Friday, March 23, 2007
It's the Little Things That Make Life Fun...
We've always enjoyed -- in a certain sense -- the expertise with which the White House and its flunkies craft language in pursuit of partisan unclarification. And we've very much enjoyed watching the President attempt to execute this language with varying degrees of success. It's nothing short of dazzling, the way members of this Administration can say things without actually saying them. It's also embarrassing and ethically horrific, but these are Republicans we're talking about, so ethics, like morals, don't really come into play -- it's results that matter, kid, so get out there and start repeating the message, word-for-word.
A small but amusing example popped up in the President's little speech the other day, in which he likened Congressional oversight of possible criminal activity in the Executive branch to "show trials."
He'd inadvertantly begun to say that he "recognize[d] the importance of members of Congress having...[an] understanding [of] how and why this decision was made," when of course he can afford to recognize no such thing. What he could "recognize", putting himself back on script, was the "importance...Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made." [Emphasis added].
Can't go around recognizing the role of Congress, can we? Recognizing the role Congress sees for itself -- that's ok, in some circumstances (like when you're polling 29% and facing the possibility of myriad corruption investigations.) But let's not go crazy and start lending rhetorical support to the idea of true public oversight. Next thing you know, you'll end up with the President's "staff" being accountable for the truth of the "advice" they give him.
Just think how different the last six years would have been if that had been the case.
A small but amusing example popped up in the President's little speech the other day, in which he likened Congressional oversight of possible criminal activity in the Executive branch to "show trials."
- Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.
Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having -- the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made.
He'd inadvertantly begun to say that he "recognize[d] the importance of members of Congress having...[an] understanding [of] how and why this decision was made," when of course he can afford to recognize no such thing. What he could "recognize", putting himself back on script, was the "importance...Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made." [Emphasis added].
Can't go around recognizing the role of Congress, can we? Recognizing the role Congress sees for itself -- that's ok, in some circumstances (like when you're polling 29% and facing the possibility of myriad corruption investigations.) But let's not go crazy and start lending rhetorical support to the idea of true public oversight. Next thing you know, you'll end up with the President's "staff" being accountable for the truth of the "advice" they give him.
Just think how different the last six years would have been if that had been the case.
