In mid-September, when David Safavian was indicted for lying to law enforcement officials about his close relationship with Jack Abramoff, the news media acceded to Republican spin and labeled Safavian a "former Bush administration official." Indeed, Safavian was no longer working in the White House at the time of his indictment. But as I argued at the time, it's quite a bit of a stretch to write that someone who leaves their position three days before being indicted when they likely know of their impending legal woes is a "former" member of the administration; they are clearly a member of the administration. Unfortunately, it looks like reporters are buying the same spin yet again from the GOP.

Yesterday Claude Allen, who until last month served as the top domestic policy adviser in the White House, was arrested on what are essentially felony shoplifting charges. Allen had to know that the jig was up a month ago when he resigned, so it's likely that the cause of his resignation was his coming legal woes. But even though the reason Allen left his top post in the Bush administration was probably his imminent arrest, the news media are welcoming the Republican narrative that Allen was simply a former member of the Bush administration. Take a look at these headlines from some of the major news outlets:

• "Former White House Aide Is Arrested on Theft Charges", The New York Times
  
• "Former Top Bush Aide Accused of Md. Thefts", The Washington Post
  
• "Ex-White House aide arrested in alleged refund scam", CNN.com
  
• "Bush Shocked by Arrest of Former Adviser", Associated Press

Why all of this quabbling about terminology? Why am I making a such a big deal about reporter's use of the word "former"? Mike Disharoon over at the Stakeholder perfectly explained the problem with reporters' vocabulary choice at the time of Safavian's indictment.

When I think of a former official, I think of a Colin Powell or a Paul O'Neill, someone who left a while ago; someone who obviously left because of an imminent indictment is undeserving of such a distancing description. This is a point to keep an eye on, because with no facts on their side we'll probably soon hear the Bush apologists making absurd claims along the lines of "Why are we talking about a former official," as though the crimes he committed occurred after he left the administration. [emphasis added]

The problem here isn't necessarily one of reporting; journalists are no doubt explaining that Allen's allegedly felonious activities occurred while he was a major player in the Bush administration. But this major point is lost in the in one of the later grafs of the article, neither showing up in the headline nor the lede, and as a result, many, if not most, are left with the impression that "the crimes he committed occurred after he left the administration."

This is yet another example of the Republican tactic of obscuring the truth with facts -- or purported facts. When a top Bush administration official is indicted for activities that he or she undertook while serving in the White House, he or she is still referred to as a "former" administration official. When the privatization of Social Security is sought, confusing numbers are thrown around to scare voters. When war in Iraq is the goal, aluminum tubes are wielded to trump up charges of weapons of mass destruction. The list goes on and on.

Given all of the many examples of this tactic, isn't is about time for the press corps to start handling Bush administration spin with a little more incredulity instead of simply repeating whatever they are spoonfed?