Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (62022)	11/2/1999 9:00:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

She obviously forgot her oath of office as did her boss. JLA

To: DMaA who wrote (62022)	11/2/1999 9:07:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

It is an affront!

To: DMaA who wrote (62022)	11/2/1999 10:26:00 AM
From: cody andre	Respond to of 67261

Looks like the Clinton Gang and the US Congress (both the Senate and the House) are on a constitutional crisis collision course over international treaties and executive orders, among other things. To wit: Test Ban Treaty, changes in the NATO Charter and role without US Senate ratification, use of US military overseas (and inland) against US interests, etc. Not too late to impeach the Peacenik again ...

To: DMaA who wrote (62022)	11/2/1999 12:48:00 PM
From: JBL	Respond to of 67261

Oh now I see... Bombing Serbia was respectful of International Law, but having the Senate vote on the ratification of an International Treaty is not respectful of International Law... This Clintonian logic is beautiful... Let's just do away with the Senate then... Let's have Mr. Clinton - this paramount of virtue and good judgment- safely guide the world toward peace and prosperity.

To: DMaA who wrote (62022)	11/2/1999 3:26:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

Quit picking on Maddy. She's a compassionate stateswoman concerned with global stability. <<Mrs. Albright stated that the treaty was not defeated. "Despite the delay in U.S. ratification, let me reaffirm America's commitment to reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons," she said.>> However, somebody might suggest the nuclear tests be performed on innocent children in the remote villages of Iraq. She has a soft spot for the region. Remember this: "Also Secretary of State Madeline Albright didn't deny such figures when she explained that "Yes, we think the price is worth it" when asked on CBS 60 Minutes program (5/11/96) if maintaining the blockade was worth the death of half a million children." It's almost year 2000, anybody got a recent tally?

To: DMaA who wrote (62022)	11/2/1999 6:04:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>"If I were in the Senate, I would be treating this as an affront."< Sure pal, and you would therefore obviously not be a Republican or Democrat. Albright and Clinton do this sort of thing because they know it will not receive any sort of a challenge from the Senate.

To: DMaA who wrote (62022)	11/3/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 67261

One of the major topics on the October 17th Sunday interview programs was a Clinton offer to spend U.S. taxpayer dollar to help the Russians build an anti-ballistic missile system if they would agree to changes in the ABM treaty. That treaty is supposed to prevent a national anti-missile defense. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran stories about this new development. But Russia said no, and it announced that it would work with China to seek support at the United Nations against America efforts to alter the accord. Senator Mitch McConnel indicated that he was prepared to spend that money if that meant that we could deploy our own ABM. It seems clear that Senator McConnell, his colleagues, and the major media have not grasped an essential fact: the Russians already have an ABM system. They already have an advantage over the United States. This explains why they are so opposed to changes in the treaty that would let the United States do the same. The U.S. position comes down to an offer to help the Russians improve their illegal ABM system if they would change the treaty and let us build one legally. If this sound incredible, then you are not familiar with the evidence assembled by William T. Lee, a former high-ranking DIA and CIA official who wrote the 1997 book, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion. In what Lee calls "one of the major U.S. intelligence failures of the Cold War," he says that U.S. still doesn't recognize the existence of a Russian national anti-ballistic missile defense. He says the U.S. intelligence community refuses to recognize the Russian SA-5 interceptor as anything other than an anti-aircraft weapon. In fact, however, some former Russian officials have acknowledged that SA-5s can shoot down ballistic missiles. It is a dual purpose weapon. Lee's book argues that the Russians have already violated the ABM treaty by integrating thousands of there dual purpose anti-aircraft weapons with large radars that provide warnings of missile attack. There are the radars that the Clinton Administration now wants to assist in modernizing. Lee says that Russians, who have just deployed a new ICBM, are set to obtain a big strategic advantage if present trends continue. The nuclear balance could be greatly thrown off balance if Russia continues to improve its nuclear arsenal and if we continue to adhere to the discredited ABM treaty. Such an imbalance puts Russia in the position of being able to launch a successful nuclear strike on the United States and protect much of its own territory and people with its own national missile defense. It's no wonder that the Russians want the ABM treaty to remain in force for the United States. Why would the Clinton Administration want to abide by such a treaty and to change it only with the consent of the Russians? The answer may lie in the fanatical commitment of the administration to so-called arms control agreements. It would rather place the security of the United States in pieces of paper than in real weapons and a real defense. aim.org