What this piece needs is a good list of what these upright and principled people and newspapers have to say about perjury when it applies to someone else; someone say like Bill Clinton.

Mary Matalin (Crossfire 4/14/2000): We have a justice system. If the president has broken the law, he should be indicted for it and then let him go to a jury of his peers to say whether or not he's prosecuted...

Because the president was in a position to obstruct justice, lose files, delay, who knows what was in the e-mail, all of that, he was able, has been so far, able to get off. But don't say there was nothing there...

Fred Barnes – "[I]t's going to be hard not to impeach the president for perjury." [Fox, 10/2/98]

Rush Limbaugh(2006, he never gets over Clinton): There was pretty good consensus he lied in the deposition. He did lie. We don't have any evidence anybody's lied yet, and we know that the president hasn't even testified. So to say that, "Well, you know, the Republicans being awfully hypocritical. Now they're saying perjury is no big deal." … Bill Clinton did everything he could, creating all kinds of new privileges to deny the grand jury any information or evidence that was part of this investigation. He made a mockery of the investigation, and it was all because he was trying to protect his lily-white ass.

National Review (1998): Perjury is perjury. So says Robert Bork. And, so say a number of lawyers I've talked to recently. Well, that's good news. It also turns out, according to Stephen Giller in today's New York Times, that the grand jury testimony is rife with provable and obvious perjuries. The game that Clinton played in his testimony was patently illegal. In short, categorically specific answers that mislead are perjurious.

Wall Street Journal(2001): Here's one: lying to a federal grand jury. Perjury by a sitting President, not only the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, but sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution. … [Mr. Clinton] is manifestly guilty of perjury in his Paula Jones testimony, but even today clings to the "what the meaning of 'is' is" defense. So consider Mr. Ray's dilemma: If he should decide to give the President a pass in terms of a larger public interest, the President will surely then claim his preposterous defense was vindicated, that he was the victim. This continuing corruption of our national discourse certainly serves no larger public interest.

Oh, and just for Ann Coulter week, we’ve got to have an Ann Coulterism:

Ann Coulter – "This is obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements. This is completely a different matter now. It is much higher, much higher level, much bigger deal." [CNN, 1/27/98]

Before Fitzgerald could even convene his grand jury he had to first establish that a crime had been committed and that Valerie Plame was a covert officer as defined under the Act. He met that burden years ago. It is well settled that Ms. Plame was still a covert agent at the time of the disclosure and was working to uncover terrorists or roque state's seeking WMDs. Disclosing her name is the "foots on the ground" equivelant to blowing up a US spy satellite.

No one was convicted of disclosing her name because it is an intent crime and both Novak and Armitage testified they did not know she was undercover and there was no evidence to support that they did know and disclosed her name to blow that cover. Had Libby admitted he disclosed her name would have led to an investigation into whether he knew she was undercover, who directed him to disclose her name and whether they (i.e. Cheney) knew she was covert. By lying both to the FBI and to the grand jury, Libby stifled that inquiry and the possibility that he or others above him would be charged and possibly convicted of a crime the moral equivalent of treason.

That's why this is such a big deal.

So by your logic you can reference me to all your posts about how Bill Clinton was unfairly accused of perjury for lying about blowjobs from an intern. See, since consensual sex is not a crime he didn't have any crime to hide. Obviously Starr should have been investigated for malpractice.

Funny thing, those who defended Clinton belittled such ado about a blowjob, but were never as audacious as to claim what he did wasn't perjury. You have neither shame nor the slightest connection to reality.

Also, Fitzgerald telling Armitage to keep quiet to protect his "illegal" prosecution. What a hoot. Was the WTC really blown up by a controlled explosion? And is it the Trilateral Commission or the Illuminati that is ruling the world?

And with all those attorneys and money Libby had no one could convince a judge that no crime was committed? Hmmm maybe it is because Fitzgerald could convince a judge and a jury that beyond any reasonable doubt Libby lied not once, not twice, but three times. Then the cock crowed.

Accepting reality, Inutile, is the first step toward recovery.

How could you forget Abu Ghraib?

I've often suspected that Cheney was not so much upset that Plame and the CIA sent Wilson to Niger, but that they sent him to the New York Times when they discovered their long igored cautions and qualifications were proving prophetic.

Cheney may have seen the editorial and, after downing a bottle of nitroglycerin tables, believed the CIA was leaving the ship and sticking him with the blame. When he learned Plame was Wilson's wife and a CIA agent, that clinched it.

What still makes no sense is Armitage being the "accidental" point man for Novak.

I heard a rumor that he once fathered a black child. Why is the liberal biased media covering this up?