Singing the News Blues

"Here's the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002."

Hey -- that was sneaky!

The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen says Fitzgerald is overreachint;

"It's important for journalists (including me) who vigorously opposed the Kenneth Starr investigation to state the obvious: The Fitzgerald indictments are an embarrassing confirmation of the old Washington rule that, when special prosecutors can't prove a crime, they indict the target for obstructing the investigation. Far from being typical behavior, indicting suspects for nothing more than false statements or perjury is a vice largely restricted to special prosecutors and independent counsels. And, although Libby's alleged lies to protect his boss may appear more serious than Bill Clinton's self-interested lies about sex, neither Clinton nor Libby prevented the special prosecutor from proving an underlying crime.

"In fact, there's strong reason to conclude that no underlying crime was committed. Unlike the Starr investigation, moreover, the Fitzgerald investigation represents a disaster for the First Amendment and may do long-lasting damage to political discourse in Washington . . .

"Just as Democrats were right to denounce Starr for criminalizing insignificant and immaterial lies, Republicans are right to denounce Fitzgerald for the criminalization of political differences. It's been clear from the beginning that Libby, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney were trying to discredit a critic of the administration, not trying to disclose the identity of a covert agent."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page sees a very different downside to the Fitzgerald probe:

"Apart from Scooter Libby, the biggest loser by far in the Patrick Fitzgerald probe has been the press. The 'leak' investigation that every liberal editorial board demanded has already sent one reporter to jail, and the damage is only going to get worse.

"Thanks to the disastrous New York Times legal strategy, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a major blow to a reporter's ability to protect his sources. Prosecutors everywhere will now be more inclined to call reporters to testify, under threat of prison time. And if Mr. Libby's case goes to trial, at least three reporters will be called as witnesses for the prosecution. Just wait until defense counsel starts examining their memories and reporting habits, not to mention the dominant political leanings in the newsrooms of NBC, Time magazine and the New York Times. 'Meet the Press,' indeed.

"Rather than join this parade of masochism, we thought we'd try to speed things along, as well as end one of the remaining mysteries in the probe. That's why Dow Jones & Co., this newspaper's parent company, filed a motion late Wednesday requesting that the federal district court unseal eight pages of redacted information that Mr. Fitzgerald used to justify throwing Judith Miller of the New York Times in the slammer.

"The pages were part of Judge David Tatel's concurring opinion in the ruling against Ms. Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Judge Tatel said the eight pages showed that, with his 'voluminous classified filings,' Mr. Fitzgerald had 'met his burden of demonstrating that the information [sought from the reporters] is both critical and unobtainable from any other source.' . . .

"Rest assured that Ms. Miller's evocative self-description, 'Miss Run Amok,' will surface on cross-examination."

Um, I'm still not clear on how getting this material will spare Miss R.A. and others further embarrassment.

John Hinderaker question the Dems' strategy at Power Lint;

"The Democrats appear to be putting all their eggs in the pre-war intelligence basket, but why? Certainly not because they actually believe it's a legitimate issue. Several investigations have already concluded that the Bush administration didn't manipulate pre-war intelligence, and the Democrats, from Bill Clinton on, made all the same claims about Saddam's weapons, etc., that the Bush administration did. Moreover, the whole idea that the administration would use Iraq's WMDs as a 'pretext' for war is stupid. If the administration knew Saddam didn't have the weapons, then it also knew its "pretext" would be exposed as soon as the invasion was complete.

"No one would be dumb enough to go to war on the basis of a claim that was not only wrong, but would quickly be shown to be wrong. So the Democrats aren't acting in good faith, they're playing politics."

And the GOP using the war in the last election wasn't politics?