Your claim was that Fitzgerald has already found that “the disclosure of Valerie Plume’s work for the CIA was not a crime”. When and where did Fitzgerald make that announcement? Your idiotic assumption that your interpretation of events is the only interpretation possible is utterly laughable. Produce documentary proof of your claim.

Simple — Because Fitzgerald doesn’t think a crime was committed.

1) You make a claim.

2) You are responsible for backing it up.

Got that? Trying to derail the discussion does not work. Period.

“The same special prosecutor who prosecuted Libby found that the disclosure of Valerie Plume’s work for the CIA was not a crime.”

In what court document did Patrick Fitzgerald find that “the disclosure of Valerie Plume’s work for the CIA was not a crime”?

So, pray tell, when does the left actually intend to start getting worked up over the Clinton pardons and demanding that he, too, be held accountable?

Insert cricket chirps here…

If the disclosure of Plame’s CIA work was a crime, why hasn’t the person who committed that crime, Richard Armitage, been charged with a crime?

The point I was making when I referred to Clinton’s pardons wasn’t that if Clinton did it that it was OK for Bush to do it. The point I was making was that I don’t remember Olbermann getting all worked up about Clinton’s pardoning of terrorists who had actually killed people. Why does Olbermann think this commutation is worth getting upset over but Clinton’s pardon of terrorists was not?

As for so-called “neocons” defending every action of a fellow conservative, almost eight years after they left office, people are still trying to defend the stuff Clinton and Gore did while in office. Its probably because the Hildebeast is running, but it isn’t any different.

Finally, I appreciate your pointing out the spelling errors. They’ve been corrected.