This might be hard to explain, because it involves abstracts, which you don't get at by looking at Clinton's lies being harmless because they were about sex.

Clinton looked a camera right in the eye, and told the American people a lie, and knew it was one when he did it. He did this to a court. He tried to get fake affadavits submitted. Was what he was lying about a serious issue? Not really. On that I would agree.

I told a parable back then that explained my thinking.

Let's say you saw the president of the bank where you kept all your money coming into the 7/11 where you're shopping. Unknown to him, you see him pocket a candy bar and walk out with it.

You going to leave your money in that bank?

Some people would look at me and say, "I don't get it. It was a fifty-cent candy bar!"

Other people would understand that "integrity" has an exact meaning, and that someone who would steal a candy bar might have similar lack of scruples in other, more important areas.

A man who would cheat on his wife and kid, lie about it on television, and try to cover it up in court, would probably cut a few other ethical corners too to save himself and his political career. A man who would do that to his family--consistently, over many years--has no other thing in life more important than himself, and that is not a good thing in a president, or anyone else.

That Bush has screwed up on a number of things is inarguable. But I submit that when he called for war, he was convinced in his own mind that he had a valid reason for it. Nobody was more surprised than the administration when the inspection teams after the war turned up little of what they expected. Does anyone think that Bush, still up for re-election in the months ahead, would have occupied Iraq knowing full well that the WMDs he said were there were not?

If nothing else, conspiracy nuts should note that if the administration was half as evil as they thought they were, planted WMDs would have been found two years ago.