Yesterday, Power Line noted:
Chief Justice John Roberts, in my view the most extravagantly qualified Supreme Court nominee in my lifetime, had a “benign idiopathic seizure” today. He’s fine, but might be placed on anti-seizure medication since he also had one in 1993. This is how the prominent liberal web site Wonkette covered the news:
Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed.
A lot of them did, too.
The day before, Power Line noted:
Gonzales testified that he had visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to resolve a legal dispute that had developed over an intelligence program, but that the program in question was not the “terrorist surveillance program” that had been confirmed by President Bush, i.e., the interception of international communications where one participant is associated with al Qaeda. About that program, Gonzales said there had been no serious legal question.
This testimony was met with incredulity by the Senators. “Do you expect us to believe that?” Arlen Spector asked. Committee members Schumer and Leahy flatly accused Gonzales of lying, and called for a special prosecutor to carry out a perjury investigation. One thing I could never understand was why anyone cares: what difference would it make if Gonzales’s hospital visit related to the “terrorist surveillance program,” or to some other intelligence activity? And what reason would Gonzales have to lie about that fact?
Today the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA’s “data mining” project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells
It gets better.
What’s comical about the Times’ reporting is that the paper can’t bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated:
If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.
First, this paragraph of “analysis” is contradicted by the reporting contained in the same article, which doesn’t say that the dispute was “chiefly” about data mining. It says it was about data mining, period. Further, there is nothing “narrowly crafted,” “legalistic” or “technically correct” about Gonzales’s testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish.
The Senators who accused Gonzales of perjury are proved to be grandstanding fools who need to reign in their hubris and apologize. So too does the New York Times.
It all leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Politics has always been a contact sport. When did the rough-and-tumble lead newspapers to lie and mislead in blatant disregard for the truth, pundits to cross their fingers that those who disagreed with them would die suddenly, and Senators to throw baseless accusations and cries for unconstitutional special prosecutors for criminal behavior around like confetti at a welcome back hero parade?
And why don’t we ever see any of those? Do the left, who rule bureaucratic New York City and the other big cities, really support the troops when they return from theatre?
You know the answer. They don’t. They are haters.