kendall and dougr, I think both of you are making valid points. What is frustrating is that neither of you seems willing to accept at face value what the other believes most important.

That said, there has been quite a bit of distortion regarding the historic record regarding presidents lying in general, presidents lying to and defying Congress, and presidents lying under oath.

To review all that, you have to look back to the issuance of subpoenas upon sitting presidents. The issuance of the Clinton subpoena was an unprecedented expansion of the powers of the independent counsel. Neither in Watergate nor in Iran-Contra did the special prosecutors--who were investigating real crimes, not the private sexual conduct of the president--compel sworn testimony from the occupant of the White House.

Nixon was not forced to testify in Watergate despite being at the center of a campaign to subvert the 1972 elections, carry out illegal spying on political opponents and suppress opposition to the Vietnam War. Independent Counsel Archibald Cox, and his successor Leon Jaworski, subpoenaed only the tape recordings of conversations in the Oval Office.

In the investigation of the Iran-Contra affair, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh did not subpoena Ronald Reagan although Reagan had admitted to Walsh personally authorizing the secret arms transfers to Iran, and the establishment of a paramilitary supply operation for the Nicaraguan contras, in defiance of a congressional ban. Walsh took Reagan's testimony by submitting written questions to the White House, which were answered by Reagan's lawyers. Vice President Bush gave deposition testimony, but was not subpoenaed and did not appear before the grand jury.

Even in the face of extraconstitutional actions and threats to democratic rights, the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigators adhered to the traditional doctrine of separation of powers--between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches--which was interpreted to mean that no court could compel a president to testify personally.

Considering the substantive differences in the above three cases, it is perfectly obvious that Starr acted out of a scurrilous political motivation to humiliate and embarrass Clinton. Clinton should have refused to testify for the good of the office. He never could have been impeached, had he refused.

And DougR, it is patently offensive to attempt to conflate sexual impropriety with funding and arming private paramilitaries in foreign countries for the express purpose of overthrowing a legitimately elected government in defiance of a congressional order, and trade weapons for hostages.

To suggest that the former is worse than the latter defies all common sense.