SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cnyndwllr who wrote (136866)6/17/2004 12:12:19 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
SHAME-FACED BILL: I FOOLED AROUND 'BECAUSE I COULD'

By ADAM MILLER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


June 17, 2004 -- In a bombshell confession, Bill Clinton has told why he had a torrid affair with Monica Lewinsky: “Just because I could.”
“I did something for the worst possible reason — just because I could,” he said of his romps with Lewinsky (left, yesterday in New York). “I think that’s just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing something — when you do it because you could," a contrite Clinton told CBS newsman Dan Rather in an interview about his hotly anticipated memoir that airs Sunday on "60 Minutes."

"And I thought about it a lot, and there are a lot of more sophisticated explanations, more complicated psychological explanations, but none of them are an excuse.

"Only a fool does not look to explain his mistakes."

Clinton also called his Oval Office trysts with the Sexgate siren "a terrible moral error" that put him in the "doghouse" with wife Hillary and threatened to alienate daughter Chelsea.

The philandering 42nd president has publicly apologized numerous times for the scandal, which rocked the country and led to his impeachment in 1998 — but this is the first time he's revealed what fueled his presidential peccadilloes.

Rather told The Post yesterday that the 57-year-old Clinton seemed genuinely remorseful about the salacious affair.



"He said it was a terrible mistake — indefensible morally," Rather said.

In the wide-ranging interview, Clinton also said Hillary needed time to decide whether she would stay with him — and that only through counseling were they able to heal their fractured marriage.

"We'd take a day a week, and we did — a whole day a week every week for a year, maybe a little more, and did counseling," said Clinton.

"We did it together. We did it individually. We did family work."

Clinton called his impeachment fight a "badge of honor."

"I don't see it as a stain," he said. "Because it was illegitimate."

The "60 Minutes" interview is part of Clinton's massive publicity blitz for "My Life," the 957-page tome for which he was paid a $12 million advance.

The much-buzzed-about $35 book hits stores Tuesday — but come Monday, bookstores in New York and Washington are considering staying open until after midnight for the first official sales.

The book's publisher, Knopf, will release 1.5 million copies of the memoir — the all-time record for a work of nonfiction.

"My Life" is broken into two parts — one chronicling his hardscrabble childhood in rural Arkansas to his election as president in 1992, and the second covering his White House years and the Sexgate scandal.

"I don't try to settle a lot of scores in the book," Clinton said recently.

"I don't spare myself in the book."

Meanwhile, Lewinsky declined comment about Clinton's bombshell revelations when The Post caught up with her yesterday outside her posh West Village apartment building.

Clinton will appear in bookstores in New York Tuesday to autograph copies. Once it is released, Clinton will make the rounds on the news and talk shows.

For those who can't wait until Tuesday to find out what's in "My Life," AOL — beginning tomorrow — will offer audio excerpts of the tome as read aloud by Clinton, and Infinity Broadcasting Corp. will air excerpts on the radio.

Additional reporting by Don Kaplan and Primrose Skelton



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (136866)6/17/2004 1:02:50 PM
From: Sam  Respond to of 281500
 
News Analysis: Bush again on defensive over grounds for war
Richard W. Stevenson/NYT ~~article_owner~~
Thursday, June 17, 2004


WASHINGTON The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has further called into question one of President George W. Bush's rationales for the war with Iraq, and again put him on the defensive over an issue the White House was once confident would be a political plus.

In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.

Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Saddam's government remain sketchy.

That is the difficult reality Bush faces 15 months after ordering the invasion of Iraq - and less than five months before he faces the voters at home. The commission's latest findings fueled fresh partisan attacks on Bush's credibility and handling of the war, attacks that now seem unlikely to be silenced even if the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis comes off successfully in two weeks.

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, was quick to seize on the commission's report to reprise his contention that Bush "misled" the American people about the need for the war.

Even some independent-minded members of Bush's own party said they sensed danger.

"The problem the administration has is that the predicates it laid down for the war have not played out," said Warren Rudman, the former Republican senator from New Hampshire, who has extensive experience in assessing intelligence about terrorism. "That could spell political trouble for the president, there's no question."

Bush has said that he knows of no direct involvement by Saddam and his government in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the president has repeatedly asserted that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a position he stuck to on Tuesday when he was asked about Vice President Dick Cheney's statement a day earlier that Saddam had "long-established ties with Al Qaeda."

Bush pointed specifically to the presence in Iraq of Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who sought help from Al Qaeda in waging the anti-American insurgency after the fall of Saddam, and who has been implicated by American intelligence officials in the killing of Nicholas Berg, the 26-year-old American who was beheaded by militants in Iraq in March.

The White House said Wednesday that there was a distinction between Bush's position and the commission's determination that Iraq did not cooperate with Al Qaeda on attacks on the U.S.

