Try to grasp this principle of jurisprudence, BB. A judge, when sentencing a convicted person, is generally allowed to take into consideration the seriousness of the possible consequences of the convicted person's act, and adjust the sentence accordingly. And the public may do the same.

What Clinton did—and I am including the lying here—had no bearing on anything beyond Clinton's family's and Monica Lewinsky's private lives. It did not have any bearing on anything beyond that. Nor would it have had were it not for Monica's urge to brag, Linda Tripp's perfidy and betrayal of her friend for personal aggrandizement, and the eagerness of Clinton's enemies to find something—ANYTHING—to attack him with.

The judge knew that. Most American people knew that. So the only people who want to keep the thing going as far as Clinton is concerned are those who need something to divert attention from any charges that are made against the Bush administration and it's minions.

In Libby's case (and I agree that he is merely the fall guy in the Bush administration's revenge against Wilson for his having the integrity to stick to the truth and not back the Bush lies), the lives of Valerie Plame and possibly some of her associate "spooks" could have been put in danger, not to mention compromising several avenues of intelligence.

Notwithstanding that the charges (perjury) were the same, the seriousness of the potential consequences of the core events that precipitated the two trials were quite different.

This is why many folks (not just liberals) are willing to cut Clinton a bit of slack, but not Libby and those who put him up to it.

Don Firth

P. S. But I realize, of course, that it's a waste of time to argue with people whose minds are already made up and just won't budge, not matter what the facts are.