David Broder and the Beltway are not concerned. You see the President is not lying about private sexual matters. All is well:

Kingston, Ontario: I'm rather surprised by your and your correspondents' calm tone of voice this morning. Unless the New York Times editorial page is wildly off-track, the U.S. is in the grip of a major constitutional crisis, with the government trying to set aside long established guarantees of legal behavior, both internally and in relation to international law. Where's the sense of urgency?

David S. Broder: Far be it from me to question the New York Times, but I'd like to assure you that Washington is calm and quiet this morning, and democracy still lives here. Editorial writers sometimes get carried away by their own rhetoric.

Funny to hear someone who called for a duly elected President's resignation for lying about a private sexual affair referring to anyone else as getting carried away with their rhetoric. In case you're wondering the rhetoric in question said, in part, the following:

The nation is in this hideous mess because Mr. Bush ignored the advice of people like this when he tried to set up prison camps beyond the reach of the law. It's hard to believe their warnings will be ignored again, but the signs are ominous. Last week, the military's top lawyers told the House Armed Services Committee that they strongly opposed the rules of evidence and other due-process clauses in the White House's bill. The committee just went ahead and passed it anyway. Only eight of the 28 Democratic members had the courage to vote "no."
Bill Frist, the majority leader, has already introduced the horrible White House bill on the Senate floor. Senators Warner, McCain and Graham have come up with a serious alternative, and they deserve enormous credit for standing up to Mr. Bush's fearmongering -- something many Democrats seem too frightened to do. (It was good to see the Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats join them in rejecting the president's bill yesterday.)

But their bill still has serious shortcomings, and should not be rushed through Congress in the current atmosphere, which has very little to do with stopping terrorists and everything to do with winning seats in November.

There is no urgency. Mr. Bush could have tried the 14 new inmates of Guantánamo Bay at any time if he had just done it legally. It's hard to imagine that anyone in the White House is really worried about a swift resolution of their cases. Many members of Congress who succumb to the strong-arming will know, in their hearts, that they were doing the wrong thing out of fear for their political futures. Perhaps the voters will not judge them harshly this fall. But history will.

Mr. Broder, I suggest you speak less on these issues and let us wonder, rather than know, how big a fool you are.

But we're not done yet. Broder gives us more fodder:

Princeton, N.J.: Since one can lie by omission, do you believe the President and Vice President (at least) should resign because of the lies about Iraq's atomic program and their link with Al Qaeda? As phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report appears and leaks pop up about the rest of it, it becomes clearer and clearer that we were lied to.

David S. Broder: I think if you want to disqualify as lying everyone in government who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, you would empty not only the White House but most of Capitol Hill. I think the way to do that is through election, not mass resignation. Resignations seem appropriate to me when individual responsibility is clear and unique.

Is Mr. Broder saying that the lies of Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, George W. Bush, et al can not be identified? Is he really really saying that? Well, no wonder he thinks Karl Rove deserves an apology. Remember folks, not only does he get paid for a living on this, he is the "Dean."

Rochester, N.Y.: I'll be impressed if you take this one... Mr. Broder, you recently argued that many in the media owed Karl Rove an apology, because we now know that the worst Mr. Rove might have done in the Valerie Plame case was to have misled prosecutors about a deed that was not itself a crime. If you feel this way now, then why were you so critical of Bill Clinton for misleading lawyers about a deed that was not itself a crime? Or do you now feel you owe Bill Clinton an apology? If not, then why not?

David S. Broder: We return a second time to President Clinton. What bothered me greatly about his actions was not what he said to his lawyers but what he told the Cabinet, his White House staff--You can go out and defend me because this did not happen. And he told the same,e lie to the American people. When a president loses his credibility, he loses an important tool for governing--and that is why I thought he should step down.

Wow! Just wow! Credibility with who Mr. Broder? With the Beltway idiots like you? Bush still has credibilitiy with you and Clinton on policy matters had lost it is your theory? What a blithering idiot. Just stop David Broder. Please stop now. Well, he doesn't.

Here is David Broder basically calling into question the entire business of journalism:

Washington, D.C.: Did you hear Fred Barnes on CNN say that the President didn't consider catching ObL to be a big deal? I was appalled. Is this the scandalous comment I think it is (especially after all the 9/11 "we should be scared" speeches of the past couple weeks), or am I seeing this through an overly-partisan lens?

David S. Broder: I did not hear Fred Barnes' comment. I think we should judge the President by what he says himself--and what he does.

Fred Barnes, Mr. Broder, was reporting on his conversations with the President. You are familiar with the concept. Seen you do it yourself. Stupidity unbound.

But there's still more:

Reston, Va.: We return a second time to President Clinton. What bothered me greatly about his actions was not what he said to his lawyers but what he told the Cabinet, his White House staff--You can go out and defend me because this did not happen. And he told the same lie to the American people. When a president loses his credibility, he loses an important tool for governing--and that is why I thought he should step down.

And so, in your opinion, the current president, vice president, secretary of defense, etc., have never lied to other government officials or the public and have lost no credibility?

David S. Broder: A classic have you stopped beating your wife question. How do I know whether they have ever lied to other government officials? The people in this administration are responsible for the decision that have led to the current miserable situation in Iraq, and Afghanistan and the worldwide damage to the standing of the United States. I think the American people know that and will hold them accountable--in this election and the next.

Huh? Stopped beating your wife? What in the hell is David Broder talking about? He knows he is cornered and now is just answering with gibberish. The Dean of the Washington press corps. Indeed, he does epitomize it.

But Broder does not realize what a fool he is:

Baltimore, Md.: I am surprised at you calling the Bush administrations manipulation of facts and lying "misjudgment" --- this administration has lied and lied to the people time after time. In front of the UN, in front of congress, in front of the public --- they ignored voices of reason and moved ahead with war the way they wanted to. Cheney intertwined Hussein and Bin Laden. This administration has lied more than any I can remember. It is disgusting and for you to give them a free pass is a bit disgusting too.

David S. Broder: If you think I am giving them a free pass, you have not been reading my answers to the earlier questions. I repeat: This administration is responsible for the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide damage to the standing of the United States. It should be and will be held accountable in this year's election and in 2008.

David Broder really believes he is being tough on the Bush Administration. That is the saddest thing of all.