we've heard of plausible denability - basically it's being able to come up with a believable excuse why a person isn't involved with something unsavory
the bush* administration may be practicing plausable denability - howver I think that particular term is inaccurate
A more accurate term would be:
PLAUSIBLE BLAME-abilityconsider this recent statement by cheney:
"I don't run anything. I'm not in charge of the White House. I'm not in charge of the Defense Department, as I once was, or a congressman from Wyoming," Cheney said.
The statement implies he's just following orders, doesn't make decisions - therefore he's not to blame. He is the VICE-president, and according to the heirarchy of power it could be assumed that as VICE-president he's not in charge -- PLAUSIBLE BLAME-ABILITY
next - on more than one occassion bush* has stated he "listens to his advisors" and "if the Generals' request more men/equipment" he send it... Again the implication is if things aren't going well it's because bush* received "bad advice", therefore he's not to blame -- PLAUSIBLE BLAME-ABILITY
Other bushie staffers do the same, although they are in a better position to say "I was only following orders" - it's still comes down to PLAUSIBLE BLAME-ABILITY
ultimately, this presents a picture of a Leadership vacuum - who's in charge, what's going on - I don't know (3rd base)