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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (130284)	3/5/2001 10:07:20 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The "Nixon defense" is bogus. I doubt you will find one person on this board who would not have voted to impeach Nixon. It is like saying I cannot try someone for bank robbery because he is no Willy Sutton......

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (130284)	3/5/2001 11:32:21 AM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<<<led by Dan Burton, the biggest skirt-chaser and harasser on the Hill>> Did you forget Teddy Kennedy? He killed one of his skirts.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (130284)	3/5/2001 11:50:53 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Do you honestly think Clinton is innocent of the wrongdoings you outline just because nothing stuck? His inner circle will go to any lengths to protect him (including suicide imo). Here are some quick takes. "Eight years of Whitewater investigations" Missing records show up two years after requested. Key figure kills himself and office is gone through by Clinton croanies before anyone else. No wonder nothing stuck. Especially with half the population (your half) defending him and knocking the investigation. "The FBI files thing would have been very serious" Would have been serious? Accessing 900 SECRET FBI files on your political enemies IS serious Nadine. To see if you can understand the seriousness ask yourself how you would have felt if either Bush had done it. The only way this is not serious is if you are a MAJOR Clinton apologist. You should be ashamed. I guess that's all you have right now. You might want to add travelgate, selling military secrets to the Chinese, Monicagate, and now the pardons. Doesn't the pardon thing clarify his true personality for you, or do you feel that he just started being a paid political crook on his last day in office?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (130284)	3/5/2001 10:31:04 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769667

Article...Clinton defenders should apologize... jewishworldreview.com THOUGH I may be tempted to apologize for again discussing the perpetual motion machine known as the Clinton scandals, I refuse on the grounds that everyone else is doing it. And under liberal mores one cannot be guilty of something "if everyone else is doing it." So back off. Besides, I’m really not going to talk about the incessant Clinton perfidy for purposes of slamming the Clintons; everyone knows that they are just downright sleazy as a matter of law. So columns about Clinton chicanery purely to demonstrate that they are ne’er-do-wells are as superfluous as columns about the antics of Jeffrey Dahmer to prove he didn’t exercise sound dietary habits. I’m also not going to talk about Hillary Clinton and her obvious innocence of any wrongdoing in all matters pertaining to the perpetual motion machine, including the $100,000 cattle futures, the missing billing records, the travel office firings, the FALN clemencies, the various other pardons and whatever else Webster Hubbell may have on her. No, she’s a victim, and an upstanding United States senator to boot. I do want to talk ever so tangentially about the Clinton scandals, however, for the limited purpose of examining the runaway hypocrisy of that amazing conglomerate of people known as the Clinton defenders, enablers, supporters, apostles, disciples, enthusiasts, apologists, groupies, Clintonoids and 99.9 percent of Hollywood. Instead of getting upset with people like me for even peripherally hitting on the Clinton scandals again, you should be outraged at the audacity of the Clintonoids for their belated, empty and disingenuous denunciations of the Clintons. They all have scandal-blood on their pseudo-indignant hands. Give me a break. The truth is these people -- the Al Hunts, the Chuck Schumers and the Joe Liebermans -- have no standing to criticize the Clintons for their misdeeds any more than Dr. Frankenstein had to condemn that mindless monster he created for killing innocent people. They all helped to create the Clinton monster. I want to go further. Not only have they no moral right to criticize the Clintons eight years after the fact (actually nine, counting the Gennifer Flowers revelations during the 1992 campaign), they owe the rest of us boatloads of apologies. Beyond apologizing to us -- we enlightened beings known as the vast right-wing conspiracy, who had the perspicacity to know long ago that the Clintons were criminals -- they need to specifically apologize to the people deliberately destroyed by the Clinton smear machine. They aided and abetted those smears as surely as if they were part of a grand conspiracy. They should start with Kenneth Starr, that most unfairly maligned of public servants in modern history, bar none. Just last week the Supreme Court refused to revive an ethics complaint against Starr by attorney Frank Mandanici and others that was previously dismissed by a Federal District Judge and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Do you remember some of the colorful language U.S. District Judge John Nangle used in refusing to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the allegations? "There is not one shred of support in the hundreds of pages of documents submitted by Mandanici to support these subjective opinions," wrote Nangle. The abuse of power claims against Starr were "nonsense ... absolutely ridiculous." The conflict of interest charges against Starr were "very dubious ... the stuff that dreams were made of ... this court has never heard a more absurd argument ... it is totally illogical ... there is no evidence to support it." As to the contemptuous assertion by Julie Hiatt Steele that Starr pressured her to lie, Nangle said that Steele presented "absolutely no evidence that the OIC ever directly or impliedly asked her to lie." You didn’t read anything in the major papers about Judge Nangle’s ruling, did you? And what about Clinton attorney David Kendall’s repeated defamatory claims that Starr had illegally leaked grand jury information? Did you know that Starr was exonerated on every one of those charges by various federal judges? Did you ever hear that? Did you ever read about it in the mainstream media? Huh? Where is the sense of fairness among the Clinton defenders? Perhaps when they have the decency to come forward and apologize for participating in Clinton’s character assassinations of his many patriotic accusers, they will have earned the right to join in condemning our disgraced former president. Until then, in my most humble opinion, they have zero credibility and even less moral authority.