(Click here to read the rest of this post)

Chris Matthews rightly criticizes Kate O’Beirne, writer for the uber-partisan conservative National Review for her hypocrisy for supporting the impeachment of Clinton and her approval of Bush’s commuting Libby’s sentence. Watch this clip:

That’s refreshing, but then Matthews goes off a bit on criticizing Democrats about their hypocrisy letting Clinton slide “in our hearts” while criticizing the Libby situation. That’s utterly ridiculous.

There’s a critical difference. Clinton was impeached and investigated as part of a clearly partisan witch hunt. He perjured about a personal matter that had no bearing on his job or the health of the nation. In other words, his penalty, had he been in front of a regular judge, would probably have been light, perhaps only a fine and probation. And that would’ve been fair.

Libby, on the other hand, perjured himself in an investigation into national security issues, in an investigation with no partisan political interference. The U.S. Attorney was a Republican and by all accounts, he and his team pursued the investigation with honor and fidelity to their oaths and duty. He believed this crime to be serious, and the judge agreed.

That’s the difference. And that’s why it’s both logical and morally sound to think two different things about the Clinton impeachment and the Libby sentence.

Chris Matthews simply falls into that trap that both sides are doing it and both sides are equally bad no matter what reality says. It’s simply not true in this case, and both Matthews and Kate O’Beirne should be called on it.