Add Ashcroft, Comey and Mueller to the crowd (Powell, Tenant, et al) that kept silent when they should have spoken out publically.

I'm glad they stood up to Bush, but they had the duty to speak out.

If you want things to get better, be prepared to deal with change.

This puts the decision to replace Ashcroft with Gonzales after the 2004 election in a whole new light.

John Ashcroft turns out not only to have had a whiff of integrity, but to have displayed some actual spine. Who knew?!

And as per Kahli's comment up thread, it's a little indication that as much evil is apparent with this White House, it's nothing compared to the, as yet, untold story.

"If you can't say anything good about someone, sit right here by me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

After meeting separately with Comey and Mueller, Bush gave his support to making changes in the program, Comey testified. The administration has never disclosed what those changes were.

Bush always meets with potential "troublemakers" separately -- whether it's Gold Star mothers, or recalcitrant subordinates, it appears... It's applied psychology. People gain courage in numbers -- by separating them, he can bring the full force of his status and authority to bear on them as individuals. He can resort to intimidation, condescension, joking around,  cajoling, reasoned or calculated assurances, and if necessary, outright lies,  and it's far less likely that the individual will stand up to him if they're alone, or contradict him publicly later. In a group, or even with one other witness, people are less easily intimidated, and take support from each other's witness.

Had Comey and Mueller met with him together, or in a group with Ashcroft, Bush would have had to give far more concessions -- possibly had to scrap the whole project, faced with a united opposition. But by meeting with them individually, he could give vague assurances, which have never been revealed, and get his way in the end.

This is probably also why those 11 Republican Congressmen went to see him as a group -- individually, it would have been much harder for each of them to be so candid and blunt. Together, however, they could make their point in much stronger terms.

However, this revelation comes three years too late -- the real measure of moral courage and ethical principles would have been to speak out, even resign as they had planned to do, at the time, not accept unsecured (and untrue) assurances, and only say "yeah, we knew it was wrong, but we TRIED to stop him..." long after the fact.  As it is, their resistance meant nothing, and stopped nothing -- that they knew it was wrong makes them willing accessories.

Keith Olbermann speaks for me.

So on whose behalf were Card and Gonzales getting that signature? My bet is Cheney's, not Bush's. So for whom does the White House staff work? Even a close family friend like Gonzales, making an end run around Bush? Protecting him, knowing he didn't care, or recognizing that there is a shadow government?

Time for Card to testify.

Michaela