Yesterday, the elephant walked into the Senate Intelligence Committee chambers and disappeared.

Faced with the frightening prospect of public hearings and establishment of active Congressional oversight of the NSA warrantless domestic spying program, the White House dispatched iOneNationUnder1t's erstwhile Big Gun, Cheney, to strongarm stray Republicans back into line.

Following the party-line vote on a measure that countered Jay Rockefeller's (D-WV) motion for a full investigation and establishment of Intelligence Committee oversight, Committee Chairman, Pat Roberts (R_KS) made it sound like he was the one doing the arm twisting: "My message to the White House was that the status quo was not satisfactory! They were pretty intransigent. I kept saying, 'You're not facing reality.'"

Roberts said he argued that if the White House didn't yield on Congress' assertion of greater oversight authority, Democrats would succeed in getting a broader investigation that could result in subpoenas, claims of executive privilege and, potentially, a court clash between Congress and the White House.

Well, Hallelujah and Intelligent Design be praised, a confrontation was averted when Cheney agreed to oversight by a special seven-member subcommittee. That was enough to bring Senators Snowe (R-ME) and Hagel (R-NE) back into line.

Snowe said, after the closed-door committee meeting, ""We are reasserting Congressional responsibility and oversight."

Hagel said the committee's Republicans worked out the last-minute deal in long telephone calls with Mr. Cheney, White House counsel, Harriet Miers, and Stephen J. Hadley, the assistant to the president for national security.

Predictably, Committee Vice Chairman Rockefeller's views on confrontation and accommodation differed from Chairman Roberts': "The Committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House through its chairman. At the direction of the White House, the Republican majority has voted down my motion to have a careful and fact-based review of the National Security Agency's surveillance eavesdropping activities inside the United States."

In addition to the oversight subcommittee, the proposed agreement would allow the president to authorize wiretapping, without seeking a warrant, for up to 45 days if the communication under surveillance involved someone suspected of being a member of, or a collaborator with, a specified list of terrorist groups and if at least one party to the conversation was outside the United States. After 45 days, the government could stop the eavesdropping or seek a warrant, or explain to Congress why it wants to continue without a warrant.

Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist issued a statement backing the proposal while Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) compared the proposal to a doctor's diagnosis of an unexamined patient: "Congress doesn't have that great a history in reforming programs it knows a lot about. Here Congress is trying to legislate in the dark."

It remains to be seen whether other recalcitrant Republican Senators will be impressed with the Intelligence Committee's ability to disappear an entire elephant and ignore its tracks.

In an Appropriations Committee meeting, Arlen Specter said, "We're having quite a time in getting responses to questions as to what has happened with the electronic surveillance program. I want to put the administration on notice and this committee on notice that I may be looking for an amendment to limit funding as to the electronic surveillance program -- which is the power of the purse -- if we can't get an answer in any other way."

Specter is also trying to drum up support on the Judiciary Committee to bring the NSA warrantless domestic spying under the jurisdiction of the FISA Court.

The White House also officially weighted in. Press secretary Scott McClellan reiterated the position that Bush already has the power to institute the program. A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, called the proposal "a generally sound approach" and noted, "we're eager to work with Congress on legislation that would further codify the president's authority."

Can the Bush Administration avoid a complete public disclosure of who's been spied on and why? Is national security really at stake? Is Congress really a co-equal branch of government? Will the truth really set you free?  Will it win elections? Can you really step on Superman's cape? Spit into the wind? Disappear an entire elephant?

These, and other questions, shall be answered.