Someone on the left has clearly linked to my post — you can always tell by the sudden influx of Corner tourists who spout the same talking points as if they thought of them on their own.

However, some polite and relatively sensible emails have come in too. Here are two of them:

Subject: Degrees of perjury
Dear non-threatening conservative,
I try to be a rational lefty, and I’m really more centrist than moonbat. I abhorred Clinton’s self-destructive womanizing and found it to be a reprehensible abuse of authority and power (although I do admit to the occasional nostalgic swoon for his intelligence and earnest compassion). And you’re right, in a legal context, perjury is perjury is perjury.
But, Jonah, isn’t it self-evident that the consequences and circumstances of Clinton’s misstep are vastly outweighed by the gravity of the alleged Rove imbroglio? Sure, Clinton’s lie unleashed the terrifying, culture-endangering specter of Monica Lewinsky’s fifteen minutes. But if Cheney, or Rove, or their surrogates willfully and deliberately and with malice did what they are accused of doing, the ramifications of this act will figure heavily in future historical assessments of the war and its validity. Even if perjury is perjury, can’t conservatives concede that the consequences of this will be more morally, historically, and politically significant than Clinton’s pathetic, knee-jerk attempt to save face over an ill-begotten BJ?

And…

You might have done your readers some good by doing what Baldwin did – actually post what KBH said to Russert and in the Senate in 1999. The two could not be more far apart.
Clearly this was a trial balloon and KBH looked like a fool in being the
one to try it out. You might try to be honest with your readers and
admit it, or post the exchange as did Baldwin and let them parse it for
themselves.
Unfortunately, it is you, not Balwin would came across looking not very
intelligent in your reply to his post on Huffington. Rather than
addressing his point you try to attack his integrity. Bad, Bad, Bad
blogger…
[Name withheld]
(someone who bothers to read both sides).

Me: Okay, the first emailer is stealing a couple bases. Rather than re-hash the nature of Bill Clinton’s transgressions, let’s just take the first base. Though I think everyone should read Byron’s article today.

Anyway: Yes IF Rove and Libby are in fact guilty of the worst things they’re accused of — i.e. deliberately outing a covert agent in order to sufficiently endanger her so as to shut up a political enemy and terrorize the press — that would be very bad. I will be amazed if Fitzgerald comes within a million miles of making that charge, let alone make it stick. But if that were the case, the perjury is entirely secondary and they should be charged with the crime (and the perjury too, of course). But if they aren’t guilty of the underlying crime, perjury would still be bad but it isn’t anything like the scenario the emailer describes now is it?

As for the second reader. I’m delighted he reads “both sides.” It’s reading both sides well which may be a problem. I linked to Baldwin and I characterized what he said fairly. I also wrote: “What particularly vexes him is that Hutchison considered perjury to be a serious crime when Bill Clinton lied under oath. Zinging perceived hypocrisy like that seems like fair game to me. I think perjury is in fact a big deal.”

But the point of my post was not Hutchinson’s “trial balloon” but Baldwin’s pose, which is why I didn’t bother with the MTP transcript. He extrapolates from Hutchinson’s one statement the sweeping assertion that “Republicans” are “full of sh*t.” But, yes, my both-sides-reader is surely correct, I’m the one who comes across as not very intelligent.