Dick Cheney on Scooter Libby
Of course, the big "news" today is that Vice President Dick Cheney has commented on the trial and commutation of sentence for Scooter Libby. I think it is pretty safe to say that everyone in America who gave this case any attention at all knew exactly how Cheney felt about the matter. Remember the public statement he issued way back in March? So ... one would think there would be at least a moderate burden on reporters to produce something relatively new in order to wave Cheney's commentary on the Libby matter in the air.
Without providing a direct quote, Dan Eagan of the Washington Post has written that Cheney "disagreed with the jury's verdict." Eagan then suggests Cheney's views "appear to conflict" with the President. Why? Well, as Eagan reports, the President's commutation announcement stated that he "respected" the jury verdict.
Apparently, in Eagan's world, one cannot "respect" someone (or the outcome of someone's decision making) and, at the same time, "disagree." Apparently, Cheney is not privy to this new rule of political conduct / discourse because he is quoted as saying, "I thought the President handled it right. I supported his decision."
It is no wonder the world of politics looks so messy and partisan when Americans read the Nation's leading newspapers! Writers see conflict where it does not exist and are willing to report its "appearance" on the most brutally flimsy set of assumptions.
Interestingly, Bill Clinton explained his commutation of sentence for F.A.L.N. terrorists by noting that he respected the decision making of a host of law enforcement officials and government entities. But, when all was said and done, he simply disagreed with them all. How did Clinton pull this off without the Post noting that he had a "conflict" with himself?
Without providing a direct quote, Dan Eagan of the Washington Post has written that Cheney "disagreed with the jury's verdict." Eagan then suggests Cheney's views "appear to conflict" with the President. Why? Well, as Eagan reports, the President's commutation announcement stated that he "respected" the jury verdict.
Apparently, in Eagan's world, one cannot "respect" someone (or the outcome of someone's decision making) and, at the same time, "disagree." Apparently, Cheney is not privy to this new rule of political conduct / discourse because he is quoted as saying, "I thought the President handled it right. I supported his decision."
It is no wonder the world of politics looks so messy and partisan when Americans read the Nation's leading newspapers! Writers see conflict where it does not exist and are willing to report its "appearance" on the most brutally flimsy set of assumptions.
Interestingly, Bill Clinton explained his commutation of sentence for F.A.L.N. terrorists by noting that he respected the decision making of a host of law enforcement officials and government entities. But, when all was said and done, he simply disagreed with them all. How did Clinton pull this off without the Post noting that he had a "conflict" with himself?
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 2:07 PM
<< Home