When President Bush, at the tail end of his Latin American trip last week, got around to commenting on the controversy over eight fired U.S. attorneys, he was calm, reasonable, and even a bit apologetic. Little good it did him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Bush administration was guilty of "immoral" and "illegal" behavior. The next day, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York responded with some of his usual hyperbole. "This is the worst crisis of confidence at the Department of Justice that I have seen in my time in the Senate. It is a crisis of confidence, a crisis of credibility, and a crisis of management."

Schumer may be a partisan hack, but as the Democratic point-man on the firings, he is carrying the day. He guided Democrats as they transformed the perfectly legal and quite normal removal of federal prosecutors into a raging scandal. They've done this for raw political reasons: to mortify and cripple the president. And Bush, with his timidity in the face of Democratic accusations, has let them. He hasn't fought back. He's become an enabler.

And look what he's enabled! By not instantly and unflinchingly denouncing the Democratic offensive for what it is, an entirely bogus attack on his administration, he has allowed a mere flap to get out of hand. And now he faces unpleasant decisions over whether to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and permit Democrats to haul Karl Rove, his senior adviser, before a congressional committee. Should he do either, his administration will be tremendously weakened and his presidency stained.

So there's a crisis, but not the one Schumer talked about. It's a crisis of presidential leadership. Bush excels as leader of his country. He is unrelenting in pursuing the war on Islamic terrorists, and he performed admirably on his recent tour of Latin America. But he's also responsible for leading--and defending--his administration and the Republican party. He's failing in both of these duties.

Bush needs to fight back, rhetorically and otherwise, without hesitation and without fear that his critics will end up even more opposed to his policies. The way Washington works in 2007, with Democrats in control of Congress, makes this necessary. Being nice and conciliatory, as Bush has been, is counterproductive. It's never reciprocated. Rather, it encourages his Democratic foes to be even more belligerent and discourages his Republican allies.

From the earliest days of the Bush presidency, his advisers have debated whether he should be nice or tough. On one side are what an aide calls "the communicators." They want the president to speak kindly to Congress, the aide says, and try to mollify not only Democrats but also "the New York Times and [ABC anchor] George Stephanopoulos." The tough guys believe Bush should be as hard-hitting on Congress as he is when discussing the war on terror. As best I can tell, counselor Dan Bartlett favors the gentler approach, Rove and Vice President Cheney the harder line.

The communicators are winning. A White House official says the president's instinct is not to denounce opponents. This is not necessarily because he thinks politeness will curry favor with Democrats. It's just Bush's style. Another official says Bush "likes to set a tone," a high one. Still another aide says Bush dislikes questioning an opponent's motives.