The Palin position, at least as enunciated by her lawyer, is the Bushian tactic of defining the concept of “ethics” downwards, just as the Bushies did with “torture”: she did not violate ethics laws because her goal was not personal financial gain. Alaska law defines illegal unethical behaviour as “any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action.” Revenge, evidently, is ethical, unless you consider destroying your enemies utterly to be a personal interest (like stamp-collecting).
Sarah herself chose not to directly contradict the report, but to misrepresent it, saying, “If you read the report, you will see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member. You got to read the report.” She isn’t saying that the report says she did nothing unlawful or unethical, although she is hoping that is the implication you take away from her words (she is also hoping that even though you “got” to read the report, you won’t). Rather, she is saying that “you will see” that she did nothing unlawful or unethical if you read a report that concludes the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment