What Is Bush Hiding This Time?

If the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys was straightforward and a nonstory as some administration figures and their defenders suggests, then why hasn't there been a straightforward and satisfactory explanation for what happened? Now one of the U.S. Attorneys that was fired was Carol Lam. Supposedly she wasn't aggressive enough on dealing with illegal immigration. One of the people who decided she wasn't doing enough about illegal immigration was none other than Duke Cunningham, the Congressman caught in a series of bribes and prosecuted by Carol Lam. I suppose even crooks have their priorities. Readers should keep in mind that Duke Cunningham was caught by reporters working for the San Diego Union-Tribune, a Republican newspaper if there ever was one but one still holding up a strong respect for the law.

Steve Soto of The Left Coaster repeats a simple observation that many critics of Bush's rope a dope on the U.S. Attorneys have observed:

The “executive privilege” defense already unravels: why assert a privilege for an executive you claim had nothing to do with the decision?

One suspects that George W. Bush and Karl Rove didn't plan on having a defense for the firings because they didn't believe anyone would particularly notice. Now once again the Bush Administration is issuing a series of statements that don't stand up to close examination for more than a few hours and so more statements are issued. I believe in some circles we would find statements of low credibility to be nothing other than lies. In six years, many statements of low credibility keep coming out of the White House. Admittedly, as columnist Cynthia Tucker asserted earlier this month when writing about Scooter Libby and Iraq, it's not always easy to know which Bush Administration statements are lies and which are delusions:

Not a week goes by without a Bush administration spokesperson uttering a sentence or two that stretch credibility to the breaking point. Clearly, though, the most outrageous fabrications and most scurrilous falsehoods of the past six years were told in defense of the decision to invade Iraq.

(snip)

The Bush team knew they could never have sold American voters on an invasion of Iraq just because Saddam had illicit weapons. So they decided to distort, dissemble and lie. The fabrications used to justify the invasion were those linking Iraq to al-Qaida, those claiming Saddam had unmanned drones that could be used to attack American cities, those declaring that Saddam was "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons," as Vice President Dick Cheney put it.

Perhaps that's unfair to the vice president. Cheney lies so regularly and spectacularly that he probably is delusional rather than dishonest.

(snip)

Among a dwindling group of voters, Bush is still revered as an upright and moral man, still credited with having the values and virtues that any decent person should respect. But morality encompasses more than sexual fidelity, more than sobriety after years of reckless drinking. It also encompasses honor, integrity and candor -- especially in an enterprise such as war.

Bush took the nation to war on a web of lies...

Yes, the word 'lie' is increasingly used in the description of White House behavior. It's unavoidable and a sign of how little credibility Bush and his advisers have these days. No one should expect Bush to clear the air on the firing of U.S. Attorneys anytime soon.