Big Mick: I have no idea if the alleged transgression took place. It's odd that it hasn't been in the mainstream press (at least I have seen nothing about it) if, in fact the report is legitimate. Keeping that in mind, I'd like to comment on your remarks.

1. If it is true, I think WHEN it happened might be important. If it happened recently, even within the past ten years, I think it would make a difference. I sense, if it did happen, it might have been at a much younger agee. That wouldn't excuse the fact that it happend, but many time people as they age, and gain experience, react differently than they do in their youth. However, someone at an early age who is in trouble probably gives little thought to the substance of the theory (the right and wrong of abortion). He or she just wants to get out of trouble.

2. If the allegation is true, and it happend at it an early age, it would have nothing to do with the kind of decisons one might make in later life.

3. I think suggesting that GWB should be "lumped" with Clinton on the lying under oath situation is premature. It is still an unsubstantiated allegation.

I happen to believe that when one lies under oath, that it should be treated very seriously, particularly if you are the President of the United States. I really don't care what the lie is about. Have I lied? Of course! Would I lie under oath? Nope. Have I had that opportunity? Yes.

As usual, I represent the minority view. Other folks feel if you lie under oath about sex, that's okay. After all one does not want one's wife/husband to know he/she has been unfaithful.

If that is acceptable behaviour, the bank robber would also be justified for lying under oath because he/she doesn't want to go to prison.

Just my opinion, of course.

DougR

2.