At first the article in this link pi$$e& me off...

At first I heard our President say:

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honourable public servants,"


But then I read what Patrick Leahy said and felt a little better:

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," he said.
He said Mr Bush's offer "is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome".

Thanks BBC

Then I saw this article and these few lines:

"Republicans forced a delay in a vote on Senate subpoenas a week ago, and it was not clear whether any of the GOP members of the panel were now prepared to support them."

and then this classic deal from Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania:

The Senior Republican on the panel, floated a compromise in which Rove and others would answer questions from selected lawmakers without being sworn in but with a transcription made.

But then Sen. Harry Reid had this to say in response:

"Anyone who would take that deal isn't playing with a full deck,"

and then I saw this article in which the first paragraph said:

A House panel authorized subpoenas Wednesday requiring Karl Rove and four other senior Bush administration officials to testify under oath in the inquiry into the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors.


Further down the article:

“I think the Democrats are overplaying their hand,” said Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi.

[Wow, thank you #2 guy in the Republican party! You are supposed to say that, but that doesn't make it true.]

Well, this can only get better,