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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (126616)	2/12/2001 10:06:02 AM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<<Further, by eluding the law through the National Security Council, the letter of the law was not broken, although the spirit was, of course>> I could never understand the comparison of trading of arms of the Contra (so called) scandal with the many wrong doings of the Clinton administration. I cannot find where one person or party gained with the trading of arms. It was all done, as far as I can see, for the good of national policy. Where as all the crimes committed by the Dems were for personal gain, personal satisfaction(sex) or lining the coffers of the party. The Rich pardon is just a microcosm of all the actions of Clinton. Even the hard line democrats are rebelling at this.

To: Neocon who wrote (126616)	2/12/2001 1:33:31 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Neocon: "My own take is that the Boland Amendment was unconstitutional, and that the Administration had a moral obligation to the Contras" I do agree that the Boland may have been unconstitutional and was vague in its meaning. But the real difference between Reagan and Clinton, is that what Reagan did was not to benefit himself. Whether he was legally correct or not, he certainly was not acting to protect himself personally. I have never understood dems outrage about this, since Congress deliberately writes vague laws and then complains that they were "broken" when someone trys to take advantage of the ambiguity. I was an attorney for a government agency for many years. Trust me when I say most of the laws Congress passes cannot be understood without Court interpretation, which is ridiculous. (Not necessarily the court interpretation, but the idea that our laws require so much interpretation. Little joe