***UPDATE***Way to go President Bush!****

The White House’s move to allow Rove and Miers to be interviewed by congress was expected, yet this will not be under oath and the White House will not bend on that point.

“The White House offered Tuesday to make political strategist Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers available for congressional interviews‚Äîbut not testimony under oath‚Äîin the investigation of the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he would still press for White House aides to testify under oath but that White House counsel Fred Fielding “indicated he didn’t want to negotiate” whether Rove and others would have to appear in a full hearing. “That doesn’t mean we’re not going to try,” Schumer said.

The White House move was announced after the Senate voted overwhelmingly to end the Bush administration’s ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies. That had come as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ firing of the prosecutors.”

Byron York predicted the WH would cave, and that’s what this appears to be, but it’s actually more of a line in the sand. The President will speak on the entire subject today at 5:45pm and is expected to lay down the line in the sand in regards to the his position on the situation. I say that with slight apprehension of course, but otherwise I think the WH would have offered Rove and Miers under oath.

As far as Schumer goes, read Clarice Feldman’s article on how up to his hypocritical ass he is in this story.

Meanwhile Hot Air with more “tail between the legs activtity also-ran conservatives”. We’re keeping track.

UPDATE: I’m nearly positive that the WH is drawing the line. Again, via York, a sample of the letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding:

“In response to the invitations for interviews extended by the Committees, I am prepared to agree to make available for interviews the President’s former Counsel; current Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor; Deputy Counsel; and a Special Assistant in the Office of Political Affairs. We are prepared to agree to the following terms, which, considering applicable constitutional principles relating to the Presidency and your Committees’ interests, we believe are fair, reasonable, and respectful. We believe that such interviews should be a last resort, and should be conducted, if needed, only after Congress has heard from Department of Justice officials about the decision to request the resignations of the U.S. Attorneys.

Such interviews may cover, and would be limited to, and subject of (a) communications between the White House and persons outside the White House concerning the request for resignations of the U.S. Attorneys in question; and (b) communications between the White House and Members of Congress concerning those requests. Those interviews should be conducted by both Committees jointly. Questioning of White House officials would be conducted by a Member or limited number of Members, who would be accompanied by committee staff. Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas. A representative of the Office of the Counsel to the President would attend these interviews and personal counsel to the invited officials may be present at their election.”

Can you spell “Executive Privilege”? Or for the really dense, “Go pound sand”. (UPDATE: I was right see also link on top of post).

UPDATE II: Note to K. Lopez, the only thing lame is the dizzying simularities some NRO contributors have to those of the Daily Kos.

UPDATE III: Cripes give the guy a few links and then he bagers Tony Snow. From the newest Byron York post at the Corner:

“I asked whether the president was perhaps overly confrontational at this stage of the game. “I don’t think it’s confrontational,” Snow said. “We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument.” If members of Congress truly want to find out what happened with the U.S. attorneys, Snow said, they can do so. “We’re saying, ‘You’re going to be able to get your information,’” Snow continued. “We’re saying, ‘Any question you may have, you can get an answer to.’”

I asked specifically about the stipulation in the Fielding letter that interviews with Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and other White House officials be conducted “without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas.” I pointed to the recent Libby trial, in which there was great dispute over what had been said in unrecorded, untranscribed interviews with the FBI. You need a transcript to know an interviewee’s precise words, I said.”

Again, sometimes hard to tell their postings from that of the left. “Overly confrontational”. Cripes Byron what would you have Bush do, drive Rove over to Schumers house for a “grilling”?

NRO’s animosity towards Bush is long standing and based mostly on nearly sophomoric nonsense over some of the contributor’s pet issues, However, they may need to know who their readers are (or used to be) and think about reworking their editorial stance.

linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam.