Republicans said Democrats couldn't win this fight, noting the White House has offered to make top presidential aides available for private interviews about their roles in the firings. Republicans also suggested that the Democrats' rejection of the offer leaves only one reason for the dispute: politics.

Okay, this is completely wrong on multiple fronts. First, the issue here is not whether claims of executive privilege are valid or not, it is whether they allow someone to ignore a properly issued subpoena. Short of being dead or hospitalized, and there may be other reasons, I am not aware of one. There is a very big difference between showing up and refusing to answer questions and not showing up at all. On those grounds the Republican objection is very wrong, and refusal to appear on grounds of executive privilege is not the same as showing up and refusing to answer questions.

Second, given the previous statements of administration officials under oath, Rove going to the grand jury FIVE TIMES, Libby's conviction, Gonzales' non-answers, prevarications and bald faced lies, the case for WMD's, etc., putting questions to them not under oath, without transcripts, and in private session is about as useful as shoving a car exhaust pipe up your ass. All you'll get is burned with a lot of smoke blown up it.

You will further note, Sara Taylor is not one of those for whom a contempt citation was issued indicating the issue is not the claim of executive privilege, but refusal to appear. I agree the executive privilege part of this will probably be needed to be handled in some other manner, but the refusal to appear issue is a proper reason for issuing the contempt citation.