Should I point out that the perjury case only existed because lawyers for Paula Jones violated "discovery" rules? Should I point out that the perjury case only existed because Ken Starr involved himself without authorization into the Paula Jones case and provided the evidence that the Paula Jones lawyers used and violated discovery rules? Should I point out that it was a Republican held house and senate that decided not to force Clinton from office (most likely because it would have given Gore a chance to prove that he could lead effectively, put him in the incumbent position at election time, and effectively ended their one "moral high ground" playing card before the election?).
What Clinton did and what the current Pres. is accused of, while being the same in literal interpretation are miles apart in severity, culpability and gravity. If it is true that he lied, falsified reports, misled the American public and the world in order to go after Saddam Hussein, then he is responsible for all that has followed. If he has kept people out of the loop and others have kept him out of the loop, then he is not an effective leader and is responsible for allowing this situation to occur. It isn't a blame game, its simply a case of "The buck stops here".