When talking about the USA firings, even Republicans use the word "politicize." Why? Because it's a vague, wishy-washy word that opens the door to an "everybody does it" narrative. (And Democrats, idiotically, use this Republican talking point as if it were, fer gawdsake, neutral.)

But what the USA firings are really about is using the criminal justice system to affect election outcomes. That's why the Bush regime has to corrupt not just their own appointees to get fake charges brought, but the civil service as well--the grunts who gather the evidence and handle the cases. Once again, the non-Beltway McClatchy gets the story right, as Pravda on the Potomac and Izvestia on the Hudson shamelessly fumble it:

Bush to American people: "Whatsa matter? Don't you trust me?" Froomkin today:

The most telling restriction built into the White House offer to make senior aides available for private interviews about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys is that no record of those aides' words would be allowed. ...

[The offer] would deny the public any reliable record of what was said.

It would remove the pressure from senior aides, most notably White House political guru Karl Rove, to come clean on their involvement in the firings -- while denying the public an opportunity to assess their veracity.

(As Kos said, they want to reserve the right to lie.)

It never does hurt to say the obvious, although, for some reason, the obvious somehow evaded the NPR analcyst's this morning.

But that was just a stretching exercise. Now Froomkin starts the warm up:

It's always a pleasure to see the Amazing Froomkin stop emulating Broderella--Ouch! It was a joke!--and become a little less the nice-guy, mild-mannered, Clark Kent figure that we know and love.

But enough is enough:

Indications of Obfuscation

Don't you love that word, obfuscation? It even sounds obfuscatory! Let's use it, often:

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.

You thought that was shrill? That was reportage. Now comes the Shrill: