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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (1826)	10/9/2000 4:04:17 PM
From: Slugger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Gore turns negative with Attack on Bush 'Bloopers' By Steve Holland SARASOTA, Fla. (Reuters) - Democrat Al Gore's campaign will attack Republican George W. Bush on Monday for public-policy ''bloopers'' and for his record as Texas governor, Gore campaign officials said. The Democratic National Committee will announce that a feature on its Web site will include a video Webcast of Bush's tongued-tied pronouncements, from his difficulties explaining his $1.3 trillion tax cut to his statements on the abortion pill RU-486, campaign officials said. In addition, the campaign plans to send vice presidential running mate Joe Lieberman to Texas on a ``failed-leadership tour'' this week to highlight Bush's record on health care, the environment and gun control as governor of Texas the past five years. In addition, Democratic ``truth'' squads are due to go to key battleground states, and the Democratic National Committee is set to issue new television ads highlighting Bush's record in Texas. The negative turn in the presidential campaign comes as polls show the race tightening even further less than a month before the Nov. 7 election. The Gore campaign was trying to turn the tables in response to Bush's focus on Gore's credibility based on charges that the vice president has shown a pattern of embellishing his record. One Gore campaign official said the Democratic Web site would include ``Bush public-policy bloopers'' including his inability to ``string together coherent sentences to explain his policy.'' Just on Saturday Gore said he did not plan to attack Bush personally, but would feel free to criticize Bush's record. Now, it appeared Bush's intellect was on trial.

To: epicure who wrote (1826)	10/9/2000 9:33:48 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

If people lie to protect "national secrets" that are illegal activities then they subvert our democratic form of government- but I'm glad you can "forgive" that. What was truly illegal was the Boland Amendent, which was a direct and blatant attempt by Congress to dictate foreign policy, which is the jurisdiction of the executive branch, not the congress: milnet.com "The Boland Amendment Initially passed on December 8, 1982, this amendment to the War Powers Act of 1973, states that U.S. Agencies are prohibited from providing military equipment, training or support to anyone "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua." The literal purpose was to prevent any CIA funds or support to go to the Sadinista (rebels fighting against the communist Nicaraguan government). Congress felt this was necessary because the Reagan administration had pledged to support the Contras in their battle for freedom for their country. Unfortunately a very left leaning Democratic Congress prohibited the administration from continuing funding to support the Contras at a critical time. As it became evident this was a mistake, Congress repealed the Amendment and re-instituted the funding. ContraEventually the U.S. and Contra pressure resulted in democratic elections in Nicaragua. The actual wording of the Amendment was interpreted to disallow only U.S. Intelligence Agencies, thus allowing members of the staff of the NSC (which is not an Intelligence Agency of the U.S. government) to route funds to the Contras. A angry democratic Congress responded by attempting to prosecute Col. Oliver North, Adm. John Poindexter and others in a set of public hearings. North was convicted on a number of charges but finally exonerated of all but a minor infraction, Adm. John Poindextor (ret'd) was convicted of lieing to Congress. The Boland Amendment became law in a slightly different manner. On 10/20/83, it was passed as an amendment to the House Select Committee on Intelligence Intelligence Appropriations Act for FY 1984. The Bill became HR 2968, which became public law on 11/03/83. See also Presidential Directive of 1976, or Intelligence Authorization Act of 1981, the War Powers Act of 1973, or the The Hughes-Ryan Act." ******** As for bargaining for hostages, we do it all the time... We just don't like to openly acknowledge it since it tends to encourage abductions. But let's just say I accept your premise about lying and subverting US law.... It was North, Poindexter, Secord, and Singlaub who were primarily to blame for that (if indeed they actually lied)... But more simply put... It WAS NOT PROVEN that Ronald Reagan lied about Irangate. On the other hand..... IT WAS PROVEN THAT WILLIAM J. CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH ABOUT MONICA LEWINSKY IN AN EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND THE PAULA JONE'S RIGHT OF DISCOVERY IN HER CASE AGAINST CLINTON.** And that Clinton, sworn to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, ACTUALLY SUBVERTED THAT VERY LAW HE IS SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD. He was caught, X.... Yet, all you can think about it North and Poindexter.... Not the fact that the President chose to lie about something he should have just admitted to and apologized for, rather than piling on one more lie after another... He did it... there's no denying it... he got caught red-handed and nabbed by a stain on a blue dress... All he can do is question what the definition of "is" is... Clinton took this country to the brink of impeachment. And only due to the gutless nature of some Republican Senators who refused to vote for impeachment, OR review the Juanita Broaddrick evidence, was he able to remain in office. How does it feel knowing that you let a rapist remain in office. (the evidence is there and was quite compelling according to statements of those who chose to see it)??.... Regards, Ron