Too stupid by half

Yesterday we noted a preferred editorial technique of the Wall Street Journal editorial page -- the use of insinuation to thinly disguise their contempt for those who will not join the personality cult around Dubya. There's no need to say "tell us what you really think" when the true feelings are so obvious. But here's a case where the contempt was expressed in internal e-mail, accidentally sent to one of those infidels who questioned Dubya's competence in the War on Terrorism. It turns out that one of the "Jersey Girl" 9-11 widows submitted a substantive response to a piece written by enraged Dubya groupie Dorothy Rabinowitz, which as much as said 9-11 Bereaved = Democrats. Rabinowitz was e-mailing with one of the editorial hacks about whether to publish it -- but accidentally sent the e-mail to the 9-11 widow as well. Amongst the highlights or views about Kristin Breitweiser's submission:

total and complete - not to mention repetitive - nonsense from people given endless media access to repeat the very same stupid charges, suspicions, and the rest...but this is just an opportunity for these absurd products of the zeitgeist - women clearly in the grip of the delusion that they know something, have some policy, and wisdom not given to the rest of us to know - to grab the spotlight. again. and repeat, again, the same tripe before a national audience...My thoughts - we don't publish nonsensical contentions that offer no news, no insight - solely on the grounds that those who feel attacked get a chance to defend their views...

Take any day's WSJ editorial page (e.g. this one) and in light of her claim that we don't publish nonsensical contentions that offer no news, no insight, you'll conclude that it depends on the meaning of publish.

UPDATE: Predictably, this revealing blunder is the subject of much blogging. Here's TAPped. And Sullywatch.