The Other WSJ Editorial

The lead editorial in the Journal today will get most of the attention, as it relates to the Libby verdict, and in which it predictably calls for a swift pardon, and reiterates the editor's longstanding belief that the case itself should have never seen the light of day. For my money, though, the more egregious (but not by much) editorial is the second, which reaches their typical lows in journalistic truthfulness by recapping the exchange that took place between John Kerry and Sam Fox, the Bush administration's choice to become ambassador of Belgium. If you read the Journal's piece, you'd think that Kerry launched into a spiteful harangue against Fox simply because he wrote a check for 50K to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the last election cycle. What's lost, of course, is the truth.

Kerry's question, quite appropriately directed at Fox's overall judgement, pertained to the 527 contribution that Fox made, with particular emphasis on the fact that Fox had just completed a long winded dissertation on the evils of 527s, culminating in this quote:

" I'm against 527s, I've always been against 527s. I think, again, they're mean and destructive, I think they've hurt a lot of good, decent people."

By leaving out this, the Journal conveniently leaves the impression that Kerry's questioning was from out of left field, and was vituperative and small. The reality, of course, was quite different.

Look, Sam Fox is a 77 year old hack who has contributed skads of money to the Bush administration and is being rewarded with an ambassadorship. That much is business as usual. The Journal's editorial, however, is another matter altogether.