"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

When Democrats say it's a Big Deal, it Isn't

NY Times:

"Under criticism from lawmakers of both parties for the dismissals of federal prosecutors, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales insisted Tuesday that he would not resign but said, “I acknowledge that mistakes were made here."
The Democrats of course:
"demanded that President Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, explain their roles in the dismissals." They also are "vowing to get to the bottom of who ordered the dismissals and why."
This invariably leaves the paper the latitude to open the thesaurus to pull out and describe the white house effort to explain the situation as "scrambles." This helps to assure the reader that, YES, something is up.

Two sources for the paper want to be able to continue their relationships and keep on sharing the info you have to love that they wish to continue their jobs with backstabbing optional (italics mine):
"two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials."
There are of course questions as to whether these dismissals were politically motivated, which of course is one of the leading concerns of Democrats. Diane Feinstein asked:
“Who authorized all of this? Who asked for that change?”
Good question, which according to Democrats makes this a BIG DEAL, yet it is nothing of the sort. As to political motivation? Isn't that how this all works?
"One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey"
Business as usual with the exception being Bush did not do this in 2001, nor at the onset of his second term. Yes, it is political and there was nothing wrong with it when Clinton did it and there is nothing wrong with it NOW.

Finally the Times can write in such a manner as to lead the reader, especially the circling sharks that indicates, something may be up:
"Inside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush."
Their concern of damage is just that, about damage. It doesn't have to be any kind of wrongdoing that might concern them, but the "controversy" that has been generated by the Democrats; strengthened by the ham handed and limp response that does not include mentioning the reality that, 'yes it is politically motivated and their is nothing wrong with politics when working in politics.' Just ask the Democrats about that one, they should understand.

Hat tip to Right Voices for the location of the Clinton link.

Also, leave it to the NY Times editorial board to further the BS

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls
  • Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1056148556306316870

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks