Watergate vs Attorneygate. Same old weaseling.

[trof]

It's the standard repug modus operandi.

Today:
At issue is whether Congress can compel the president to allow top aides to answer questions under oath. The House Judiciary panel issued subpoenas for White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to answer questions about last year's US attorney firings.

Responding to a similar probe on the Senate side, the president has offered to allow Mr. Rove and other officials to answer questions not under oath and without an official transcript. Responding to the new subpoenas on Thursday, deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto urged Congress to accept the president's accommodation. "Every day this Congress gets a little more out of control," he said.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047631


And 35 years ago:
Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox had been appointed by (AG) Richardson in May of that year, after having given assurances to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would appoint an independent counsel to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate break-in of June 17, 1972. Cox subsequently issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office and authorized by Nixon as evidence. The president initially refused to comply with the subpoena, but on October 19, 1973, he offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise—asking U.S. Senator John C. Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

[EST]

1. ""Every day this Congress gets a little more out of control," he said."

Congress is not supposed to be "in control" by these idiots. They had that, already, so their intimation of their lack of control of congress should not be a tool to intimidate-as they suppose it must-but a reason to celebrate.
An "out of control" congress is exactly what's needed, unless you are a republican.

[shraby]

2. I doubt we'll see Bush back down on the

aides testifying. He is using the mistakes from the Nixon administration to keep from making the same ones. He thinks it's the way he'll hold on to power...he's wrong.

[PATRICK]

3. There will be no compromise

because they don't want to fall into the pattern of concessions that doomed Nixon. They will try to stall or trick the reluctant Dems. They might attack Iran and other amazing distractions of daring do if that looks iffy. They won't settle for passing to the losing or surrender to a situation of risk. Their method, they believe, carries less risk because by it they at least remain in control and manipulate the initiative and the follow-up. Multiplying horrors and crimes as long as the good guys keep displaying the Keystone Cop slowness and keep their noses in the rulebook and their will away from swift confrontation.