: "No matter how calm it may seem in America, an enemy lurks."

Bush was not asked specifically about what the program was like before he made changes in it.

More Opinion

The Washington Post editorial board writes: "Why is it only now that the disturbing story of the Bush administration's willingness to override the legal advice of its own Justice Department is emerging? The chief reason is that the administration, in the person of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, stonewalled congressional inquiries and did its best to ensure that the shameful episode never came to light. . . .

"Mr. Gonzales's lack of candor is no longer surprising. What's critical here is that lawmakers get a full picture of what happened, obtaining whatever documents -- Office of Legal Counsel opinions -- and testimony are necessary, behind closed doors if need be. 'Jim Comey gave his side of what transpired that day,' White House press secretary Tony Snow said yesterday. If there's another side to the story, we'd like to hear it.

"What was the administration doing, and what was it willing to continue to do, that its lawyers concluded was without a legal basis? Without an answer to that fundamental question, the coverup will have succeeded."

The USA Today editorial board writes: "It isn't easy for anyone to say no to the president of the United States. Certainly not for the loyalists who work in his administration. But in rare instances -- Watergate's Saturday Night Massacre being the most famous -- they do, upholding principle in the face of extreme presidential pressure.

"Tuesday, the nation learned of another such incident in detail fit for a Hollywood script, with plotlines about personal liberty, the administration of justice and the way the war on terror is fought. . . .

"Perhaps most compelling is what Comey's testimony says about the danger of White House arrogance. It's easy for a president or his advisers to find the law inconvenient, to dismiss facts that get in their way and to stampede those who disagree."

The Plot Widens

Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein write in The Washington Post: "The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public. . . .