The Wall Street Journal outdid itself today on it's Editorial page with two bone-headed pieces that slam the verdict in the Libby case yesterday and also slam Sen. Kerry for his justified questioning of Bush nominee Sam Fox at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last Tuesday.
Once again, the WSJ proves itself to be little more than a parrot for the right wing talking points arguments of the Republican National Committee. There is little merit in both of their arguments and a lot of deep, deep hypocrisy.
Larry Johnson, in a DKos diary last week, took the WSJ to task for another opinion column on the Libby case. The Journal had stated that the trial should have been cancelled once it was revealed that Richard Armitage was the original source of the leak on Valerie Plame. Johnson rightly noted:
Somebody track down the author of the editorial, Daniel Henniger, and let him know that Libby is charged with PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Henninger must be a new guy and completely unaware or misinformed about the Wall Street Journal's stand on issues of PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Yes sirree. The Wall Street Journal certainly sang a different tune way back in 2001.
Larry Johnson DKos diary 2/25/07
The Journal is still singing from the same hymnal today. It again states that:
In hindsight, the defense seems to have blundered by portraying Mr. Libby as the "fall guy" for others in the White House. That didn't do enough to rebut Mr. Fitzgerald's theory of the case, and so the jury seems to have decided that Mr. Libby must have been lying to protect something. The defense might have been better off taking on Mr. Fitzgerald for criminalizing political differences.
For that, in essence, is what this case is really all about. We learned long ago--and Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the start of his probe in 2003--that Mr. Libby was not the source of the leak to columnist Robert Novak that started all this. Mr. Libby thus had no real motive to cover up this non-crime. What he did have strong cause to do was rebut the lies that Mr. Wilson was telling about the Administration and Mr. Cheney--lies confirmed as lies by a bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004.
The Journal still believes that the idea that the Bush Administration can 'out' a covert agent is of no concern to anyone, that lying about that very serious charge is a trivial thing and that the end result of this will be to 'criminalize political differences.' I guess they still believe that it's not lying if their people get caught doing it, just a misdirected bit of politicking.
It was about lying and obstruction of justice. That is still, even in George Bush's America, a crime. The WSJ can't see this because to them, it's only a crime if the Democrats do it.
Similarly, in another RW inspired editorial today, the Journal goes after Sen. John Kerry for his questioning of Sam Fox in a Senate Foreign Relations hearing last week. Fox is up for the post of Ambassador to Belgium. I think the questioning by Sen. Kerry showed that Mr. Fox is not fit to be Ambassador to LegoLand, nevermind Belgium.
This is part of the transcript of what Sen. Kerry talked about before the SBVT donation came up:
KERRY: So you have no knowledge, outside of what the State Department's told you, about any concerns or issues that Belgians may have about the way we've prosecuted on the war on terror.
FOX: Other than the newspapers, no, I don't believe so.
KERRY: Are you familiar with the SWIFT Consortium, the bank consortium?
FOX: Yes.
KERRY: Didn't they express concerns about privacy issues?
FOX: Yes. As you know, Senator, SWIFT is a private organization that is involved with the financial telecommunication of information and they're quite large, they're extensive. They represent some 8,000 banks in 200 countries.
And with counterintelligence, one of the most important things is to follow the money. And in trying to follow the money, there's a very thin line to follow and that is following the money without overstepping it and violating the privacy laws of European individuals or individuals anywhere.
And that has been a concern and my understanding is that there's a number of high level meetings taking place at this time in order to really tighten up those controls.
KERRY: Is it also fair to say that there's a tension between the Belgians and us with respect to that flow of information? FOX: I have no personal knowledge of that, sir.
KERRY: Do you know of any efforts that are being made to try to harmonize United States and European data protection standards?
FOX: I'm sorry?
KERRY: Do you know of any efforts that are being made to try to harmonize European and U.S. data protection standards?
FOX: None other than the information that I received concerning the SWIFT organization and the negotiations that are taking place in that respect.
