Perhaps it's just exhaustion. Writing and talking about the same white collar pardon for four, going on five, straight weeks would test any journalist's mettle. Especially since everyone is in heated agreement; the Rich pardon was a mistake. At least the last time there was wall-to-wall political news coverage, like during the Florida recount and impeachment proceedings, two sides were squared off against one another. Instead, the media's national dialogue quickly morphed into an echo chamber.

Maybe that's why perspective has often been in short supply. This week, MSNBC host Chris Matthews wondered out loud (does he wonder any other way?) why former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had not stepped forward and "given a speech" about his role in lobbying for the Rich pardon. Perhaps Barak has been otherwise occupied, having just been voted out of office and contemplating whether to accept a Cabinet position in the new coalition government that is facing escalating Middle East terrorism. Maybe that's why Barak hasn't "given a speech" about the Rich pardon.

For syndicated columnist Steve Roberts, the pardon episode simply reaffirmed old suspicions about Clinton. "I think that this is one more example of Bill Clinton saying, 'I'm not responsible for my actions,'" he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. The timing of Roberts' comment was curious, considering that very same day Clinton's op-ed piece addressing the pardon controversy appeared in the New York Times. It read in part, "I made [the decision] on the merits as I saw them, and I take full responsibility for it."

Maybe the feeding frenzy is the reason why Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly calls Clinton a liar for not disclosing that two tax attorneys who reviewed Rich's case were also paid by Rich. According to Kelly, when someone fails to disclose a fact, any fact he deems worthy, they're guilty of a "contextual" lie.

Maybe that's why journalist James Stewart, who wrote a book on Whitewater, floated a what-if thesis in the Wall Street Journal op-ed page that Hillary played a crucial role in the Rich pardon. Stewart's proof? He has none. Although at one point he speculates about a possible fundraising quid pro quo between Hillary and Denise Rich. Stewart's proof? He has none. (And he wonders why Whitewater was never solved?)

Maybe that's why journalists have portrayed Clinton's going around the Rich prosecutors as such a novelty. According to Blitzer, "One of the things that has outraged a lot of people was the way President Clinton went about this pardon of Marc Rich was the fact that he really only heard from one side of the case."

Perhaps journalists ought to get in touch with Jim Brosnahan. In 1992 he was hired to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger for crimes connected to Iran-Contra. Two weeks before Brosnahan was set to begin Weinberger's trial, President Bush pardoned Weinberger. "I heard about the pardon on the news," Brosnahan tells Salon. "They had meetings with defense lawyers in Weinberger's case, but at no time did President Bush or his counsel, Boyden Gray, consult with me about whether this was suitable for a pardon, or not suitable."

Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers.