* * * This message was from Rob Perkins to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

{at}MSGID: 
{at}REPLY: 
Amy Guskin wrote:

> My feeling on this is that he never should have been put in that position, 
> and while he still shouldn't have lied, it's nothing but a drop in the ocean 
> compared to Bush's lies, despite the under oath/not under oath distinction.

My feeling on this is that he shouldn't have lied under oath, no matter 
the circumstance that got him there. I don't wish to compare him to what 
came after. Or to ascribe everything Bush has said which has turned out 
to be false to "lying", which I also think is over the top.

The single wrinkle I would give him a pass on is that I don't think he 
should have been required to submit testimony in a civil action while in 
office. *I'd* have interpreted the Constitution that way, at the very 
least.


Rob
                              
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32