The Scoreboard's position on "tell all…get even…get rich" books like the one Clinton F.B.I chief Louis Freeh just wrote is clear: it's against them. That does not mean that the revelations in such books can't raise legitimate issues, however, and Freeh's book, My FBI, has a blockbuster accusation against the former president that demands attention.

In the course of describing his version of President Clinton's failure to respond aggressively to Middle East terrorism, Freeh describes a meeting between Clinton and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in September 1998 at the Hay Adams hotel in Washington. Saudi Arabia had individuals in custody that the F.B.I. wanted to question about the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers in 1996 that killed 19 U.S. servicemen (and wounded hundreds more), and President Clinton was supposed to press the prince into allowing the FBI question to question them. According to Freeh, Clinton did not make a serious effort to get the prince's support on that matter, opting instead to solicit him for a contribution to the Clinton Library.

Freeh wasn't at the meeting, and his story is based on the account of someone he regards as a reliable source. Sandy Berger, Clinton's former National Security Advisor, was present, and stoutly denies it. The Clinton Damage Control Brigade, apparently not even slightly rusty after all these years, immediately went into its familiar attack mode, even trotting out Lanny Davis in front of the TV cameras just like in the good old "I never had sex with that woman" days.

Why does this matter? A U.S. president using diplomatic opportunities to raise money for personal projects is, if not illegal (there is some dispute about that, but if it isn't, it should be) terribly, frighteningly unethical, and raises at least dark shadows of a high U.S. official…in fact the highest…selling out the interests of the country he's sworn to protect for personal gain. Under no circumstances ought one chief-of-state seek substantial personal favors, and especially monetary favors, from another. Such a mixing of official power with personal interest is the ultimate in conflict of interest. To be blunt: if this has happened, is happening, or might possibly occur in the future, it has to be stopped.

But did it happen? Freeh clearly thinks it did: he referred Clinton's alleged library request to a grand jury, though nothing seems to have come of it, at least so far. Berger's denial can only be so persuasive; after all, this is the same man who recently pled guilty to swiping and destroying classified documents that he smuggled out of the National Archives after he had denied doing so. It's fair to say that Sandy's credibility is not what it once was. And thinking back on Clinton's Marc Rich pardon that followed uncomfortably closely to a generous gift from his ex-wife to the very same Clinton Library, Freeh's story has a familiar ring. Clinton's current spokesperson, Jay Carson, essentially has called Freeh a liar. But then Carson's boss gave up his license to practice law in Arkansas when an official finding by the bar that he had lied under oath could no longer be avoided. Freeh has no such record.

A study soon to be released by the scholars at the Annenberg Public Policy Center will confirm what we already know: people tend to believe what is consistent with their world view regardless of how reliable or unreliable the facts are. Those who believe President Clinton never had a dishonest day in his life will scoff at Freeh's story, while those who feel the entire White House should have been steam-cleaned to remove the slime he spread there will pronounce it gospel. Neither approach is good enough: this time, we have to know. Not to punish Clinton, or even try; heavens knows we're sick of that. But Americans, in the midst of displays of a near-complete ethical breakdown in the leadership of both houses of Congress and with the top aides to both Bush and Cheney embroiled in ethical controversies of their own, need to know just how bad the ethical climate has been in the White House so it can properly assess whether it is getting better or worse since the nadir of the Clinton years. If it's the latter, we have a lot of work to do.