If the Washington Post wants to survive five years, it needs to fire Fred Hiatt and the rest of its editorial board today.
Jonathan Chait is on the case:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=91324: The Washington Post editorializes today on the prosecutor scandal. It turns out, as with most issues, that the blame here can be apportioned between the two parties in precisely equal measures. Funny how that keeps happening. The key part of the Post's Solomonic compromise is explained in this passage:
If questions remain, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should be interviewed. They don't have to testify under oath, since lying to Congress is a crime.
I don't don't which is funnier: the Post's casual, unstated assumption that Miers and Rove will lie, or its casual, unstated assumption that this is perfectly OK. I look forward to the Post applying this logic to other areas of our legal system. ("Mr. Escobar's runners should not be searched for drugs at the airport, since importing cocaine into the United States is a crime.") Hey, I have a suggestion: What if they just don't lie? Furthermore, maybe, just maybe, the possibility that they could be prosecuted if they do lie--i.e., perjury--would help ensure that they don't lie. Perhaps this would work even better than the honor system...