The Comey story is the lead story in today's NY Times. Their headline is, "Bush Intervened in Dispute Over N.S.A. Eavesdropping". There's also a color photo of James B. Comey on the Times front page.

According to "Today's Papers" @ SLATE, other national newspapers didn't lead with the story but did put it on the front page.

The top 3 stories at Memeorandum as of this moment are
1. The Republican presidential candidates
2. "Comey's tale" (and Glenn Greenwald's commentary)
3. "War czar" Douglas Lute

The U.S. Attorney story built, built, built because of the drip, drip, drip.

But now what? Will the press educate the public about what the OLC is and what it means when the OLC says there's no legal justification for a program? Or will the warrantless wiretapping story just fade away? After all, noted legal scholar John Hinderaker has pointed out that

It's an interesting story. But, based on what we know, it is not clear that there is anything discreditable anywhere in it.

So, obviously, it would be foolish of the media and/or the Congress to try to clear up this muddled (by the White House) story. Don't you know there's a war on?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10882
The Case for Bombing Iran
Norman Podhoretz

Wag the dog, anybody?

The Administration's Stonewalling, NOT any revelation about Bolton, was the reason that Bolton wasn't confirmed.

Bolton lost, but the wall held, so the Administration won.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8017664
Newsweek
The bitter debate about John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations may have called unwelcome attention to the spying practices of the National Security Agency. Bolton told Congress last month that he asked the NSA for the names of Americans in raw intel reports. NSA rules prohibit the agency from spying on Americans; if electronic eavesdroppers inadvertently pick up American names, the NSA is supposed to black them out before forwarding reports to other agencies. But analysts and policymakers can make written requests to the NSA for U.S. names, which the State Department says Bolton did 10 times since 2001.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked for more information about Bolton's requests, but the administration refused, leading to last week's vote to delay Bolton's nomination . . .

- - Newsweek, June 6, 2006

Libby lied to the FBI in October and November 2003. Fitzgerald was appointed on December 30, 2003.

If there was a "perjury trap" then it was cleverly constructed by Libby himself.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/senators-gonzales-nsa

. . . Peter Swire wrote this morning, Gonzales’s testimony raises two possibilities:

1) . . . Comey’s objections apply to the NSA warrantless wiretapping program that Gonzales was discussing.

2) . . . Comey’s objections applied to a different domestic spying program. That has a big advantage for Gonzales — he wasn’t lying under oath. But then we would have senior Justice officials confirming that other “programs” exist for domestic spying, something the Administration has never previously stated.

Senators Question Whether Gonzales Lied Under Oath About NSA Wiretapping Program

A group of senators led by Russ Feingold (D-WI) sent Alberto Gonzales a letter today . . .

. . . In light of Mr. Comey’s testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

Thank you for that link to Charlie Savage's telling of the tale.

http://boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/16/senate_hears_of_split_over_wiretaps_in_04

Mr. Savage accomplishes what Diane Powe was asking for - - his lede is the threat of mass resignations, not the scene in the hospital room. By leading with the resignation threat, he makes it clear that the story is about major legal and constitutional issues.

The rest of Mr. Savage's story makes it clear, even to (the vast majority of) people who've never heard of the "OLC" that an OLC review is a big deal. A big enough deal to prompt the threat of mass resignations, which in turn was a big enough deal to make the White House hesitate and then change course.

Which leaves us with the conclusion that either

(1) the old (illegal) version of the warrantless surveillance program was essential for national security, but the White House changed course and abandoned the old program anyway,

or (2) the old version of the warrantless surveillance program *wasn't* essential for national security.

Either the White House broke the law without a compelling reason, or they abandoned an essential national security program rather than taking the necessary steps to legalize the program.

There's nothing wrong with liking other people, nor with liking ourselves, but some of us may be a bit lacking in self-awareness. Here's a statement by a guy you might not think of as being likable, about another guy you might not think of as being likable.

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_135185122.html

cbs5.com / kpix tv
May 15, 2007
Larry Flynt Statement On Death Of Jerry Falwell
. . . My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that.
I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses.
I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.
- - Larry Flynt