I completely

understand Dimdahl’s concerns about being hauled off to court “solely for partisan effectiveness”. If that were all it takes, he’d be

serving a life-sentence. Instead, we are sentenced to his continued braying. That he admires DeLay says volumes about them both.

In this excerpt, I’ve left out most of the anti-liberal hawing after the opening ad hominem attack — talk about hewing to a script,

John! Yeah, yeah, ‘Republicans are the party of ideas’ — like teaching only creationism in the Christian Republic of America; like

letting corporations do anything they want and pay nothing for what they do (through taxes or the courts); like making the Executive a

dictator and the courts a rubberstamp. Big Ideas from the self-designated Deep Thinkers. Ego-serving bullshit.

I am intrigued by

Dimdahl noting “a wily prosecutor could indict a stone.” Wow. Sounds like the “justice” system tilts towards the prosecution. Next thing

you know, Republicans will be lauding Trial Attorneys (instead of just hiring them in droves).

Press on through Dimdahl’s dreck

to read an excerpt from Buckley. The two are master bloviators and both favor legalization of marijuana (finally, we find common ground

between the Left and the Wrong). But Buckley takes the White House smear campaign more seriously (and confesses to being a CIA alumnus).

mjh

ABQjournal: Since When Is Party Loyalty a Crime? By John Dendahl, For the Journal

Bereft of anything resembling an

idea, and spectacularly unsuccessful at demonizing their opposition with nasty rhetoric, the left has now turned to criminalizing

conservatives. …

The Libby indictment may be the most bizarre of all. …

Many lawyers have noted that a wily

prosecutor could indict a stone. … [T]his is no mission to excuse ideological allies if they have broken laws while

serving as public officials.

Conversely, if the threat of being hauled into criminal court now hangs over an officeholder

pretty much solely for partisan effectiveness, we are all in a world of hurt.

William F. Buckley on Patrick Fitzgerald’s Investigation on National Review

Online
Who Did What?
Covert questions.

The hot-blooded search for criminality in the matter of Cheney/Libby/Rove has not

truly satisfied those in search of first degree venality. …

The importance of the law against revealing the true professional

identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby

affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got

themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted. …

The great question here is Robert Novak. It was he who published, in his column, that Mrs. Joseph Wilson was a secret

agent of the CIA. I am too close a friend to pursue the matter with Novak, and his loyalty is a postulate. What was going on? If there

are mysteries in town, that surely is one of them, the role of Novak.

It is here that Buckley amazes me

the most. He’s too close to Novak, the one who knows the most, the most obvious tool of the Radical Right, too close a friend to ask

him: who told you? mjh

—–

By the way, the title given to

Dimdahl’s piece (“Since When Is Party Loyalty a Crime?”) is further evidence the Journal should fire the headline editor. When you hear

left and right gripe about Journal bias, it often starts with a headline. Maybe an article does manage some balance, but headlines

establish the tone. This one is more dismissive of matters than even Dimdahl himself. mjh