Just before Lisa Raitt started tearing up at the thought of her farther and brother dying from cancer, she made a few remarks that I’m going to examine somewhat under a microscope.
Only a fool or a blackguard would gainsay Raitt’s tears. Clearly, in that moment she remembered the horrors of cancer as it had affected her and she started to cry. But in the moments prior to that, her speech had a strangely disengaged quality. To wit:
“Today I want to personally communicate my deep regret for wording I used in a private discussion earlier this year which was inadvertently recorded. As somebody who has had in their personal life been deeply affected by cancer, my intent was certainly not to show any disrespect for cancer victims, survivors or their families. However, it's clear that these remarks have been interpreted in that way. So I want to offer a clear apology to anyone who's been offended by what I've said.”
Look carefully at the choice of words and syntax:
“Personally communcate," “regret for wording I used in a private discussion,” “my intent was certainly not to show any disrespect,” “it's clear that these remarks have been interpreted in that way.”
These words are to plain speaking as Kryptonite is to Superman. How about: “I apologize for my offensive remarks”?
It’s not that the remarks were recorded inadvertently or that they’ve been interpreted in a certain way.
The words and the thoughts behind them were offensive. Period. Any other “interpretation” is caviling.
In his essay Politics and the English Language, Orwell wrote: "In our time political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible."
Plus ca change…
