The Wall Street Journal Strikes Again

There's no bigger joke in the world of political commentary than the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Now, I'm not talking about the op-eds by people like John Fund and Peggy Noonan (although those are usually pretty silly as well). I'm talking about the unattributed editorials which, supposedly, represent the opinion of the editorial board itself. These editorials are so consistently idiotic, so transparently partisan, so painfully unoriginal that I honestly wonder whether the Journal has secretly rented out this space to the Republican National Committee. It's as if they just print RNC talking points straight off the press, without even bothering to disguise them.

So what did the Journal have to say today? Here's the headline: Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed. With a headline like that, you really don't need to read the rest of the editorial. But in case you're wondering, the editorial does end with the line: "this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics."

Like I said, they don't even bother to put the talking points into their own words. They just regurgitate them. It's beyond pathetic. Moreover, it's clear that these talking points were conceived of and written before anyone read the actual indictment. As I mentioned yesterday, it's impossible for an intelligent person to read the indictment and accompanying press release and come away convinced that no underlying crime was committed. If anything, the facts in the indictment lead to the opposite inference: that Libby may well have violated both the Espionage Act and the IIPA. Just because he was not indicted for those crimes does not mean that they did not take place. That's like concluding that Al Capone was not a mobster because he was only charged with mail fraud. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly possible that there were no underlying crimes committed, but in light of Libby's behavior and the facts laid out in the indictment, that's a far from obvious conclusion. Anyone who says, unequivocally, that there was no underlying crime here is either uninformed or blatantly partisan. It's as simple as that.

And finally, does the hypocricy of the Journal's editorial board know no bounds? Is it really their position that perjury and obstruction of justice are not worth pursuing? These are the same people that relentlessly advocated for the impeachment of President Clinton, who lectured us repeatedly on the seriousness of Clinton's alleged perjury. In Clinton's case, an independent prosecutor appointed to investigate a 20 year old land deal ended up pursuing Clinton for lying about an arguably immaterial fact in connection with a Republican-funded frivolous bit of civil litigation. Moreover, it was obvious that Clinton's only possible motive for lying was a desire to cover up a politically and personally embarrassing sexual affair. In that case, there was not even an allegation of an underlying crime. Yet now, where a White House official has apparently lied under oath about facts which are quite obviously material to the very crime that the special prosecutor was appointed to investigate, the Journal is suddenly upset by the use of obstruction and perjury charges. Moreover, in this case, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that an underlying crime occurred and no obvious motive for perjury other than to conceal that underlying crime. In other words, in every conceivable respect, this instance of perjury is far more serious than Clinton's. The Journal's headine ask's "Obstruction for what?" I'm quite positive that these very same people flew into an instant rage whenever anyone asked this question in Clinton's case, but since they ask it now, here's the answer: Fitzgerald believes that Libby obstructed his investigation into whether the outing of Valerie Plame was a crime, thereby preventing him determing what actually happened. Based on his indictment, it's fairly obvious that Fitzgerald thinks there was an underlying crime, and that Libby's acts of perjury and obstruction were committed in an effort to cover up that crime.

It's an absolute disgrace that the editorial page of one of the world's most respected newpapers is nothing more than a repository for the most idiotic and unoriginal partisan spin imaginable. Say what you want about the New York Times editorial page, but at least their not unoriginal. They may be unapologetically liberal, and silly at times, but at least they don't just print the DNC's daily talking points and call it an editorial.