"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker," said President Barack Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs. "He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of."As with anything anyone says, this can be analyzed two ways: 1) he was thoughtful and deliberate in his choice of words or, 2) he was talking without thinking and unloading a lot of b.s.
The second option makes what he said meaningless, but brings into question his further employment as the press secretary and main spokesman for president. If he is so thoughtless in speaking, he's not the right guy to be the president's mouthpiece.
The first option is more intriguing. Why would the president's spokesman--and I assume whatever political apparatus sent him out to blather on Sunday--choose to defend itself in this manner?
Usually politicians think through problems in this way: 1) Take some action. 2) Catch flak from opponents who think your action was something really stupid. 3) Figure out whether you really are being stupid or if the flak shooters are being stupid. 4) If the former, either stop being stupid or pretend real hard that you aren't being stupid. 5) If the latter, pretend the stupid flak shooters are smart while ignoring them and going about your business.
It's a fair bet that the current White House isn't going to decide that they were being stupid and reverse their policy. It's also pretty obvious that they aren't pretending that they aren't stupid...that is to say, what Gibbs said was so stupid, that they can't be pretending that they're really smart.
That leaves step #5, the pander--pretend your opponents are smart, agree with them publicly, while actually doing the opposite.
This option, however, relies on you having some understanding of your opponents. Does what Gibbs said show a belief that their opponents are worried about tainting the jury pool? Does it show that they understand their opponents objection that having the president's spokesmen come out and tell everyone the verdict and sentence before a venue has even been chosen might display a preordained verdict more like what you'd find in a thugocracy than in a justice-loving democracy? Does it show an understanding that their opponents are worried that what KSM could gain in intelligence from the discovery phase of the trial would destroy anti-terrorism actions around the world--as actually happened in earlier terror trials? Does it show that they too are concerned that putting prisoners of war captured on the battlefield into civilian courts means that our armed forces have to give Miranda warnings and act like CSI cops, carefully gathering evidence, possibly in the middle of a firefight and while catching the real kind of flak, not the pretend kind?
Nope, what Gibbs said is obviously a pander to their perception of the ignorant "bitter clingers," who in the White House's eyes are blood thirsty, hang-'em-high hicks.
That's their opinion of any American without a liberal worldview and an ivy league degree. Don't worry, you stupid Hillbillies, will kill the bastard for ya!
0 comments:
Post a Comment