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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (17290)	7/12/2002 2:18:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I don't buy that the Harken situation is parallel to anything Clinton did. So far Clinton's misconduct (the head of the branch of government charged with executing laws basically lying through his teeth under oath to save his skin) was of such a gross character in comparison to Bush's that we aren't even in the same ballpark. My point about the parallel doesn't seem to be getting across. I agree with you that there is no comparison between Harken and Clinton's lying under oath. I see three stages of these sorts of things. The first is the initial accusation. The second is the feeding frenzy surrounding the investigation. The third is how the party responds to being cornered. The parallel I'm referring to is in the first and second stages. We have similar first stages. We have not yet seen stage 2 fully develop with Bush and we haven't really gotten to stage 3. Clinton didn't lie under oath to save his skin until stage 3. We do not yet know what Bush might do in stage 3 if we ever get to that point. Comparing Clinton in stage 3 with Bush in stage 1 is apples and oranges. My parallel is only in how the two are developing. There's no way of knowing whether they will stay parallel or not as things play out.