KERRY: But they specifically made a judgment that -- the commission made a judgment faulting the government for, in fact, sharing information with us, correct?
FOX: I'm not sure what the allegations were. I just know what the issue is and the issue, sir, has to do with what I said before, that is, on the one hand, trying to track the money, trying to get the information that is necessary and do so without violating...
KERRY: Well, do you know what the state of relationship is between us and Belgium on this? Does the Bush administration dispute the assessment of the commission?
FOX: I don't know, sir. I'll be happy to get that information and provide it to the committee.
KERRY: Do you know when the elections are going to be held in Belgium?
FOX: Well, they must be held before October of '06 (sic) and there's speculation it may be as early as June.
Sam Fox didn't seem to know much about Belgium, couldn't answer some basic questions over what the status of US - Belgian relations were and had no real clue if the Belgians were upset over the issues surrounding the SWIFT payments investigations and the secrecy issues that brought up.
This was before Sam Fox brought up his donation history to the SBVT:
FOX: Senator, I am on record more than one time, several times, being interviewed by the press and particularly the "St. Louis Post Dispatch" and I am very concerned with the amount of money that's going into politics and I'm more concerned about the fact that politics has become mean and destructive.
And when I was interviewed in 2000, I said that I was for campaign finance reform, because I felt that if less money was going into politics, it would turn the whole volume down and when it turned the volume down, I would hope there'd be less meanness and destructiveness.
When 527s came along, I had the very same thing to say about them.
So that's the way I feel and, Senator, let me just say this -- I'm against 527s, I've always been against 527s. I think, again, they're mean and destructive. I think they've hurt a lot of good, decent people.
Sam Fox thought 527's were real bad. Real, real bad. They exercise undue influence over American politics and Mr. Fox agreed with Sen. Kerry that they are part of the politics of personal destruction. Yet, later on in the testimony, when given a chance by Kerry, Fox did not disavow what he had done, despite his deep moral objections to the general evilness of groups like that:
KERRY: Well, who asked you to give to the SBVT?
FOX: I can't tell you specifically who did because I don't remember. As a matter of fact, if I...
KERRY: You have no recollection of why you gave away $50,000?
FOX: I gave away $50,000 because I was asked to.
KERRY: But you have no recollection of who asked you to give away $50,000?
FOX: No, sir. I've given away sums much larger than that to a lot of other places and I can't tell you specifically who asked me, no.
KERRY: Well, you don't think that it's important, as a citizen who doesn't like 527s, to know where your money is going and how it's going to be spent?
FOX: Well, I think with most contributors and, as a matter of fact, if you go to the other side of the political campaign and we give to individual candidates, we don't know they're going to use that money and how it's...
KERRY: At least it's accountable to an individual candidate for whom people have to vote or not vote. A 527, as you said, is mean and ugly and not accountable.
FOX: I agree with that. I absolutely agree with that and I...
KERRY: Well, why would you give away $50,000 to a group that you have no sense of accountability for?
FOX: Well, because if 527s were banned, then it's banned for both parties. And so long as they're not banned...
KERRY: So two wrongs make a right?
FOX: Well, I don't know, but if one side is contributing, the other side...
KERRY: Is that your judgment? Is that your judgment that you would bring to the ambassadorship, that two wrongs make a right?
The Journal cautioned that
Mr. Fox, a major donor to Republican campaigns, says he gives generously to a variety of causes, most of them philanthropic, and doesn't recall the reasoning behind his Swift Boat donation. We can assume it was to defeat Mr. Kerry, though Mr. Fox also pointed out, sensibly enough, that 527s are creatures of contemporary politics: "That's the world we live in."
What the WSJ doesn't say in its editorial is how Sam Fox was so vehemently against 527's and how he believed they should all be banned and so forth. Yet, when given a chance to explain who he could hold that view and still give money to a vile 527 group, he begged off with the 'well everybody does it excuse.' Shame on the WSJ. This guy is not worthy of being an Ambassador.