By the way, the Robert Foster story, alone, should spark an evacuation of moderates from the Bush camp. This editorial sums the, by now, well-known facts:

Last November, during the heat of the congressional debate on the law, the White House reportedly threatened to fire a top Medicare official if he told the truth about the cost of what President Bush described as a $400 billion Medicare bill.

Medicare's chief actuary, Robert S. Foster, said it was clear from the start that the actual cost would be substantially more -- as high as $534 billion. And, he said, the White House was aware of that in June, five months ahead of the debate.

Although, by law, the actuary is charged with providing nonpartisan counsel to lawmakers, Foster said he was silenced by the White House to prevent Congress from getting the true figures. Threatened with "severe'' personal consequences, he was instead ordered to withhold the information, even if Congress asked for it.

As Josh Marshall points out, the reaction to this bit of wickedness has been fairly dull. Of course...no sex, no sale. Marshall posits that the public is simply used to this strong-arming by the administration.
What seems significant is this: doesn't this suggest that the Bush team might have used pressure in much the same way toward the intelligence analysts--as has been reported by said intel analysts? Is it safe to have a president that controls information in such a way? Is it right?
Clearly, no.