Indications of Obfuscation

Among the many lessons of the Scooter Libby trial is this one: That when the White House issues squirrelly statements under fire, the most cynical interpretations may well be the closest to the truth.

So there's really no longer any excuse for letting President Bush get away with carefully parsed denials, hairsplitting and non-answers.

In that spririt, my takeaway from Bush's comments yesterday on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys is that the president may well be aware that his critics are correct -- and that at least some of the prosecutors were ousted because top White House officials felt they had not performed their duties with sufficient loyalty to the Republican Party.

He certainly didn't deny it.

Here's the transcript of Bush's comments. Consider his carefully chosen -- and carefully repeated -- response to a question from Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press

"Q Mr. President, are you still completely convinced that the administration did not exert any political pressure in the firing of these attorneys?

"THE PRESIDENT: Deb, there is no indication that anybody did anything improper. And I'm sure Congress has that question. That's why I've put forth a reasonable proposal for people to be comfortable with the decisions and how they were made. Al Gonzales and his team will be testifying. We have made available people on my staff to be interviewed. And we've made an unprecedented number of documents available.

"Q Sir, are you convinced, personally?

"THE PRESIDENT: There's no indication whatsoever, after reviews by the White House staff, that anybody did anything improper."

That's a far cry from saying: I am personally convinced there was no political pressure. Bush didn't deny that there was political pressure or that he was aware of it. All he denied was the existence of any "indication" that anyone did anything he considers "improper."

Much like "torture", which he refuses to define, the president didn't say what he means by "improper" or "indication" yesterday.

Given that the U.S. attorneys serve at his pleasure, does he think there is any such thing as an improper firing? And what does he mean by "indication"? Does he mean a public indication? Would anything short of a public paper trail leading to a smoking gun qualify as an indication?