Oliver Willis raises an interesting question: Should John O'Neill be disbarred?
Works for me. (The wingnuts will retort that Bill Clinton wasn't disbarred for lying -- but he was disciplined by the bar association. And he was simply trying to conceal a personal indiscretion -- he wasn't engaged in a smear campaign.)
[Another observation on O'Neill: When you get right down to it, I suppose none of this should be surprising. Not only is it standard operating procedure for Rove and the Bush family, but it's clear -- if you watch the old "Dick Cavett Show" debate between Kerry and O'Neill -- that O'Neill was taking the whole thing personally. Kerry's always polite (even when he's asking O'Neill if he's familiar with the Geneva Conventions); O'Neill, on the other hand, comes across like an attack dog. It's as if he can barely keep a lid on his anger. (Although given the Mutt-and-Jeff contrast between the two, the effect is comical; O'Neill reminds me of a nasty little dog that's latched onto the leg of Kerry's trousers.) Anyway, if the vets who still rant about "Hanoi Jane" can't get over that after all these years, I guess it's not surprising that O'Neill's personal animus lives on.]