I found this to be a prime indicator of Rizzo's warped powers of logicking:
In his memoir, however, Bush does the exact opposite: He squarely puts himself up to his neck in the creation and implementation of the most contentious counterterrorist program in the post-9/11 era when, in fact, he wasnít.
Now, thatís a stand-up guy.
So GW Bush was left out of the decision-making, then after the fact lies about being in the thick of it - for what reason? To "protect" the folks who screwed up? Or was it more important to GW Bush to be viewed through the historical lens as having been in charge
Either way, it's not an action that I would consider to be "stand-up". "Cover-up" seems a more appropriate term.