Standing Strong

I'm not sure I understand the Administration's choice to take on the Democratic Congress over the sworn testimony of Rove, Miers, etc. To force subpoenas, and then resist them, will just magnify the underlying story. And the underlying story was a purely elite, inside-the-Beltway scandal that was (1) hard for Administration critics to explain and (2) easy for GOP flaks to talking-points to death. Now, the Administration has decided to fight this "partisan fishing expedition," "no show trials" battle . . . against "the truth and the whole truth."

If I were a member of the Republican party in Congress, I would be looking at the clock. It's almost April 2007. In less than two years, chances are there will be a Democratic president. Do you want to go on television and argue that the White House does not have to obey congressional subpoeanas? The GOP took a very different position on this in the Clinton years. But why highlight the shift for all and sundry?

There are only two explanations for "Standing Strong."

First, the Administration just doesn't believe that it is accountable to anyone. Second, the Administration really has something to hide, something that Rove et al. would be forced to lie about, or to reveal, if under oath.

Politically, neither of these inferences help the GOP.

What am I not seeing?