Presidential parsing

Dallas Morning News: How we respond to a lack of truthfulness in the White House should have nothing to do with whether your guy's in office.
Maybe that's naive, but let's keep it in mind as talking heads tackle two big issues: former President Clinton's new book and President Bush's latest chapter in the war on terrorism.
Apologists from both camps are willing to give their guy a pass when it comes to truthfully answering tough questions from the other side. Honesty and candor, it seems, are only important principles when dealing with members of your own party.
Clinton's defenders said it was OK to lie in response to what he and others saw as nothing more than a political attack and partisan fishing expedition.
Higher stakes
Now, with much higher stakes, some Bush defenders are relying on the same flawed logic, saying it's OK to dodge what they see as politically charged questions about weapons of mass destruction, prison abuse scandals or ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
Don't like the 9-11 commission findings? Call it election-year posturing. Why argue the merits of these issues when you can create the picture of a vast left-wing conspiracy to defeat Bush in November?
Let's get real.
Let's not excuse squirrelly answers to questions based on who's doing the asking and who's in the hot seat. Be consistent.