From a TPM Reader …

Here’s Press Secretary Tony Snow, today, in the gaggle:

“The president has said directly to members of Congress on a number of occasions: ‘Take whatever shots you want at me,’ he says, ‘in terms of politics. You can criticize me all you want, but make sure that you do not do things that are going to weaken the troops.’ And he is very passionate and very adamant about that point. Members always say, ‘yes, sir, we support the troops.’ Therefore, it is going to be incumbent upon members of Congress who feel that that is a priority to figure out how best to express their support for troops.”

Huh. That sounds awfully familiar. Where have I heard something like that before? Oh, yeah:

“The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests – we did. But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!”

It’s the “Otter Defense.” You are powerless to resist it.

So, you’re free to criticize me as president. But just remember that I embody America. So you’re also criticizing America and the troops and probably also the founding fathers.

Specter confirms that he slipped in the Patiot Act provision on U.S. Attorneys.

Hillary Clinton gets into the anti-surge legislation game.

Update: Here’s some video of Clinton at a press conference introducing her bill.

Late update: Now Barack Obama is saying he’ll introduce Iraq legislation, too.

Tony Snow tries to explain the new wiretapping compromise. How’d he do?

Behold! The full text of the nonbinding resolution introduced today by Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

The key line: “it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States presence in Iraq.”

Paging Wolf Blitzer and other pundits: Please read this the next time you feel moved to say that John McCain “likes straight talk.”

Sigh. It’s hard getting dumped.

Just ask Mark Levin, resident legal mind of nutball right-wing authoritarianism in early 21st century Washington, DC. Actually, the resident legal mind of nutball right-wing authoritarianism these days is really probably John Yoo. But we’re talking a bit more the low-brow, second-tier chat show niche here. In any case, here Levin quite rightly has a fit over the fact that the program the administration spent like — what? — a year saying was vital to national security (warrantless wiretaps) can now apparently be brought under constitutional supervision without any problem whatsoever.

Hmmm. Looks like AP may have filled the John Solomon slot.

It’s not over. Key passage from the article in the Times …

The administration said it had briefed the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed sessions on its decision.

But Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, who serves on the Intelligence committee, disputed that, and some Congressional aides said staff members were briefed Friday without lawmakers present.

Ms. Wilson, who has scrutinized the program for the last year, said she believed the new approach relied on a blanket, “programmatic” approval of the president’s surveillance program, rather than approval of individual warrants.

Administration officials “have convinced a single judge in a secret session, in a nonadversarial session, to issue a court order to cover the president’s terrorism surveillance program,” Ms. Wilson said in a telephone interview. She said Congress needed to investigate further to determine how the program is run.

Is it all a sleight of hand?

Republicans use poison pill to derail ethics reform in the senate.

No ethics reform unless the Republicans get a line item veto.

Call it what it is. The senate Republicans don’t want an ethics bill. The corruption’s just to sweet for them to let go of.