I agree that perjury is intolerable no matter the level.

But isn't it the case that the means to "address" the problem, when it is the President that is involved, is the path that was executed by the Congress?
And isn't it so that the ultimate result of the process was that President Clinton was shamed hugely and effectively found "guilty" but that the deed was not of sufficient gravity to warrant removal from office and further prosecution?

In other words, wasn't President Clinton subject to the law governing his position and was not the penality as prescribed by that/those laws?



>The possibility of blackmail and security clearances come into play too. Since Clinton basically got off scott-free for lying under oath and then taking into consideration the reason for the lie, I don't think blackmail will be a serious threat when someone holds a position that requires a top secret clearance anylonger. Still, in my opinion, no President, no matter how great, should be excused lying under oath. Others were jailed for refusing to testify and also for lying under oath. There is no excuse for perjury at any level.
>
>
>>>When I hear that the president is in big trouble because he wanted a little extra nookie. It kind of perks my ears. Doesn't seem to me that anyone, other then Hillary is being hurt in the process.
>>
>>In this example you gave, Clinton wasn't impeached because of his relationship with M. L. It was because he lied to the grand jury under oath. You knew that... didn't you please tell me you did? That has to mean something doesn't it? Even if its for silly thing as having a little woopie session.
>>
>>BTW for all the time he spent doing whatever he did with M. L. can I have my tax money back that paid his salary? I didn't pay my tax so he can have a fling in the Oval Office during work hours. :-)
>>If you and I did that at work (especially during working hours), we'd be fired immediately... I know I would be.
>>
>>Back to the subject at hand. Did you know that they had a dry run of their emergency procedure not too long ago and they knew it had problems and they never worked to iron out the problems. Is that still the fed's fault.
>>
>>It sounds to me like you're wanting the feds to act in a "perfect" way. But you know that when gov't is in charge of something, they more often then not, screw it up.
>>Bush already said that the reponse wasn't acceptable. At least he's man enough to admit it. Frankly, I haven't heard Nagin or Blanco admit they were part of the problem as well. And believe they're not innocent.
>>
>>Again, lot blame to go around.