Using the word “loophole” pejoratively…. isn’t that casting a judgement upon the move that President Bush made? Wouldn’t that be defining it—and him—in a certain prejudicial way? Why yes, I do believe it would be.
And is this different than using the word “terrorist”, which they’ve been instructed not to do because they officially restrict themselves to using “neutral language”? Is this good reporting? Is this fair and balanced? Or is this another day at the left-wing state-run CBC division of the Liberal Party?
The state-run web site CBC.CA headline and article says:
“Bush uses loophole to send Bolton to UN”
U.S. President George W. Bush used a legislative loophole on Monday to appoint John Bolton as his country’s ambassador to the United Nations.
[…] Bush was able to bypass them by using a loophole that allows him to make what’s known as a “recess appointment” when Congress is not sitting.
A “loophole”? A “legislative loophole”? WRONG!
Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
So unless you think the U.S. Constitution is just another funky “loophole”, the CBC should write a correction. And bureaucratic memos should be passed around between liberal elites, furiously!
In an old June 14, 1999 Slate.com article ostensibly defending President Bill Clinton (as the liberal media are obsessed with doing) and Clinton’s use of the “recess appointment” provision when he appointed an ambassador, they said this, back when it was perfectly acceptable, which for some weird reason it isn’t any more, suddenly:
Clinton’s act was certainly constitutional. A recess appointment is one of the executive powers enumerated in the Constitution: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next Session” (II, 2, 3). The provision was originally created to fill vacancies that actually occurred during a recess, but it has since morphed into an all-purpose executive tool to counter Senate intransigence.
Clinton made use of the recess appointments “loophole” 140 times during his two terms! One hundred forty times!
In the memo to CBC (state-run news media) employees regarding use of the word “terrorist”, the ingenious liberal elite bureaucrat and memo-writer said this:
Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it’s a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.
By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren’t faced with the problem of calling one incident a “terrorist act” (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere “bombing” (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).
Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label (“terrorist” or “terrorism”) when news breaks, try describing what happened.
For example, “A suicide bomber blew up a bus full of unarmed civilians early Monday, killing at least two dozen people.” The details of these tragedies give our audience the information they need to form their own conclusions about what type of attack it was.
Rather than calling assailants “terrorists,” we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we’re sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.
But now they say “loophole” when discussing something President Bush legitimately did, with which the CBC obviously disagrees. Should we expect to hear about another memo being sent to CBC (state) employees? No. Don’t be stupid.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
- Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am
