Yesterday on his always-terrific radio show, Guy James pointed out a crucial yet subtle truism. He mentioned how over and over we've heard Bush utter the line, "I took an oath to protect the American people."

But Guy rightfully states that Bush took no such oath, nor has any president prior to GW. The oath of office for the President of the United States is, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." They are not one and the same. Protecting the Constitution is not necessarily synonymous with protecting the people. Our founding fathers did not intend for the president to trample on freedoms and rights, invade privacy, strip away liberties in the name of security, etc. In fact, they wrote the Constitution to guarantee that such attempts to over-reach by the president -- and thus become king-like -- would be strictly forbidden.

But what's another stretched truth for this current embarrassment in the White House? Is there any reason for him to suddenly start being factually correct?