Open Letter to the White House - Killing the Messenger
Dear Mr. President:
I have to hand it to you, sir. The other day you actually made use of a subtle rhetorical device. First you secretly and illegally wiretap American citizens, then when confronted with this action, you deftly change the subject from your own crimes and focus attention on those who told everyone about it. More slippery yet, you actually own up to your violation of the law, cunningly defusing the charge altogether. Now, instead of discussing whether or not you should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, we have to spend time discussing whether or not the New York Times should have fulfilled on its basic obligation to inform the public of what its elected officials are up to. Well done indeed!
Congratulations, too, on the obvious effort you've put into studying your vice president, your chief political adviser, and all those right-wing pundits you've either enrolled or purchased over the years. There was a time, you may recall, when you claimed you didn't "do nuance." It was a worrisome claim, sir, since no conservative politician today can survive for more than a few minutes without some skill in weaseling out of his or her self-generated difficulties - just ask Tom DeLay and Bill Frist. Certainly, no politician of your stripe can continue handing over America's future to his rich friends without giving himself some room to maneuver by any means necessary.
Of course, your friends must have taken some comfort in the fact that you had masters of fancy footwork like Cheney, Rove, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and dozens of others to cover your tail, but on the other hand there would always be the chance that you could stick your foot in it if you weren't supervised. What a sigh of relief they must have heaved when you pulled the old blame-the-messenger game on the New York Times the other day, and apparently on your own initiative! You've been learning your lessons very well, haven't you?
I just can't get over how beautifully you handled yourself. When I try to put myself in your place I can't imagine what I would have done. I'm not as decisive as you; if I had been the President in 2002, I might have hesitated before secretly wiretapping American citizens who hadn't been charged with a crime in order to maybe find some terrorists, just because I have some respect for those pesky civil rights our forefathers fought and died for. And if I had summoned up the courage to commit that crime and some lousy liberal newspaper had caught me at it, I might have folded; I might have actually shown our enemies (not to mention our friends) that America respects democracy and the rule of law, instead of showing them that we can beat them at their own dictatorial game. Not you, by God; you turned right around and nailed those who would hold you accountable right between the eyes. Accusing them of damaging American security was a nice touch; without that, you might have looked like some kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
People might even have said that you were sending the wrong message - that according to you, tattling is a worse sin than tyranny. They sure won't say that now, not when whistleblowing is called treason. Altogether, it was a beautifully designed piece of political theater, sir.
I'm glad to see that you seem to be giving yourself due credit for your cleverness, too, and practicing it more often. I notice that lately you've used the word "irresponsible" for those in Congress who voted to end the Patriot Act and give the American people their civil rights back, and that you've asked us not to "give up on Iraq" when some public speakers suggest it would be as well to plan this war, instead of just sitting there and making the Iraqis angrier every day. George Orwell would be proud.
Yes, sir, your rhetoric is improving by leaps and bounds. Soon you'll be able to burn all our rights down to the ground and make us think it's not only good, but critically important. I know you like to give nicknames, and I've got one for you - how about George "Agent Orange" Bush? You know, that stuff they used in Vietnam to kill all the trees in an area where there might be enemy soldiers, leaving a desert behind but winning the war at all costs? That seems to be what you're interested in.
And when the whole political landscape is utterly barren because of your maneuvers, Mr. President - when there's nothing left of the beautiful and free country we once knew - well, we'll miss America terribly, but at least we'll know that you only destroyed it in order to save it.
I have to hand it to you, sir. The other day you actually made use of a subtle rhetorical device. First you secretly and illegally wiretap American citizens, then when confronted with this action, you deftly change the subject from your own crimes and focus attention on those who told everyone about it. More slippery yet, you actually own up to your violation of the law, cunningly defusing the charge altogether. Now, instead of discussing whether or not you should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, we have to spend time discussing whether or not the New York Times should have fulfilled on its basic obligation to inform the public of what its elected officials are up to. Well done indeed!Congratulations, too, on the obvious effort you've put into studying your vice president, your chief political adviser, and all those right-wing pundits you've either enrolled or purchased over the years. There was a time, you may recall, when you claimed you didn't "do nuance." It was a worrisome claim, sir, since no conservative politician today can survive for more than a few minutes without some skill in weaseling out of his or her self-generated difficulties - just ask Tom DeLay and Bill Frist. Certainly, no politician of your stripe can continue handing over America's future to his rich friends without giving himself some room to maneuver by any means necessary.
Of course, your friends must have taken some comfort in the fact that you had masters of fancy footwork like Cheney, Rove, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and dozens of others to cover your tail, but on the other hand there would always be the chance that you could stick your foot in it if you weren't supervised. What a sigh of relief they must have heaved when you pulled the old blame-the-messenger game on the New York Times the other day, and apparently on your own initiative! You've been learning your lessons very well, haven't you?I just can't get over how beautifully you handled yourself. When I try to put myself in your place I can't imagine what I would have done. I'm not as decisive as you; if I had been the President in 2002, I might have hesitated before secretly wiretapping American citizens who hadn't been charged with a crime in order to maybe find some terrorists, just because I have some respect for those pesky civil rights our forefathers fought and died for. And if I had summoned up the courage to commit that crime and some lousy liberal newspaper had caught me at it, I might have folded; I might have actually shown our enemies (not to mention our friends) that America respects democracy and the rule of law, instead of showing them that we can beat them at their own dictatorial game. Not you, by God; you turned right around and nailed those who would hold you accountable right between the eyes. Accusing them of damaging American security was a nice touch; without that, you might have looked like some kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
People might even have said that you were sending the wrong message - that according to you, tattling is a worse sin than tyranny. They sure won't say that now, not when whistleblowing is called treason. Altogether, it was a beautifully designed piece of political theater, sir.I'm glad to see that you seem to be giving yourself due credit for your cleverness, too, and practicing it more often. I notice that lately you've used the word "irresponsible" for those in Congress who voted to end the Patriot Act and give the American people their civil rights back, and that you've asked us not to "give up on Iraq" when some public speakers suggest it would be as well to plan this war, instead of just sitting there and making the Iraqis angrier every day. George Orwell would be proud.
Yes, sir, your rhetoric is improving by leaps and bounds. Soon you'll be able to burn all our rights down to the ground and make us think it's not only good, but critically important. I know you like to give nicknames, and I've got one for you - how about George "Agent Orange" Bush? You know, that stuff they used in Vietnam to kill all the trees in an area where there might be enemy soldiers, leaving a desert behind but winning the war at all costs? That seems to be what you're interested in.
And when the whole political landscape is utterly barren because of your maneuvers, Mr. President - when there's nothing left of the beautiful and free country we once knew - well, we'll miss America terribly, but at least we'll know that you only destroyed it in order to save it.
posted by benshlomo at 11:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home