The Non-Story Trial the Left Loves

I have to admit that I don't really understand the excitement the Left feels over the Scooter Libby trial.

I mean, here we have a trial based on a guy who might have perjured himself about...what? Patrick Fitzgerald knew early into his investigation that no crime had been committed. He also knew the identity of the leaker: Richard Armitage. He also knew that the leak was inadvertent and that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent.

Fitzgerald knew there was no there there. But he persued the case anyway until he found someone in the Bush administration--however tenuous the link--to indict.

And that's why we face the gleeful liberal onslaught of stories on this trial. Huffington Post ran this breathless account of how five--five!--witnesses have contradicted Scooter Libby's version of Leakgate. Firedoglake is running daily summaries of events. Digby is running transcripts.

Maybe this is the way liberals felt about the Clinton impeachment, that it was a minor offense, "just about sex," and that Republicans blew it out of proportion. They think Ken Starr spent millions and turned up nothing but a blue dress.

But aside from the obvious difference (Clinton was president, after all), there are other differences. Like the fact that Clinton did lie to the American people. He misused executive authority. He got other people to lie for him (suborning perjury). Dems may think everybody lies about sex, but Clinton is the first president in history to lose his bar card for it.

What we have here is silliness and stupidity. But since they won't get an impeachment, I guess liberals have to make themselves feel better with this idiotic waste of taxpayer time and money.