My humble apologies.

jpe -- I defy you to find any instance in the almost four years I have been blogging where I have claimed that Bill Clinton had anyone whacked or otherwise physically asaaulted. Better yet, take your medications and spend some time in a remedial reading and comprehension course.

Now if you will excuse me I have to go and decide whether I shall have the 36 Invisibles, the Rosicrucians, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Gnomes of Zurich, the Knights Templar, the Bilderberg Group, Skull & Bones, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Priory of Sion, the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Crosss, or some other crypto-Kaballistic cabal stop by and teach you some manners. You can have the Freemasons, they're just a bunch of wannabees. Oh, no wait, I have it -- I'll sic the VWRC on you. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Now, in the immortal words of Rik Mayall, "have you had enough you Nazi, or do you want so more?"

And I hear that anonymous blogging makes your penis smaller too.

Fitzgerald stopped short of calling Valerie Wilson "covert," but said her employment was classified and not known outside the government. He tried to find out WHY her employment was revealead - what was the motive and how did it happen? Scooter's lies made it impossible for him to find out.

The starting point for Fitzgerald's narrative is Bush's State of the Union speech, the 16 words, Wilson's challenge. There is reason for that.

It is rather interesting to see the spin, though.

Yeah, he had people whacked. Right, ya fuckin nutjob? The freemasons were in there somewhere, too.

It is true though, that immediately following Mr. Fitzgerald's press conference "spinners" appeared who were willing (by sloppy thinking, or malice of forethought) to "extend" what he said into something else.

I take him on face value, that perjury (etc.) in an investigation of a national security issue, by top members of the Administration, is a very serious issue.

Pray tell what the analogue in the Clinton case was.

However...

You seem to forget that there were years of investigations. The perjury came dead last. So, in essence, there wasn't any crime throughout the entire investigation up until the very end.

Contrast this with the case before us today. There was a crime, and Libby obstructed justice in addition to perjuring himself. As Fitz said, Plame's covert status was outed. The obstruction of justice charges point out the fact that Libby threw "sand" in the umpire's eyes (as Fitz puts it).

So, to sum up, Clinton was hounded for years on no charges. Libby committed a crime, obstructed justice and lied about it then Fitz spent 2 years getting things pinned down.

Big difference. Lie first, investigation later. In the case of Clinton, pointless investigation first, lie last.

Oh, and Fitz isn't done yet. I'm sure we're just seeing the first act here.

Feel free to search Drum's archives yourself. Kevin has himself made the case that Clinton was hounded by the Republicans and that it was far worse than anything the Democrats have done with regards to Bush.

In short, where Verdon gets it wrong is that Democrats weren’t forgiving of Clinton’s perjury – in fact, it’s what finally did him in for the vast majority of his supporters. Democrats were incensed at him being put in the position where he would lie, but we do not excuse the lie.

Your partisan blinders are quite obvious here. Couldn't Republicans argue just as effectively that they are incensed that Libby has put in a position where he would lie?

And finally, I suggest you try a remedial reading course or something. I didn't say Drum was rabid. In fact, I said he was one of the more reasonable bloggers on the Left. As far as the rabid comment went it was in regards to a group--since your reading comprehension is lacking I'll spell out the group: D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S. Confusing a description for a group in general with every member of the group is ridiculous.

So, what's your point? My point is that democrats never trivialized perjury. Your point is?

1) Lying under oath - always bad

I can't think of any democrat making the argument that Clinton lying under oath wasn't wrong and against the law.

2) Lying about consensual sex

While wrong and against the law, isn't a horrible thing. The American people, as well as the democrats, seemed to come to the conclusion that - while wrong and against the law - didn't rise to the level of impeachment.

3) Criminal vs. Civil

I'm not sure how this really plays. Lying to a civil court seems just as bad as lying to a criminal court.

In short, where Verdon gets it wrong is that Democrats weren't forgiving of Clinton's perjury - in fact, it's what finally did him in for the vast majority of his supporters. Democrats were incensed at him being put in the position where he would lie, but we do not excuse the lie. Please, Steve, if you're going to continue to make this assertion, please at least supply some patina of evidence that Democrats were doing this. Surely there must be a quote or two you can dig up, right? If not, please stop pushing the meme. Okay?

The hypocrisy is still there. E.g. Treatment of Phillip Agee and Joe wilson vs. treatment of Libby. Treatment of Bill Clinton vs. Clarence Thomas (who didn't even get any action!)