Site Meter
Fritz Feds

Tuesday, April 25, 2006


Ok, first off, put aside everything else about Patrick Fitzgerald and his investigation.  

Now consider this: how professional is it (in this day and age) to grant an exclusive interview regarding a very contentious and politically charged case to a HIGH SCHOOL NEWSPAPER???


Please kind reader, if you happen to come across this comment, click the link and read the interview to which Jason refers. You will see that the CIA leak investigation is not mentioned even once by Mr. Fitzgerald. To impugn his professionalism based on this interview is the result of either (1) blatant intellectual dishonesty, or (2) a blogger who doesn't actually read the items to which he hyperlinks.

Bad post.
Failing to mention that he's an alum of that particular high school is also a nice touch.
So you're complaining about...the fact that he refused to comment? That he was one of those kids who apparently liked high school? What, exactly?
Or how about the fact that he allowed his name to be attached to a really terribly written (even by my standards) article in a high school newspaper? Who cares if it was his alma mater? I did in fact think about mentioning it, and then decided that I didn't care and it wasn't necessary, given that it's immediately apparent from the first word of the headline. Fitzgerald knows that the entire country is watching him and his case, and I'm sorry, he knew or had reason to know that this article was going to cast him as the white knight out to save the world from evil CIA exposers in the White House (a lot like Nick's blog, come to think of it...), and that it was going to end up on Drudge, and that jerks like me, who are apparently intellectually dishonest hacks, were going to direct people to it (maybe even 2 or 3 people). Nowhere in the article does it mention that his only accomplishment so far has been indicting Scooter Libby for perjury (before Fitzgerald's own grand jury). Of course, Fitzgerald isn't responsible for the actual content of the article, but given that he should have known that it would be this crap-tastic, he should have simply declined the interview.
The intellectual depth of your post and response speaks more than any anonymous response could.
The other commenters got to you before I did, but you really went off the deep end impugning Fitzgerald's professionalism here. He gave an "interview" to his old high school newspaper (you do realize that you're criticizing the writing of high schoolers, right? I mean, taking cheap shots like that is fine when the person is a professional reporter, but this is a high schooler; I challenge you to pull out an old high school paper and show me you wrote better than that) in which he talked up the virtues of public service, hopefully inspiring some of those students to follow that path. This is an absolutely ridiculous attack, probably because you didn't read the substance of the "interview" but only the introduction before posting, and you should take it back rather than defend it.

In addition, Patrick Fitzgerald has conducted himself with absolute professionalism throughout the entire investigation, there have been no leaks, and he is doing the job he was appointed to do. It's time for the right to stop looking to personally slime people who are inconvenient to them.
For the sake of clarity, I didn't say that Fitzgerald was an unprofessional PERSON, I said that he DID an unprofessional THING. I did in fact read the article, and you're all completely right, he didn't comment on the case, but I still think that it was the wrong thing to do on his part. And yes, I do realize that I'm criticizing the writing of high schoolers, and no, I don't contend that I was any better, then or now.
Why is it unprofessional? I don't think you've made a case here.
Post a Comment