An exercise in obfuscation

Obfuscate.
That is a great word. It means, according to a readily accessible on-line dictionary, "to darken, make obscure, confuse."
It may also, although this did not come up in the brief web dictionary, mean "to be the Prime Minister of Canada."
Let me digress for a moment. A week ago, I was invited to appear on Brent Hanson's CTV debating program, "What's Your Point?" I've been on this show about four times, including during its previous incarnation as "Final Round."
"Final Round" was staged in a mock boxing ring; "What's Your Point" sees verbal war waged from comfortable leather couches. Apart from that, the premise is pretty much the same --­ four people, clearly not expert on every topic, debate five issues of the day for up to about four minutes for each topic. That's not a lot of time to solve the problems of the world, but it is plenty of time to hurl epithets and accusations at one another, and a good time is had by all.
Except for the shy people, but Brent seems to weed them out pretty well before anybody of that ilk makes it onto the set.
One of our topics had to do with the currently notorious Helena Guergis --­ the question was, "Should she quit or should she be fired?" This was taped about two days before she left cabinet and caucus; it aired a couple of days after her departure, so we either appeared prophetic or passé.
I took the position that Stephen Harper should turf her, and so show some much-needed commitment to integrity.
Instead... you knew I would get back to this, eventually... we have mostly seen obfuscation. She did leave cabinet, apparently asked to resign, a sort of terminal middle ground. And Harper kicked her out of the Conservative caucus.
But... you know this, too... he won't actually say why. And in the week since Helena's change of status, we the people have been handed obfuscation after obfuscation. Her lawyer says she hasn't even been told the reason for her ouster; Harper's office says, "has, too!"
The ethics commissioner says she hasn't the grounds to investigate Guergis.
Harper's people say she has all the information. The ethics commissioner then says she has not been asked to investigate. Harper's people say she has, sort of, but not entirely.
The RCMP has been asked to investigate, and have said very little. It has been pointed out that some such investigations can last for years.
The news media are digging and scavenging for scraps, and uncovering all manner
of rumours and hearsay about Guergis and her fallen-from-grace husband, former
Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer. The stories mention, among other things, cocaine,
alcohol and "busty hookers".
These reports raise a couple of questions for me; mainly, if this represents the night life of leading members of Stephen Harper's Conservative Party, what the heck are the Liberals, the Bloc, or those wild and crazy New Democrats up to, anyway? How nuts do those MPs get when Parliament is done for the day?
And second ­-- I merely muse about this for linguistic clarity ­-- isn't the phrase "busty hooker" by and large redundant?
In a strange way, Helena Guergis presented the Prime Minister with an unusually clear opportunity. This was his chance to be unequivocally ethical, to state what he is doing and why, to make clear the integrity of his party.
Instead, we have a fairly high level of obfuscation. Good word. Bad policy.