The commission's report did not specifically address that distinction or Zarqawi's role. It found that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, but that Iraq never responded to bin Laden's subsequent request for space to set up training camps and help in buying weapons. It said there had been reports of later contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but added, "They do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

It quoted two senior associates of bin Laden as denying adamantly "that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq." It concluded that there never was a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers; in an interview with National Public Radio in January, Cheney cited intelligence reports about the possibility of such a meeting in asserting that there was not confirmation "one way or another" about links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Democratic strategists said there was now no question that Bush would be dogged through the rest of the campaign by questions about whether the war was necessary, justified and sufficiently well planned. But Bush's supporters said that in political terms, the amazing thing was how well he has weathered the problems thrown at him by Iraq.

"If you look at the last eight months at the White House and in particular the last 90 days, I've never seen more negative stories come out in a concentrated period," said Sig Rogich, a veteran Republican advertising consultant and fund-raiser. "Yet despite all that, the president is still even with John Kerry or, if you count the Electoral College votes in the battleground states, ahead. Then there's a creeping plus for George Bush, which is that the economy is taking off."

The commission's findings were the latest in a string of Iraq-related developments this year that has kept the White House on the defensive.

The administration's former chief weapons inspector said he believed Iraq never had stockpiles of banned weapons. The violent insurgency caused a spike in American casualties and led to disillusionment among many Iraqis. The abuse of Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison undercut Bush's claim to the moral high ground in the war.

The official White House strategy for Wednesday may have been to deny any real differences with the commission. But on this day as on many others recently, its real goal appeared to be to stick a bandage on whatever wound it might have suffered, keep moving toward June 30, when the United States will return sovereignty to the Iraqi people, and then bank on its ability to redefine the election on terms more favorable to Bush.

In one indication of the White House's doggedness, Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, held a conference call with reporters about the same time the commission was delivering its detailed description of the Sept. 11 plot. His topic: the economy.

iht.com
The New York Times



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (136866)6/17/2004 1:26:20 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<You simply fail to understand the importance of morality in America.>

Yes, we are a deeply moral people. Of a sort. In a way.

But.....the fabric of the morality we clothe ourselves in, is a bit thin, and has a few holes in it:

1. The harshness of our condemnation and punishment, is inversely proportional to the status of the criminal. We have, in practice, a morality that acts like the Code of Hammurabi, where the punishment for a crime depends on whether you are a nobleman, peasant, or slave. The more wealth/power/status you have, the more we let you get away with.

For instance, if the facts of the case had been exactly the same, except that Clinton had been a doc screwing his patients, or a McDonald's manager screwing his burger-flippers, he would have been fired from his job, publicly disgraced, and gone to jail for his felony (lying to a grand jury). This would have happened, even if the sex was consensual.

For instance, the many execs who got caught stealing billions in the Bubble (millions of victims), have mostly gone totally unpunished, and retired rich. But some poor kid who gets caught three times with a bag of marijuana (zero victims), gets a life sentence.

2. The second hole in our morality, is this: breaking the taboos about sex and procreation, is considered a far worse sin, than breaking the taboos about violence.

For instance, the Catholic Church believes that both U.S. Presidential candidates are violating basic moral standards that flow from their Respect For Life doctrine. Kerry supports abortion, while Bush has waged a war that doesn't meet the standards of the Just War Doctrine. Given this, you might think the Catholic Church would wash their hands of both of them. But no, instead, they are pushing a very public campaign, to deny communion to Kerry. Some are even saying, anybody who supports Kerry should be denied communion. No similar effort is being made, to condemn Bush for waging a war of aggression that has killed thousands. The Catholic Church's priorities are clear.

For instance, a President who lies about sex gets impeached, but a President whose Big Lies takes us to war (Bush), doesn't. And a President who breaks the law by trading arms for hostages, and using the money to wage dirty wars in Latin America (Reagan), goes to his grave unpunished, praised in all the eulogies for his moral certitude.

3. The concept of individual responsibility is dead and gone. Liberals say, "He's not to blame, the gun did it. Or his daddy beat him as a child. Or his mommy didn't read enlightened bedtime stories to him every night." Conservatives say, "He's not to blame. The corporation (a legal person) that he runs, did it. Or the CIA gave him bad intel, so he couldn't help lying to Congress and the UN. Or it was a Lesser Evil." Everyone's motto is: The Buck Stops Nowhere.

4. Our morality assigns a value of zero, to the lives of non-Americans. Our various wars, from Vietnam to Iraq to Serbia, are popular in America, until we start worrying about how many Americans are dying. The number of Others we kill, has zero influence on public opinion. As a coralary, we habitually ingore the sovereignty of all other nations, while fiercely defending our own.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (136866)6/17/2004 1:55:14 PM
From: Lou Weed  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
<<Sam, maybe, but did Bush or Cheney get a blow job from Monica? Where are your priorities? You simply fail to understand the importance of morality in America.>>

What's amazing to me in this whole fiasco is that the very same people who are abhorred and shocked by a blow job will rationalize that anal rape and sexual humiliation are considered "non-torture" and therefore deemed acceptable to inflict upon non-American detainees.

How about that for morality?

MON.