Smoking Gun?

Has the revelation that W himself suppressed the Justice Dept.'s probe of warrantless wiretapping changed anything? The story got less play than I would have expected--I thought it would make above-the-fold headlines and lead the nightly news, neither of which happened. However, The New York Times did lead today's editorial page with "Tap-Dancing as Fast as He Can," criticizing Alberto Gonzales shoddy performance before the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and linking it to the bill now before Congress that, as the blogosphere has noted, is simply a capitulation to the White House. (The Times itself has originally called the bill a victory by Specter over Bush; its the blogs that have put the matter in perspective.)

Slate, today, has an article on that bill, but no link to Gonzales' revelation. None of the blogs I consult seems to see a link either.

Ok, I'll go it alone. Gonzales' testimony changes everything, or should. By admitting that Bush himself was directly involved in stifling the DOJ's investigation, the Attorney-General has knocked whatever props there were from any apologists for the way that the administration went about creating the spying program or the operation itself.

Remember, when Nixon was revealed to have taken part in covering-up the Watergate break-in, that was the smoking-gun that did him in. Without saying that the situation is the same today (it isn't), isn't this another smoking gun?