Wall Street Journal pushes the limits of self parody

July 13, 2005

Because I find the outrageousness of the Plame scandal so obvious, I’m fascinated by conservative defenses that have been launched in Karl Rove’s defense. Most of the arguments include some combination of misstatement of facts, trivia, and ad hominem attacks on Joseph Wilson.

But for the real entertainment, one has to consider today’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The newspaper’s editors defend Rove as — get this — a “whistleblower.”

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove’s head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we’d say the White House political guru deserves a prize — perhaps the next iteration of the “Truth-Telling” award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real “whistleblower” in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He’s the one who warned Time’s Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson’s credibility. He’s the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn’t a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Is there any truth in any one of these sentences? There was no CIA “nepotism,” Rove lied about Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee never exposed Wilson as a fraud, Wilson never claimed that Cheney recommended him for the Niger mission, the list goes on.

It’s easy to expect such silliness from the WSJ editorial page, but if this is indicative of what the right has come up with in Rove’s defense, I think it’s safe to say Rove is still in a world of trouble.

Analogy test for “the magicians” at the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page: Is making a unprincipled political operative (and former Nixon “dirty trickster”) into a “whistleblower” the same as turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse? Compare and contrast in 100 words or less.

  • Now that the GOP talking points are known and everyone in the VRWC is in step, I’m wondering, how are they so sure? Don’t they realize how they’ll look if Rove (and mabe even others) is indicted and convicted? Do they care? Will they pull a Emily Litella (never mind)? How will they spin it then and how will they try to keep the collaterial damage to a minimum? Maybe they all believe their own spin that this is a “psuedoscandal”. This could all come down right before the next election, ya know.

  • The WSJ is spin, nothing more. They can spin all they want, but the defining moment will be when Fitzgerald comes out with whatever charges he has against whoever. Nobody knows the whole truth, yet. The WSJ is trying to get ahead of the game and poison people’s mind now, before any charges are made. However, we in Illinois have had experience with Fitzgerald and he is above reproach – he doesn’t play politics.

  • I don’t understand how the WSJ editors can be considered anything but super partisan with that doozy. If someone can say that is their unbiased opinion, I’ll show you someone who’ll push their mother down the stairs with hopes of getting the inheritance of $100. They are discussing limit the speech rights of bloggers while newspapers get exemptions because they’re non-partisan? A pox upon their house.

  • If Rove gets indicted, they’ll switch to the activist judges/overzealous prosecutor line we’ve seen in Limbaugh’s and Tom Delay’s legal troubles. Might actually be helpful to rile up the Base about it going into the Supreme Court battle.

  • The WSJ editorial is frightening. Over the top.
    Positively 1984ish. Winston Smith could not have
    done a better job rewriting and twisting history.

    What’s so disturbing is that apparently the
    Republicans care nothing at all about the facts,
    about the truth, about right and wrong, but
    only about winning.

    This is far beyond spin. What kind of country
    have we become – roughly half the people
    believe these lies and fabrications. There
    can be no rational meeting ground when the
    Republicans are willing to sink to these
    depths.

  • The Onion should sue The WSJ for ripping off their basic concept of laying out pure fresh bullshit and then masking it’s fragrance by imbuing it with a veneer of gravitas and authenticity.

    This is like some cosmic Candid Camera.

    Coming up Thursday night at 9:00. RepubCo will throw out __________ steaming pile’s of crap and we’ll get to watch the reactions of normal Americans as they examine and evaluate said crap for signs of veracity. You, the viewing audience will die laughing when you see the expressions of confusion and disbelief on the American’s faces.

    We’re part of a reality program that the rest of the world watches on Murdoch’s Sky TV. F’n Monkey Island.

  • Excuse me, I should have said The Onion should sue The WSJ not just for ripping them off but for doing it without a whiff of humor or humility. Sorry.

  • “It’s easy to expect such silliness from the WSJ editorial page, but if this is indicative of what the right has come up with in Rove’s defense, I think it’s safe to say Rove is still in a world of trouble.”

    And if you think that’s bad, look at the congressional point team tasked with defending his honor: John Cornyn (R-Asshat), Norm Coleman (R-Dumber ‘n’ a bag of hammers), and Peter King (R-Batshitlooney). What, no Dick Lugar, Pat Roberts, or Pete Hoekstra? Are they all washing their hair that night or something?

    He needs Perry Mason, Johnny Cochran, and F. Lee Bailey and instead he gets the three stooges. You’re gonna look good in orange, Karl.

    • Comments are closed.