(Note: We finished our assignment early, so here's a column. But we really are going fishing tomorrow; back Monday.)



The good news is that we have succeeded in reframing the debate. The headline at the Daily Beast (née Newsweek) is a defensive denial: "There Is No War on Men: Claire McCaskill Replies to James Taranto."

The bad news is that McCaskill continues her war on Gen. Susan Helms, President Obama's nominee to serve as vice commander of the U.S. Air Force Space Command. Helms committed an "error," according to McCaskill, in granting clemency to an officer under her command.

A court-martial panel (which McCaskill calls a "jury") had convicted Capt. Matthew Herrera of aggravated sexual assault. After reviewing the case, Helms concluded that the verdict was unjust. She accepted a guilty plea to an "indecent act," as a result of which Herrera was involuntarily discharged from the service, but not stigmatized for life as a "sex offender."

Our review of the facts convinced us that Helms's decision was just and proper. McCaskill evidently disagrees, and she is entitled to her opinion. But the senior senator from Missouri seems to be under the impression that she is entitled to her own facts. She writes:

It's notable that Mr. Taranto spends little time discussing the actions of Lt. General Susan Helms--the commander in question, whose lifetime of service to the U.S. Air Force is worthy of our gratitude and appreciation. Instead, he re-litigates the facts of a case he didn't witness, comparing the recklessness of sending a text message or having a drink, to the "recklessness" involved in sexually assaulting another person.

It takes considerable chutzpah for McCaskill to fault us for "relitigating" this case. The only reason for our interest in it is that she chose to make an issue of it. "Relitigate" is the wrong word anyway. Your humble columnist is not a lawyer, and we have litigated exactly one case (as lead plaintiff) in our entire life.