Ready to get loaded on loaded language? Don't worry; I'll drop you off in front of the hospital if you overdose. Just don't name any names.

Here, then, is a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject of how mean Henry Waxman is:

Howard Krongard worked his last day at the State Department recently, having learned a hard lesson in the ways of modern Congressional "oversight." To wit, if you don't follow Henry Waxman's orders, he'll try to ruin you.

Man, that's pretty serious. And you can tell that the "oversight" in question isn't really "oversight" at all, because the WSJ puts it in quotation marks. It's all like, "Oversight? NOT! Amirite? Who's with me here?"

Comfortable after four successful decades in private life, Mr. Krongard thought he'd do a turn in public service by taking a job in 2005 as State's Inspector General, a supposedly "independent" role.

"Independent? More like 'sin-dependent'!" What? You think you can do better? No, go ahead. Don't let me stop you.

In July, Mr. Krongard testified before Mr. Waxman's House oversight committee about a non-scandal involving allegedly poor treatment of foreign workers at the construction site of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Lol @ unexplained use of term "non-scandal."

Mr. Krongard said he had inspected and found no evidence of human trafficking or human-rights violations. That's not what Mr. Waxman wanted to hear.

This appears to be broken. Let me just fix it:

Mr. Krongard said he had inspected and found no evidence of human trafficking or human-rights violations. That's not what Mr. Waxman wanted to hear. Mr. Waxman didn't just cancel the hearings right there on the strength of one guy's testimony, but instead decided that further investigation might be warranted without having consulted the WSJ editorial board before doing so.

There, that's better.

Mr. Krongard soon found a bull's-eye on his back. As if on cue, "whistleblowers" emerged to accuse him of being too cozy with top State officials, failing to pick up counterfeit computers in Afghanistan, and even of being a high-handed boss.

I'm going to skip out on the snark for just a second here and say this: if the WSJ editorial board believes that Waxman put the whistleblowers up to it - and thus violating several laws - its membership ought to come out and say so outright and, perhaps, provide some sort of evidence.

The principal complainers were not under oath, nor did they offer much evidence.

Speaking of which, do you remember all of those times that the Bush Administration has refused to make its officials available to various Congressional hearings if those officials were required to speak under oath or even in public sessions? What? No, I'm not trying to make a point. I just want to get to know you a little bit better. What I'm saying is that I'm kind of attracted to you, the Reader. Damn, I'm not very good at this. Let's just be friends. Forget I said anything. So... you want to see a movie later? As friends? God, I'm so stupid...

Mr. Waxman also made much of the fact that Mr. Krongard has a brother who served on a Blackwater advisory board. But Mr. Krongard immediately recused himself on learning of his brother's Blackwater tie.

That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be that Krongard told the committee outright that he had asked his brother whether or not he was involved with Blackwater and that his brother had said no, and then, when the committee produced a letter indicating otherwise, he came back and said that he'd just called his brother and that his brother had told him otherwise. Oh, and also, his brother told the committee that he'd told Krongard aout being involved with Blackwater months before. I imagine that the WSJ left this out due to space constraints.

Mr. Krongard's mistake was telling the truth.