[Steve]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lechium)

Quastion: liying about getting a blowjob vs lying that there is solid evidence (if evidence was solid, that WMD's would and been found, right?), and leading country into war... what's worse? What has caused more people to die?

But Bush didn't lie about WMD's. This topic has already been covered on the forums several times already. Bush made a determination based upon intelligence reports that he received. The US government, English government, and Russian government all came to the same conclusion that the intelligence saying WMD's existed was reliable. That's not lying. That is acting on intelligence.

And what does it matter about what the lie was? The point is Clinton was set to testify under oath in front of a panel. He knew he was under oath - he took the oath. Yet he lied. The lie iitself has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that he would lie, as President of the United States. He, among any other American, should be prepared to follow the laws of the land.