Saturday, October 08, 2005


The Wall Street Journal gets Letters

The Opinion Journal did yet another hit piece on the Clintons. This time, it breathlessly reports, "Mr. [David] Kendall--who as far as anyone knows represents not Mr. Cisneros but Mrs. Clinton--has been among those spotted at the courthouse reviewing the IC's report..." Read it and know what barking insanity looks like This is what I wrote to The Journal: The following may be published only as is, without alteration. The editors of the Wall Street Journal should include a disclaimer at the top of the page saying that the contents are intended only to line birdcages. Investors understand that news has value only to the extent it helps to predict the future. I urge readers to go back and read the OpEds the editors published during the Clinton years. Virtually none of their breathless predictions or scurrilous insinuations were accurate. The Journal and its editors are worthless. If The Journal's editors were real conservatives, they would be concerned about an unaccountable "independent" counsel with virtually unlimited powers invading individual privacy, and they would have long ago recanted their attachment to the Clinton "scandals." The accusations against Cisneros came a cropper and were an embarrassment to anyone who cares about the courts. But the editors are intellectual and moral prostitutes, selling the power of their pen for partisan purposes. As Vince Foster so accurately said, they lie without shame. The sad thing is that there were plenty of legitimate, genuinely conservative reasons to criticize the Clintons. In its blind pursuit of politics over principle, The Journal discovered none of them. We need a healthy conservative movement, not the sort of nihilistic crackpots who would make the claim that the Bush Justice Department is attempting to suppress a report attacking the Clintons, even while dishonestly refusing to mention that Cisneros pleaded guilty in 1999 to the misdemeanor of making a false statement to the FBI, rather than the bucket of felonies Barrett attempted to charge him with. Lawrence Walsh, who faced real obstruction of justice and had to unravel a massive conspiracy, took 5 1/2 years. Real conservatives would say 11 years of investigations is at least eight too many. The courts will be busy, but not with Barrett's theories on Martian canals. They will, I predict, be putting Tom DeLay and a number of White House staffers in very real prisons for very real crimes. Anyone who bets on Barrett or anything else The Opinion Journal says deserves to lose his or her money. It is just that vacant of thought or moral responsibility.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder