Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Is that the royal "We"?

In reading a transcript of one of the Minister of Truth's Q&A sessions with the White House Press Corps, I notice the disturbing and repeated use of the word "we" sprinkled throughout the Minister's responses.

As in "we're going to continue to abide by that.." and "we simply don't think it's constructive..." and "we worked out legislation..." and "we have faith in [The Judge]" and "we continue to recruit first-rate people for this administration".

So, who is "we"? The last I heard, the position of White House Spokesperson is not a policy-making post, notwithstanding The West Wing's portrayal of how the hated C.J. had a so-called "seat at the table" for all WH decisions, large or small (gee, is it surprising for anyone to learn that former WH Spokesperson DiDi Myers was a scriptwriter on that show?) and the show's shark-jumping story arc wherein C.J., one of the most annoying characters in the history of broadcast television, was appointed WH Chief Of Staff.

But I digress. Who does Minister of Truth Tony Snow mean when he says "we"? He's not a cabinet member. He hasn't been elected to anything. His appointment was not confirmed by the Senate. Quite simply, he is a mouthpiece. No more, no less.

I mean, you really don't think an organization as powerful and important as the Executive Branch of the United States of America would allow little Tony Snow, most recently employed as a Fox News talking head, to have any meaningful contribution in policy discussions. Do you?

I think we can all agree that Mike Brown's appointment as FEMA director was an unfortunate slip-up that couldn't be repeated. Similarly, The Judge's appointment as White House Counsel and later Attorney General must have been one of those oopsies that occasionally befall large organizations. I mean, you can't expect them to properly handle each and every personnel decision throughout the entire management structure.

So let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they couldn't possibly have given this dim-witted doubletalker any real decision-making responsibility.

So who, then, is "we"? I have a theory. The pronoun "we" refers to the same "senior leadership" the our nation's esteemed Attorney General has credited, ad infinitum, with the compilation of the list of nine fired U.S. Attorneys. I again quote the brilliant Dahlia Lithwick:
One after another, Republicans on the [House Judiciary C]ommittee take turns blowing hot-air kisses at the AG for all his fine work on immigration, illegal gambling, the zealous protection of intellectual property, as well as his admirable ability to supervise all 110,000 of his employees without even lifting a finger. Gonzales would take credit for all this fine work, were he not busy constructing a fantasy Justice Department that more or less runs itself. In addition to laying all the blame for the U.S. attorney firings on the same magical pixies who reside in Kyle Sampson's filing drawer (aka the "senior leadership of the department"), Gonzales also [says a bunch of other similarly ridiculous things].
It is startling to see the lengths to which the people in this government will go to avoid taking responsibility for their decision-making. On the other hand, it's fun, all the things one can do when one can't be held accountable for them.

Speaking of which, we're done blogging for tonight; I think right now we are about to go gulp down a quart of vodka and pick up some hookers, maybe rob up a convenience store or something. We'll catch up with y'all later.

No comments: