David Sanger's latest article is an interesting read.
When Goals Meet Reality: Executive Privilege Reversed
Some comments and close reading are in order.
First, let me say that on its face, this article is an excellent "news analysis" (as it is sub-headed), and the content and style are pretty straight-up, hard-nosed journalism.
There are some things that I think bear criticism, however.
Read on if you wish.
When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney took office three years ago, they made no secret of their intention to restore presidential powers and prerogatives that they believed had withered under the onslaught of Washington's cycle of televised, all-consuming investigations.
But time and again, that effort by the Bush White House has fallen victim to political reality
Here, Sanger states that Bush and Cheney "made no secret" of their goal of gaining more power and protection for the executive branch.
What Sanger does not mention is that they couched that mission in rhetoric about "Changing the Tone" in Washington.
Not a critical oversight, but an important one. It is important to note that the intentions of the Bush-Cheney team, while no secret, were masked, camouflaged.
Had they come to power specifically and boldly stating "we will increase the power of the Presidency, and will armor the Executive more than it already is from questioning by the other branches, the press, and the population," they would have been "making no secret." As things stand, based on their own words from their campaign and their first months in office, it is clear that they were speaking in code, and the codewords "Changing the Tone" stood for something entirely different than the impression given by the words taken at face value.
His decision to reverse course, dropping his claim of executive privilege preventing public, sworn testimony by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was part of a distinct pattern that has emerged inside this highly secretive White House.
Again, this paragraph initially reads well to one with my political inclinations, but I think the emphasis is incorrect. This whitehouse is NOT secretive when it comes to information, quotes, statements, or happenings that benefit their aims of preserving and extending Executive Fiat, when it comes to defending their actions and excoriating their critics - not "secretive" at all.
Yes there is a pattern of reversals, yes there is a pattern of initial intransigence, which IF CHALLENGED gives way to grudging and half-hearted "cooperation" - BUT "secretive" is not correct. The proper description is "stubborn" when criticized and "actively aggressive" in defense...which defense often (always?) includes revelations of "secret" or "privileged" information that suits their purpose. One prime, recent example of this is the proposal to "selectively declassify" portions of testimony or records that bolster their case, rather than blanket declassification (if they were really worried about setting the record straight) or NO declassification (if they were really worried about security and executive privilege).
The ensuing paragraphs in the story recount specific instances, quotes, and events, and in my opinion is a good recap.
I would have included more cogent quotes from the principles, and done more backgrounding. I may have tried to counterpose Bartlett's statements with others' words, or counterpose his statements with the historical record...and I would not have let this:
"It was a debate all about process, and he wanted to shift it back to the substance."
From Bartlett, remain as the final, strongest statement in the paragraph.
Again, the record is clear on the topic: This white house stands on process when it benefits them, stands on constitutional principle when it benefits them...and discards both without a second thought when it benefits them. There are many, many examples...including examples (like some of the letters from White House Council Gonzales) where they appear to simply make things up out of thin air to suit their convenience.
Here:
The exception to this dynamic has been Mr. Cheney himself, who, despite the shaking of heads within the White House, has steadfastly resisted all calls that he release information from the administration's energy task force, which he headed. That case has become fodder for Democrats, and on April 27 it goes to the Supreme Court. White House officials say this refusal to make some accommodation is the exception precisely because the issue is Mr. Cheney's own and so has only an indirect political effect on the president.
Is a telling paragraph...one that I think would benefit, again, from some historical grounding and contextualization.
First, I note the "Cheney subtext" running throughout this article, and while I appreciate it, I would have reconfigured the article, and included an entire subsection devoted to Cheney, Cheney's influence, and Cheney's power.
Additionally, I would have used this particular case, and the Supreme Court connection to bring in the "Recusal-gate" aspect concerning the deep ties and apparent cameraderie between Cheney and Scalia...it's important, and it gets no mention here.
They will appear together, and thus presumably be able to correct each other's memories. And in the end, it is their performance -- behind closed doors but likely to leak quickly -- that may prove the most politically crucial.
Pure fun...I laughed out loud.
Key jab:
presumably be able to correct each other's memories
Uh-huh...
Overall, this article is a good example of a decent, but not great, not stellar, news analysis.
More please!
