"Were Clinton's lies worse than Reagan's? I expressed the opinion that Clinton's were worse because he did so under oath."
"A fine line, perhaps, but isn't that what the rule of law is all about?"
You consider Reagan's outright lie to the American people as not under oath as in the oath of the ofice of the presidency?
Well this is interesting indeed. Using your own measure then you're saying that Reagan's bald-faced *lie* from the Oval Office
in saying to the American people that he would *never* make deals with terrorists while he had already OK'd the sale of weapons to Iran to *illegally* fund the contra war , made officially *illegal* by the Congrssional passing of the Boland amendment
( with a Republican Senate since 1980 ) .
And this after truning tail in Lebanon after the terrorist bombing of a few hundred marines in their beds which gave the greenlight to the terrorist network that Reagan talked big but failed to deliver
any viable deterrence and thus subsequently opening the door to evermore emboldened terrorist ops that ultimately led to 9/11.
That's an awful *fine* line to pass your *ideologically correct* smell test. Add Reagan's active support of one Saddam Hussain
which is ,according to the Bushites , as alarming a clear and present *terrorist* danger and , more than ever , as a source of terror for something far worse than the World Trade Center attrocity.
I guess that 8fine line* is in the ideological jaundiced eye of the
agendaed beholder. You may not choose to rebut , but thankfully the record is there for anyone to avail themselves of. Now if only Bush dubya Jr. would lift the very vigorous embargo of his fahter's Presidential papers which are ,every bit ,the property of the American people and *not* the Imperial Bush dynasty.