It seems that the NY Times, which was screaming in outrage that the source of the Plame leak be tracked down and prosecuted, was today officially hoist on its own petard. The Times has now sued John Ashcroft (who else) to prevent him from obtaining phone company records of phone calls between reporters and confidential sources. Ashcroft is recused and has little say in the conduct of the Plame investigation, so this is the NY Times waving the “I’m a Sanctimonious Journalist Flag” before capitulating amid much self-congratulation for its brave resistance in the face of the eeeevill Ashcroft.
There is some satisfaction in this for me after witnessing the steady drumbeat, led by the Times and Josh Marshall and Kos and Terry MacAuliffe. It is poetic justice, and teaches that the best way to respond to the left, is often to stick them with exactly what they are asking for. So how should we respond to the Times, which was so adamant that this matter be investigated out to the last iota, even if it meant bringing down the president himself?
Wait a minute. I’m getting an idea about how we, and the court, should respond to the Times, and their claim of journalistic privilege. I’m thinking about the words of a famous philosopher who knew just what to say in this kind of situation: