It could be tomorrow, children. Will Santa Fitz bring us sparkly new indictments or lumps of coal?

Richard Stevenson and David Johnston write in the New York Times that Republicans are bracing for indictments and are getting their excuses talking points ready.

With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor. …

… On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program “Meet the Press,” compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, “where they couldn’t find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn’t a crime.”

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

As Tbogg says, “It’s not like they were out raping cattle and then setting them on fire…not that I would put it past them.”

The chief talking point seems to be that “bringing charges like perjury mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case,” write the NY Times reporters.

Hmm, let’s think. What was it the righties kept saying about the Clinton witchhunt investigations and impeachment? That it wasn’t about sex, it was about lying under oath? I do believe I remember that.

Oh, but Clinton was a Democrat lying under oath. That’s different. Sorry, I forgot. IOKIYAR.

Snarking aside, this flip flop on the severity of perjury is so hypocritical that even Michelle Malkin was bothered by it. Malkin links to a statement made by Senator Hutchison in 1999 on the Clinton articles of impeachment in which the Senator declared that lying to a Grand Jury and other acts of justice obstruction are extremely serious matters. And you’ll remember that righties everywhere took this lesson to heart–obstruction of justice is real bad. And now the GOP is saying that it isn’t that big a deal. No wonder they are confused.

And, of course, we lefties don’t forget that Clinton attempted to cover up a personal sexual relationship that didn’t make any difference to how he was running the country. The Bushies (allegedly) are trying to cover up a breach of national security.

Today the Wall Street Journal editorial pages does its job as official dispenser of GOP talking points and declares that what Patrick Fitzgerald is actually investigating is just a policy dispute. In response, World o’ Crap makes some editorial suggestions.

In the Washington Post, Walter Pincus writes that White House officials might resign if indicted. Also, Pincus writes, former attorney general Richard Thornburgh disagrees with Senator Hutchison. “If there is false testimony given or there’s an attempt to corrupt any of the witnesses or evidence that is presented to the grand jury, that’s a very serious offense because it undermines the integrity of the whole rule of law and investigatory process,” Thornburgh said.

Also in WaPo, Peter Slevin and Carol D. Leonnig write that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is known for being tough and bipartisan. “…in a case with huge political stakes for the White House,” they write, “a portrait is emerging of a special counsel with no discernible political bent who prepared the ground with painstaking sleuthing and cold-eyed lawyering.”

Fitzgerald was recruited to the case in December 2003 by close friend James B. Comey, deputy attorney general to John D. Ashcroft. He was two years into a posting as Chicago’s U.S. attorney, a job he won partly because he was a seasoned outsider with no evident political agenda, qualities that inspired Comey to appoint him to a case with powerful partisan overtones.

Known for convicting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and for compiling the first criminal indictment against Osama bin Laden, Fitzgerald is an Irish doorman’s son who attended a Jesuit high school, then Amherst College — where he was a Phi Beta Kappa mathematics and economics major — and Harvard.

He registered to vote in New York as an independent. When he discovered that Independent was a political party, he re-registered with no affiliation. Illinois citizens know him for pursuing Republicans and Democrats with equal fervor. Former governor George Ryan (R) is on trial on corruption charges, and a growing number of aides to Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) face influence-peddling charges.

Finally, via John Aravosis, we learn that Bush is getting really, really cranky. Thomas DeFrank writes in the New York Daily News:

Facing the darkest days of his presidency, President Bush is frustrated, sometimes angry and even bitter, his associates say….

…”He’s like the lion in winter,” observed a political friend of Bush. “He’s frustrated. He remains quite confident in the decisions he has made. But this is a guy who wanted to do big things in a second term. Given his nature, there’s no way he’d be happy about the way things have gone.”

Bush usually reserves his celebrated temper for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss’ wrath.

“This is not some manager at McDonald’s chewing out the help,” said a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts. “This is the President of the United States, and it’s not a pleasant sight.” …

… Bush, who has a long history of keeping staffers in their place, has lashed out at aides as his political woes have mounted.

“The President is just unhappy in general and casting blame all about,” said one Bush insider. “Andy [Card, the chief of staff] gets his share. Karl gets his share. Even Cheney gets his share. And the press gets a big share.”…

…Bush is so dismayed that “the only person escaping blame is the President himself,” said a sympathetic official, who delicately termed such self-exoneration “illogical.”

Great men face problems with courage and fortitude. Small men throw temper tantrums and blame the help.