Letter: It depends on meaning of ‘could’

Kathleen Parker’s Obama derangement has yielded a particularly laughable op-ed piece wherein she claims a recent White House “threat” (quoting her quotes) signifies animosity towards the press and more generally, they’re just plain mean. She accurately accounts the White House exasperation towards Bob Wooward’s ill-informed reporting of the sequester fight and she recounts shouting and an ominous threat from White House aide Gene Sperling that WooDward would “regret” his reporting position.

Parker somehow infers that this “could” mean Woodward would never gain access to the White House. However, it “could” be inferred that Woodward would regret writing a piece that was demonstrably wrong, which is how I read the email (the email is posted online). Of course, if you’re indulging in “could,” “might” or just free-associating while lying on the floor, who knows what motivation you would infer?

But I suspect you aren’t writing for a major newspaper. Parker’s columns are usually Republican-leaning without being obnoxious (see Rich Lowry), this one though is laugh-out-loud funny. I’ll leave it to the reader to determine what her motivation “could” be.

James Hawkins

engineer

Mandeville