The short answer to the pugnacious President

Bush has tended to get the upper hand in these confrontations by appearing tough. People like Chris Matthews (not to speak of Fox) drool all over themselves when he gets manly. So our side needs to be tough right back at him, with tough words backed by reason -- which he doesn't have. Toughness plus reason will beat toughness alone in the battle for public support (for everyone else except the 25% Kool-Aid drinkers who would defend rape and murder if Bush did it).

People kind of know what they are seeing -- the pretend macho of a junior high bully who is actually scared out of his wits to be challenged -- but need somebody to articulate it for them. The weak-kneed news people (which unfortunately seems like an oxymoron these days) need support to start the bully/false bravado narrative -- which happens to be accurate. But toughness needs few words, not long abstract explanations that rail against his not cooperating. The short speech:

For the President to accuse the Congress of a political fishing expedition should be insulting to the American people.

It’s the job of Congress to make the rules for the administration of justice in this country. There is evidence that a number of U.S. Attorneys nationwide were fired for being too honest, and not favoring the Republican Party enough with their own fishing expeditions. Nothing will undermine confidence in our justice system more than suspicions like this. We need to get to the bottom of it, and we need some White House people to testify about their involvement. The evidence we have now points to them.

The President is using the old boomerang play. The issue is improper political interference, so accuse Congress of being political. People should see through this game by now. The President’s claim of executive privilege in this case is absurd, and equally ridiculous is refusing to give testimony on the record under oath like every other American. It is completely unacceptable. If they have nothing to hide, why are they trying to hide?

My father was fond of the Cicero quote (or whoever it was), "If I had the time I would write you a shorter letter." That goes here. The minions at DNC and DSCC should be distilling and distilling this down to as few one-syllable words as possible over the next couple of days -- e.g., "Nuts!" could be a good one in some contexts, but I think that one's been taken -- and planning when to drop it into the news cycle and apply pressure to get it played in the major outlets. Is anyone doing that?

Update I: This would be an effective sound-byte version, I think:

It’s ridiculous to deliberately pick a fight over this. All they need to do is come up here like any other American would be required to do and tell the truth under oath. If there’s nothing to it, we will find that out.

Update II: By the very silliness of this meaningless fight, including the absurdity of this particular executive privilege claim, Democrats are really being fed an enormous opportunity to change the whole dynamic of political discourse in this country -- to make the country, and especially the press fully aware of the game the President is playing every time he "gets tough" like this:

Why in the world are they picking a fight over this? You know why, Chris (or Tim, or Wolf, and all the rest of them). This Administration loves to play tough [I see especially clearly, like crystal, tight-fitting flight suit followed by bragging that the mission was accomplished, obnoxious sneers of two guys who ducked out of Viet Nam, one using his daddy's clout], and some people seem to fall for this adolescent game every time. Don't you think it's time to stop being so gullible?