When message discipline is all that matters

September 14, 2006

Sometimes, these guys just start to sound like parodies of themselves.

During a Tuesday meeting of the House Republican conference, Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) unveiled a handy new rhetorical device aimed at furthering House Republicans tough-on-terrorism national security agenda.

Instead of referring to military tribunals as, well, the military tribunals that they are and have been known as throughout their entire existence, House Republicans should start referring to them as “terrorist tribunals,” to emphasize the bad guys they will be trying. (Very clever. Never mind that good ol’ American adage “innocent until proven guilty.”)

But even after Pryce’s instructions, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) needed a reminder. When he rose to speak about next week’s floor schedule, according to our fly on the wall, he mentioned “military tribunals for suspected terrorists.” He then caught himself, looked at Pryce, and asked, “What is it again?”

Pryce corrected Boehner, who then amended his speech with the by-the-playbook phrase “terrorist tribunals.”

And Fox News will start using the phrase in 3…2…1..

…”terrorist tribunals,” to emphasize the bad guys they will be trying. (Very clever. Never mind that good ol’ American adage “innocent until proven guilty.”)

What, you never heard of “criminal court”??

  • When will Democrats start standing up and expressing outrage at how far Bush-Cheney have pushed their extreme wartime executive powers? Democrats are going to get rolled by Republicans if they stand up to the President before the November elections. The election is increasingly looking like Swift Boat 2.0 with Democrats fence sitting.

  • terrorist tribunal

    Useful for reminding America that the Republican’ts are unable to actually collect evidence against these people, or prove their crimes in any adversarial court. Nope, they need to have the sentences handed to them on a platter, because they are f**cking incompetents.

    Gah!

  • How soon til they start calling the “Democrat” Party the Terrorist Party..really no joke…I would not put it past the leadership of the Repub Party…..

    seriously though…..The Republicans use of language & double speak as well as party discipline is the absolute key to their hold on power for the last 6 years….you have to admire(??) the task of keeping an entire party on message time after time in spite of the Republican Party lies, contradictions and half truths that are constantly exposed to the American Public…

    This speaks to the power of the media to amplify the approriate Republican narrative of the day and it also speaks to the apathy of some of the American populous at any given time…..

  • So does this mean there will never be a military tribunal against a non-terrorist or will these tribunals be separate from a regular military tribunal? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that people are buying into the mentality that we only have one enemy (amazing what the right additives to the Kool-Aid can do) but I’m still surprised by the short-sightedness of this bunch.

    Assuming of course this isn’t all a deliberate ploy to obsfuscate the matter and make believe that this is all about fighting terrorism vs. making the United States the largest exporter of hypocrisy on the planet.

  • Grumpy

    The word “Criminal” there is a reference to the type of the crime – not a prejudgement of the defendent. Of course, nuances are always lost on you, aren’t they?

  • Because if you precede anything with “terrorist”, you can’t vote against it. It is the same as “patriot”, “freedom”, and “democracy”.

  • I think George wants to institutionalize his approach to “finding” Bin Laden as the “Guess What” system of justice. You just find someone and make them tell you about the terrorists and there you got all the evidence you need.

  • Ramki,

    The word “Criminal” in “Criminal Court” is a reference to the type of “case” brought before the court, not the defendent. 😉

  • If “military tribunals” are called “military” because the military is responsible for conducting the case, then “terrorist tribunals” are called “terrorist”… Why?

    Just askin’

  • ” If “military tribunals” are called “military” because the military is responsible for conducting the case, then “terrorist tribunals” are called “terrorist”… Why? ” – libra

    LOL

  • Dems should adopt more message discipline. The media has already forgotten last week’s smoking gun on Rumsfeld forbidding planning for post-war Iraq.

    By November, I feel like most Dems will be defending some obscure vote they cast two decades ago.

  • Ramki: Of course, nuances are always lost on you, aren’t they?

    Care to name any other instances in which I, Grumpy, failed to recognize nuance? Go ahead. I’m waiting.

    BTW, there should be an emoticon for .

    • Comments are closed.