I’m not sure how to read the WaPo piece on the untold story of John Ashcroft’s resistance to the more fanatical elements of the Bush White House’s rollback on civil liberties. Was he a misunderstood hero? Or (paraphrasing Ralph Neas) did it just take an Alberto Gonzales to cast Ashcroft in the role of a defender of the Constitution? One thing seems plain: Bush has been exposed - now, many times - as absolutely lacking in the moral courage that allows leaders to take counsel from those who disagree with them. The man is an empty suit.