Cheney's Dodge: Taking Responsibility

[Guest guest]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021606C.shtml

 

Cheney's Dodge: Taking Responsibility

By Norman Solomon

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

 

Thursday 16 February 2006

 

When Dick Cheney surfaced on Wednesday long enough for an

interview with Fox News eminence Brit Hume - an event that CNN's Jack

Cafferty promptly likened to " Bonnie interviewing Clyde " - the vice

presidential spin emerged from a time-worn bag of political tricks.

Cheney took responsibility. Whatever that means.

 

The New York Times web site swiftly made its top headline " Cheney

Takes Full Responsibility for Shooting Hunter. " Just before Fox News

Channel aired interview segments at length, the summary from anchor

Hume told viewers that Cheney had accepted " full responsibility for

the incident. " Hours later, the Washington Post's front-page story led

this way: " Vice President Cheney accepted full responsibility

yesterday ... "

 

Ironically - while news outlets kept using the phrase " full

responsibility " - the transcript of the interview posted on

FoxNews.com shows that Cheney never used any form of the word

" responsibility. "

 

Whatever their exact words, the politicians who can't avoid

acknowledging culpability are often the beneficiaries of excessive

media plaudits for supposedly owning up to what they've done wrong.

But those politicians rarely do more than just what the spin doctor

ordered.

 

It's not brave or even forthright for an official to express the

contrition that seems advisable from a public-relations standpoint.

When a convicted defendant voices remorse just before sentencing, the

statement is often viewed as little more than a ploy dictated by

circumstance. But when a politician ostensibly " takes responsibility "

in the court of public opinion, much of the media coverage attaches

great significance to an essentially hollow statement that is a

transparent effort to extinguish a scandal-fueled firestorm.

 

In almost every instance when a politician " takes responsibility "

with great fanfare, there's no penalty attached to the proclamation.

Across the terrain of political media, the I-take-responsibility

maneuver is the equivalent of a hit-and-run driver offering an

over-the-shoulder yell of " Sorry about that " while speeding away from

a grisly scene.

 

On July 30, 2003 - several months after the occupation of Iraq

began - President Bush held a news conference while US forces

continued to search in vain for weapons of mass destruction. High up

in a front-page story, the New York Times reported that Bush " took

responsibility for the first time for an assertion in his State of the

Union address about Iraq's nuclear weapons program that turned out to

be based on questionable intelligence. "

 

Bush told reporters: " I take personal responsibility for

everything I say, of course. I also take responsibility for making

decisions on war and peace. And I analyzed a thorough body of

intelligence, good, solid, sound intelligence that led me to come to

the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power. "

 

In that instance, as in so many others, the president's

declaration about taking responsibility was nothing more than hot air

for inflated rhetoric - a dodge to divert attention from indefensible

actions and evident deceptions.

 

Last year, on September 13 at the White House, the president said:

" Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all

levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government

didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. " Policies during

the five months since then have compounded the administration's deadly

negligence in response to Hurricane Katrina, underscoring the

diversionary significance of the I-take-responsibility scam.

 

When Brit Hume and Dick Cheney did their Fox trot, they were

performing the kind of spectacle we've seen many times on television.

Network correspondents and powerful politicians know the boundaries

and the steps. Their footwork may look simple, but it's fancy and

well-practiced. Contrary to pretense, the probing journalist doesn't

probe too much, and the forthcoming politician merely hunkers down

with a new twist.

 

And so it goes: Whether the media uproar has to do with a quail

hunt, or lethal negligence in connection with a hurricane, or chronic

deception for a war, top officials may finally opt to " take

responsibility. " But that's nothing more than a propaganda technique

for those who view lying as an essential means of governance.

 

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How

Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go

to: WarMadeEasy.com.

 

-------