From Secrecy News:

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/03/congressional_testimony_of_pre.html

The suggestion that it would be inherently inappropriate for presidential advisers to testify under oath before Congress regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys was swiftly batted down with numerous references to a 2004 Congressional Research Service report (pdf) on the subject.

CRS analyst Harold C. Relyea identified dozens of cases in which presidential advisers had been summoned to testify to Congress, and did so. See "Presidential Advisers' Testimony Before Congressional Committees: A Brief Overview," April 14, 2004. (http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf)

Snow said that “this is not an entirely analogous situation” and that he would “let others do the legal arguing.” Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/snow-privilege-response/

218-212

Roll call here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml

http://www.cspan.org

RECENT PROGRAMS >>

Pres. Bush Reaction to House Vote on Additional Iraq Spending (3/23/2007)

House Speaker Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) & Democratic Leaders on Iraq Accountability Act (3/23/2007)

Pelosi's press conference is just below it.

And emergency spending, such as hurricane relief and upgrading military medical facilities. Of course, it's not being spun that way.

As for Arlen Specter, m.b.f., he needs to stfu and stay out of Leahy's way. Just had to say that.

I noticed what you described yesterday, but thought it was me, since I was installing new software and having technical problems in general. So far today, everything is okay.

ThinkProgress

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/22/snow-oversight

But back when he was asked whether the conservative-led 109th Congress should be investigating members of the Executive Branch, he was singing a different tune:

QUESTION: What is the president’s opinion of a request by Republican leaders in the House to launch an investigation of Sandy Berger’s involvement in the removal of classified documents from the National Archives?

SNOW: There were questions last week, about investigations involving Republican members. Members of Congress have their own oversight obligations. They may proceed as they wish. They’re a separate and co-equal branch of government and I’m not going to tell them what they can and can’t do. [Briefing, 10/16/06]

It just happened again - the "Iran-Britain conflict..." post disappeared and the Hiatt post is directly beneath this one.

This is what Glenn wrote:

The White House caused U.S. attorneys to be fired in order to impede investigations of their political allies or to punish those who refused to launch frivolous prosecutions of political enemies, and then lied about everything?

Fired. Not prosecuted.

This pre-election poll shows what concerns Republicans. Investigations are more scary than terrorism, even.

RNC Poll (October 2006)
If the Democrats took control of Congress, what part of their agenda would concern you the most?

Cutting and running in the War on Terror (18.1%)
Raising your family's taxes (8.6%)
Impeachment and investigations (20.4%)
All of the above (52.9%)
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/23/7546/3112

With timetable for withdrawal - 51-47

Roll call will be available here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

I don't quite understand why he cites the Time poll, beyond the fact that it wasn't relevant to Glenn's post.

From May's 2nd update: According to a Time magazine poll also taken in March, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens.

The poll also says: A little more than one-third (36%) think that the U.S. should set sliding deadlines for withdrawing most troops by August 31, 2008 with the withdrawal schedule depending on the Iraqi government's progress in training its forces and bringing stability to Iraq.

AND only 28% of Americans agree with May: But at the point when American troops leave, I would like the U.S. to have completed the mission.... Only 3-in-10 (28%) Americans agree with President Bush that the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq for as long as needed until the Iraqi people can handle the situation themselves. http://www.srbi.com/time_poll.html

BTW, the POS poll he cites has been debunked by a GOP pollster: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/gop_pollster_sa.php (includes a link to the poll itself)

LWM, this story isn't sourced any better than the report that's the subject of this post. Just look at it:

...intelligence sources tell ABC News.
U.S. officials say...
Tribal sources tell ABC News...
A CIA spokesperson said...
Pakistani government sources say...
A senior U.S. government official said...
Some former CIA officers say...

None of the dots are connected, either.

But not because of Ross' report :-P

Brendan, that Nightline report is the same report shown on World News last night, written by Brian Ross http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html). It's as badly sourced as the nuclear program "scoop," so it's nothing to be encouraged about (see http://tinyurl.com/3b4qx8).

Indiana media asked a few questions, too, but I haven't seen this in national news yet.

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence said Tuesday he didn't mean to suggest that Iraq is as safe as Indiana when he compared a Baghdad market to "a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime." http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070404/NATIONWORLD/704040511/1008/LOCAL19

Nevertheless, Pence said, he shouldn’t have compared the Shorja market to a Hoosier street fair. He said he wasn’t trying to compare the level of security but to describe the layout – outdoor booths with lots of customers milling about....

“I described the situation fairly poorly,” Pence told Indiana reporters in a phone call Tuesday afternoon after landing in Washington....

[the worst part]

“Candidly, not too many of the people I encountered at least gave evidence of speaking English. The merchant I bought my rugs from clearly did not speak English,” he said. http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/17024885.htm

Yet, Pence was able to determine that the merchant was full of "affection and appreciation" -- not terrified or appeasing the occupier. This kind of delusion would be sad if he weren't a member of Congress.