Could It Be More Obvious That The White House Has Been Lying?

The U.S. Attorney firing scandal grew out of something that, if addressed in an honest manner, would perhaps have raised a few eyebrows but would likely have been dismissed as "politics as usual... at least under Bush." You know, "Sure, we fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, but that's our constitutional right and they're poliitical appointees anyway."

Instead it's been an exercise in obfuscation, but one that has attempted to point fingers away from direct involvement by the White House. With Harriet Miers refusing to obey a subpoena to testify before Congress on a claim of executive privilege - a claim which of itself belies the idea that the White House was not involved in the firings - Bush is now asserting an "I'm completely above the law" concept of what executive privilege entails.

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

This will likely end up being resolved by the courts, and I'm sure Bush hopes that process is slow, but isn't it time to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt? If the White House were being even slightly honest about the firings, it wouldn't be necessary to throw up so many smokescreens, or so flagrantly flout the Constitution.