The London Evening Standard reports that Bill Clinton is checking out a home near Britain's Oxford University, where he studied in the 1960s as a Rhodes scholar.

Citing British security sources in a front-page report, the Standard said that Clinton was eager to settle in the Oxfordshire countryside after he leaves the White House early next year.

The newspaper said prima donna Hillary Rodham Clinton will not accompany him to the Oxford area. The prima donna is running for a seat in the U.S. Senate from the state of New York. The Clintons currently maintain a residence in Chappaqua, a wealthy suburb north of New York City, and he is planning to build a presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.

Last May, Clinton told Britain's Times newspaper that he would like to teach at the elite university and was intrigued by a suggestion that an Oxford college might find a role for him. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford in the late 1960s and was presented with an honorary degree by the university in 1994.

The Standard said that Clinton was house-hunting in the picturesque village of Glympton, 12 miles north of Oxford. The area was recommended by the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. It said that the Prince had purchased 21 properties in Glympton in 1992 and one would be made available to Clinton on a three-year lease. The Standard said that Thames Valley police officers were preparing security reports on a number of properties in the Oxford area.

It all sounds perfectly believable, yes? Especially the part about the Saudi prince. I'll bet that turns out to be a real sweetheart deal for Clinton. Wonder what he gave the Saudis in return?

Meanwhile, the report was basically confirmed by the White House.

I know. I know. You're asking: "What do you mean the report was confirmed, Farah? The Clinton White House adamantly denied the report in the London paper."

That's right. And that's further evidence that the paper got it exactly right.

"Even by the low standards of English tabloids, this story is complete fiction," said White House spokesman Jake Siewert. "Aside from the spelling of the president's name, nothing in the story is accurate or true."

Remember, this White House lies instinctively, reflexively, boldly and habitually. It lies when there is reason to lie and when there is no reason to lie.

"I never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Remember that one? He lies under oath. He lies before the camera. He lies to the whole nation. He lies to himself. That's why I say the White House denial is actually a confirmation of the facts.

You can take this story to the bank. Clinton's looking to move to England.

What do you think? Whom do you believe? All things being equal, would you sooner accept the word of the president of the United States or an anonymous newspaper reporter in London? For me, it's no contest. I don't know the reporter. I don't even know the publication. But if Clinton's denying the story, I believe it.

Recall also that the Clinton White House has used this "British tabloid" routine before. Years ago, when Hillary and her pals in the White House counsel's office dreamed up the "vast right-wing media conspiracy," one of the components of that international plot was the London Telegraph, a newspaper described by the Clinton lie machine as a "tabloid."

The Telegraph is not, never has been and never will be a tabloid. It is a responsible and well-respected broadsheet newspaper. But that didn't matter to the Clintons. They know that 44 percent of the American public will continue to believe them no matter what they say, no matter how big the lie or how small.

That's why I believe this story. Clinton is going to England.

Who knows? Maybe it has something to do with extradition agreements with London. Maybe it has to do with getting as far away from Hillary as possible. Maybe it has to do with the coed action at Oxford. In any case, it all makes sense.

Clinton's getting ready to leave the country. Isn't that wonderful? Are we blessed? Isn't that worth celebrating?