Opinionjournal.com had a piece today on why they think Fitz is out of control:

[dave123williams]

It's hilariously entitled "Scooter Libby and Reputation
Prosecutions that wreak ruin on a lifetime."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110009696

So, I had to respond:

Oh; I've been waiting weeks for some mention of the Kerfluffle!

You guys are really funny. Oh how I've loved your endless polemics on the importance of the rule of law, only to see you throw your values in the wastecan the moment it becomes politically expedient to do so.

I just want to make sure that I've got this straight; when Clinton wiggled around the truth about his extramarital activities under oath, and you moved to impeach, that was your idea of justice.

But when, in addition to Armitage as the trial so wonderfully proved this week, there was a phalanx of administration enforcers busily outing a non-official cover operative of the CIA (one who happened to work within a spy network specializing in WMD proliferation) for nothing more than political payback and momentary distraction from the criminal stank eminating from the OVP, well, prosecuting a guy who inarguably lied to Federal investigators, to Federal Prosecutors, a Federal Grand Jury and now the Federal Bench, is somehow a travesty of justice?

Is that about it? Is that really your point?

It's clear that your loyalty is not to the Nation, but rather to your political betters.

How else to explain a column laden of such fatuous justifications for criminality?

Clearly, the only conclusion one can draw is that the editors of the Opinionjournal support treachery to this Nation if it advances their agenda.

It's also clear that they could care less about the people who put their lives on the line to serve, so long as betraying them serves their own myopic ideological purposes.

[poverlay]

1. I say to you sir: Well PLAYED! Yes, well played... n/t

[Efilroft Sul]

2. Layeth the smack down!

I hope that swift kick jams Gigot's nutsack in his throat and he chokes on it.

[yellerpup]

3. Ooooh, I bet that felt good.

Do it again, Dave123. :spank: :spank: :spank:

[emulatorloo]

4. The Wingnuttery of the WSJ Opinion page is best used for bird cage liner

excellent letter :patriot:

[Gregorian]

5. They don't give frequent flier miles for rendition flights, you know!

And the tickets are all one-way.

So pack your bags!


PS- Thank you. It's good to know you're on the side of sanity and justice. I was getting ready to let them have the whole mess. Just give it up and walk away. But you've renewed a sense of strength and companionship. It's hard to live amongst the idiots.

[ThomCat]

6. Well said. But destined to be deleted without being read.

x(

Agenda is everything over there.

[autorank]

7. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/.t

[Straight Shooter]

8. They should call it the Stenography Journal.

Excellent letter. I wonder if their screen started smoking from their eyes burning holes in your letter. :7

[hvn_nbr_2]

9. If hypocrisy were gold, they'd be gazillionaires. nt

[Patiod]

10. What sucks is that it's required reading

for most of my friends in business. I have otherwise-Democratic, liberal-leaning friends who pop out with the oddest opinions, and when challenged, they inevitably cite the Journal.

F#cking hypocrites - ready to lynch Bill Clinton, 100% behind GHWB when he called for severe measures for those who out spies, and yet carrying on like schoolchildren when it turns back on them.

CNBC is just as bad - it's on in the gym all the time. Makes me sick to see the fascists on there raving about "violating a company's First Amendment rights" as if the founders of this country were concerned about CORPORATIONS when they penned the Constitution and bill of rights.

[dave123williams]

11. I've noticed that, too.

Companies are not people; they resemble *some* people insofar as they have no other meaning than to serve their own interests.

Companies cannot be drafted, they cannot vote, and they do not serve. They are *not* citizens, and therefore have no first ammendment rights.

My greatest regret in life is having had a hand in building the afforementioned opionjournal. It was, and remains, the last time I *ever* did something just because the money was good.

[myrna minx]

12. Excellent rebuttal to that drivel.

K&R.

[NoSheep]

13. Nice job!!!

[AtomicKitten]

14. your self-control in your response is remarkable

I don't think I could have actually formulated words after reading that tripe.

[wetcanvas]

15. Oh...not good...

Being an old boot, and hanging with a cadre a lawyers, (I'm not one) they think Fitz blew it, and with it his political future.

It is one thing to go hunting, but when you hunt the president you better have both guns loaded. His charge doesn't have to do with Libby leaking, but lying. That is hard to prove, and the defense had one journalist after another have to admit to their bad memory. Howie Kurtz even came out and said...a bad day for jounalists.

The lawyer cadre didn't even bet on this one...they believe Libby will walk on all 5 counts, even in DC.

Only time will tell.

[AtomicKitten]

16. The law regarding the actual outing of Plame is so convoluted

... as written, Fitz couldn't get any traction. Still I admire him for his tenacity in pursuing what is clearly some of the biggest cheese that has hit D.C. Hard to imagine Libby walking, but you have raised some legitimate points that lend credence to concern.

"old boot" - nice
welcome to DU!

[dave123williams]

19. Actually, it's pretty clear...

You have to have known she was covert specifically, not just that she had worked at the CIA. Now, that's pretty hard to prove, the knowing she was actually covert part (and, by the way, she WAS).

But, it's res ipsa loquitor; it looks like they didn't give a shit who they outed, just so long as they hurt Wilson. It looked like a vendetta, and it was.

Now, it's up to the prosecutors as to what criminality they'll go after, not the lame-ass editorial hacks over at the opinionjournal, thank God.

[AtomicKitten]

20. the law makes proving the crime very, very difficult

It was written in a convoluted fashion it would seem purposefully; it's hard to believe lawmakers would be that obtuse, but then again it was co-written by Victoria Toensing so perhaps that's not a stretch to imagine.

[Kosmo]

17. How dare you Fitz.

How dare you do your job. So the Journal thinks it is ok to lie to a federal prosecutor, well only if your a repulic party member.

[redacted]

18. The WSJ editorial page is CONSTANTLY out of control

Once again it sure looks like they're using their own projection, a psychological defense mechanism, as a form of political mud slinging. What a shame a pretty good newspaper has such wackos running their editorial pages.

[wetcanvas]

21. the case isn't about Libby outing Plame...

Armitage did that...and Plame wasn't covert. It's about Fitz thinking Libby lied...hugely different ball of wax. If they should be after anyone's balls it should be Armitage's, especially since such a big stink had been made about Plame being outed. But how can you nail someone who outed a former covert agent? It if mattered they would have or should have gone after Armitage the second they found out it was he who leaked, just to cover any political tracks. They didn't and that seems like a novice error.

Should Libby skate, which the Cadre of Lawyers think is most likely, this could be a political liability in the other direction...a boomerang. Sitting with the boys after hitting the links, they think the decision taking so long is not a good sign.

You don't think Libby's walking (should he do so) won't come with a storm of finger pointing, witch hunt and accustations Fitz was using the court as a political weapon?

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. very impressive Mr. Williams!

The last line was da-bomb!