You’ve posted some real beauts over the last week, Kathryn. I’m perfectly willing to entertain either side of the Miers debate. But surely any disagreement with the president could be characterized, by someone hostile to the criticism, as an expression of outrage that he had not “obeyed” us. If we took that characterization as a decisive reason not to criticize him, we could never express disagreement at all. Or is that the point? Also, is it really the reader’s contention that an expression of anger at a charge can generally be taken to be proof of the charge? I hope he’s not a prosecutor.