A reader writes:
You're falling down on the Lewis Libby conviction. The reaction from the right to Libby's conviction is like something from the Colbert Report. From the bizarre ranting of Ann Coulter to the demand for an immediate pardon, it's unseemly. At least the actual readers of the WSJ (which, I suspect, is on the whole a fairly conservative bunch) are somewhat grounded in reality. From a letter today:
"Let's get this straight. A jury of 11 people unanimously agrees, in a trial no serious observer suggests was unfair, that Mr. Libby lied to a grand jury under oath. How in the world does this mean the prosecutor criminalized a policy difference?"
Indeed. Curiously, proving that they are not serious observers of anything, the WSJ (which often rails against "junk science" and fake experts when it suits their purposes) today prints an op-ed that concludes the trial was fatally unfair because (get this) the judge refused to allow the defense to trot out a "memory expert." This guy, we're told, would have explained to the jury that contrary to their own experience and the experience of human beings over the last, oh, five thousand years or so, they have it all wrong and that the way memory somehow really works is "diametrically opposed to the popular understanding of how memory and the mind work." Really? I mean, come on: you do have to laugh at the straws that are being grasped at, don't you?
To date, I have not seen a single conservative commentator acknowledge that perhaps, just perhaps, Scooter should have told the damn truth when he raised his hand and swore to do so and that only he is to blame to choosing not to.
Well: O'Reilly did. And Buchanan. The Irish get it.