The shame game
President Bush described the New York Times leaking of the administration's domestic espionage policy as "shameful." Yet he described the policy itself as "legal", based on the Constitution. I've noticed this dichotomy before, the accusationas against critics often use words such as "shameful", "cowardice" and the never said, but often implied--"traitorous". Yet the Administration defends its actions using pseudolegal words, even archaic, obsolete ones like "constitutional."
Why the contrast? Morality out, legality in.
How can an entire newspaper be "shameful" anyway? The American Heritage Dictionary defines shame as
A painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgrace.
Does the New York Times feel guilty? Embarassed? Disgraced? Well, not now that Judith Miller is gone. They must feel unworthy.
It's hard not to think of Wayne's World with Wayne and Garth on their knees chanting "We're not worthy!" Perhaps all of the Time's staff could, on their way walking to work today, genuflect and expiate themselves from their shame?
Then it's Bush's turn.
Posted on December 21, 2005