Insecurity in words

President Bush and most of his administration have a marvelous way of revealing their insecurities in words, particularly when they are lying. Bush, for example, has a penchant for using the terms "certainly" and "obviously" when things are most uncertain. For example, in a speech before general contractors on May 2, 2007, Bush argued that: "A retreat in Iraq would say to a lot of people around the world, particularly in the Middle East, America can't keep its word. It would certainly confirmn al Qaeda's belief that we're weak and soft as a society. It would embolden them to be able to recruit. It would more likely enable them to find safe haven and sanctuary." Ignoring his own State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism, 2006 (released April 30, 2007) indicating that al Qaeda's recruitment has increased because we are in Iraq, Bush argues that withdrawal will "certainly" confirm the belief of an enemy we don't talk to or know much about (how else could its leader have remained free for almost six years after 9/11?). Hmm. The timing on this one is a little suspicious.

Today, Chief Counsel Fred Fielding revealed insecurity. In response to Congressional subpoenas that would reveal just how political the Bush administration's meddling in the Department of Justice has been, Fielding rejected oversight: "The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications." Can you spot the giveaway adjective? It's close by, or rather, "far." The President's interests in maintaining confidentiality FAR outweigh the constitutionally mandated role of the U.S. Congress? Hmm. Could this statement be timed to coincide with a second set of Congressional subpoenas that arrived today? And could FAR be masking insecurities about that receipt?