What a spectacle. We expect this from the pathetic John Tierney, the NYT’s worst op-ed columnist. But now Nicholas Kristof, the usually-sensible NY Times op-ed writer, has lowered himself to the embarrassing level of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) in launching a preemptive strike against Novak-Plame-Rove-Libby-gate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Hutchison, as you’ll recall, disgraced herself on the Sunday talk shows by trivializing the possibility of perjury or obstruction of justice indictments, on the ground that those crimes really aren’t so bad after all (for a real good laugh, check out Hutchison’s comments when Bill Clinton was the one facing perjury charges).
So now comes (sub. req’d, sorry) Kristof, casting aspersions in Fitzgerald’s direction without any basis for doing so. It’s really appalling – check this out:
In the 1990’s, we saw the harm that special prosecutors can do: they become obsessive, pouncing on the picayune, distracting from governing and frustrating justice more than serving it…. Special prosecutors always seem to morph into Inspector Javert, the Victor Hugo character whose vision of justice is both mindless and merciless. [Nick, what the hell are you talking about? Do you have ANY basis for thinking that Fitzgerald is running that kind of investigation? I think not – every responsible report of Fitzgerald, including some from the right, have described him as entirely apolitical and as someone who would not be afraid to shut down a two-year investigation with no indictments if that’s what he thought the evidence called for.]
we should be uneasy that he is said to be mulling indictments that aren’t based on his prime mandate, investigation of possible breaches of the 1982 law prohibiting officials from revealing the names of spies. Instead, Mr. Fitzgerald is rumored to be considering mushier kinds of indictments, for perjury, obstruction of justice or revealing classified information. [First, as anyone who has been paying attention should know by now, Fitzgerald’s "prime mandate" was NOT limited to the 1982 law – this is one of the Bush apologists’ favorite talking points, but it’s simply false. Second, why should we be uneasy? If laws were broken, they were broken, and Fitzgerald’s job is to figure out whether that happened. As noted above, he is trusted by just about everyone to do that job properly. This is Sen. Hutchison territory, and it’s as embarrassing for Kristof as it was for her.]
The leak of Mrs. Wilson’s identity resulted from that offensive, but it may well have been negligence rather than vengeance. [Then again, it "may well" not have been. What earthly basis do you have to say this, Nick?]
I question whether the White House knew that she was a noc (nonofficial cover), and I wonder whether some official spread the word of Mrs. Wilson’s work at the C.I.A. to make her husband’s trip look like a nepotistic junket. [Ah. YOU question. YOU wonder. But of course, YOU haven’t seen the evidence that Fitzgerald has seen. So how about YOU shut up and wait until he reveals what he’s got? Furthermore, let’s assume that Cheney et al. knew that Plame worked at the CIA, but didn’t know that she was a "noc." Wouldn’t it have been prudent of them to check into that before they started leaking her name to Bob Novak, just in case she actually was covert? Is that so much to ask?]
Absent very clear evidence of law-breaking, the White House ideologues should be ousted by voters, not by prosecutors. [What kind of stupid standard is this supposed to be? If there’s evidence that they committed a crime, they should be indicted for it, and if the jury finds them guilty, they should be punished. That’s how our system works. No one gets a free pass on committing crimes just because they happen to work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If anything, I’d think we should hold our public servants to a higher standard, not a lower one, especially where – as here – national security is involved.]
Why is Kristof suddenly trying to disparage Fitzgerald’s investigation? Oh yeah – because he was involved in the whole nasty affair. Tangentially, perhaps, but he was part of it. And it’s human nature not to want things in which you were involved to reek of corruption and wrongdoing. So we can understand Kristof’s concern about his good name being dragged into the incestuous morass of press and administration sources whispering to each other in this business. But he should know better than to express his concern by questioning the integrity of a prosecutor whose integrity, by all accounts, is not open to question.
I nearly blew up reading Kristol’s editorial today! Tierney’s was just as bad. I think it is sad all of these journalists on taking the approach that a leak is inevitable and unless someone basically DIED because of the leak, who cares? Do these people care at all about national security? It is really scary. I made similar observations here to another article along these lines in Sunday’s NYT.
I don’t think these sort of tactics will be successful. Many Americans do have short-term memory problems, but if there’s one thing they’ll remember it’s Bill Clinton. The hypocrisy will be obvious even to people who don’t read or watch the news.And this “criminalizing politics” catch phrase? Well, that one’s certainly not going to catch on, either. Most people don’t like “politics” to begin with.