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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (51656)	6/26/2004 7:19:15 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Respond to of 793964

LindyBill: And here is a copy of the offending post. Friday, June 25, 2004 6:08 PM ET To: FaultLine From: Andrew N. Cothran "But what I (Monica)was hoping, and did expect was for him (Bill Clinton) to acknowledge and correct the inaccurate and false statements that he, his staff and the Democratic National Committee made about me when they were trying to protect the presidency," she said" And that, dear Noel, is the crux of the matter. This post has got a lot to do with F.A. During the days, weeks, months, and years of post-Monica activities described above, the Presidency, for all practical purposes, was in captivity. It was in bondage: to the Press, to Ken Starr, to Hillary, to all of the muck-raking gossipers and scandal sheets whose daily existence and personal glee depends on the kinds of salacious activity in which Clinton in his White House sought to pleasure himself, not only at the expense of a young and naif pretty girl but the country itself. Why did Clinton do it? ". . .because I could" he blithely confessed. Meanwhile, the world kept on turning. Clinton found himself for the most part helpless to respond in any meaningful way to that turning, consumed by his need to devote all of his time and attention to the overriding necessity to avoid impeachment. His administration was in thrall, crippled by the moral turpitude of the man who would lead. The Sudan, (bomb the aspirin factory); ben Laden (lob a few missiles into an abandoned al Queda training camp); Iraq (take out those radar sites that interfered with US Air Force overflights while continuing the UN mandated oil for food program); Weapons of Mass Destruction (forgeddaboutit) Monica Lewinski (oh, that pretty girl who pursued me? (forget about her too). Am I claiming that Clinton's affair with M.L. is part of the cause of Bush II's Iraq adventure? Well, perhaps it did. Maybe Clinton's little tryst (it's nobody's business but mine) and its aftermath merely delayed the necessary American involvement in Iraq until a more responsible White House with a more responsible leader emerged capable of repairing the damage from the moral and political disaster left by the Clinton dalliance, a disaster that had not only personal but domestic and national and international consequences. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it in his essay, Self-Reliance, "Our acts our angels are, or good or ill, Our fatal shadows that walk by us still."

To: LindyBill who wrote (51656)	6/26/2004 7:23:25 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793964

LindyBill: As a Moderator of this Thread, I thought you might be interested in how one of your fellow moderators handles those on his thread who stray from his brand of Orthodoxy. Maybe he has something to teach moderators. Saturday, June 26, 2004 3:31 AM ET To: Andrew N. Cothran (who wrote) From: FaultLine Hello Andrew N. Cothran, >>So, Faultline, it is perfectly alright for members of the thread to post news items and comments about Clinton, about Clinton's autobiography, about Clinton's presidency. Not really, save a few comments of some import. >>But when one comes along and posts a newsworthy item about Clinton's victim (using material printed in the British press no less) then it is considered a violation of your rules and regulation. See also my follow up to my original Lewenski post when I fully defended my post and justified it as not only appropriate but necessary in order to permit posters to experience a "fair and balanced" report of the facts of the matter. The"matter" is no longer of any importance. Ancient history it is. >>In a court of law both sides of a position are permitted. One side presents its case. The other side has an opportunity to answer and rebut. Clinton misused and abused an Intern. The Intern defended herself. She had a right to be heard. Apparently you think otherwise. Apparently I think this is BS and Off Topic on a Foreign Affairs thread. >>I really don't object to being kicked off your thread. But I do object to reading other posts and then being denied an opportunity to rebut, either in my own words or in the words of a legitimate press release. Too bad. >>You do the contributors to this thread a distinct disservice when you permit some of them to spout on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and make disparaging remarks about others. You especially do your contributors a disservice when you permit some of them (and I am thinking of two of your favorite women posters) to complain about me WITHOUT HAVING THE INTEGITY AND COURAGE to confront me directly with their complaints. Well...try a PM and set up a showdown somewhere else? >>I post on many threads. I say what I think. I post what I please. In every instance, including my posting on this thread, I am fair in my assessment, prudent in my use of secondary materials, and quick to defend my position and the position of others when I feel that it is appropriate. Fine, but on some threads you have to follow rules. Capiche? >>I will not really miss your thread. But I do believe that your thread will be less interesting and less exciting without me. Me too. I wish you could have played by the rules. >>So good cheer to you Fautline, and greetings to your Fautless and to all of the other faultlesses on your thread. Thanks. --fl

To: LindyBill who wrote (51656)	6/26/2004 7:26:40 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

And here is the original post that brought down Faultline wrath over on the Foreign Affairs Moderate thread. 'Destroyed' Lewinsky Speaks Out on Clinton Memoir 57 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo! By Jeffrey Goldfarb, European Media Correspondent LONDON (Reuters) - Monica Lewinsky says she feels betrayed by Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s failure to acknowledge how he destroyed her life in his newly released memoirs. Reuters Photo In an interview with British broadcaster ITV to be shown on Friday, the former White House intern best known for her affair with the 42nd U.S. president says she was disappointed at how their relationship is addressed. "I really didn't expect him to talk in detail about the relationship," she said, according to a partial transcript of the interview provided by ITV. "But what I was hoping, and did expect was for him to acknowledge and correct the inaccurate and false statements that he, his staff and the (Democratic National Committee (news - web sites)) made about me when they were trying to protect the presidency," she said. In response to Clinton's recent remark to U.S. news show "60 Minutes" that he had the affair "for the worst possible reason -- because I could," Lewinsky said she "was really upset" when she first heard it. "I have spent the past several years working so hard to just move on, and to try and build a life for myself," said Lewinsky, 30, who has been a spokeswoman for diet company Jenny Craig and host of the reality TV show "Mr. Personality." Lewinsky, who told her own account of the affair in the 1999 book "Monica's Story," said she reluctantly spoke out about Clinton's tome "My Life" because he tried to rewrite history. "He says he was proud of the way that he defended the presidency, at my expense," she said. "In the process he destroyed me, and that was the way he was going to have to do that, to get through impeachment," Lewinsky added. "I was a young girl and to hear him saying some of the things he was saying today -- it's a shame." Lewinsky insists during the ITV interview that she had a relationship with Clinton even though he never uses the word in the book, instead opting for "inappropriate encounter" on page 773 of the 957-page autobiography. "This is something that I never wanted to talk about publicly and I know he wished had never become public. But this was a mutual relationship, from the way it started all the way through," Lewinsky said. Her affair with Clinton while he was in office and his subsequent denials of it led to his impeachment in December 1998 after a lengthy and expensive investigation by independent counsel Ken Starr. ITV will broadcast excerpts of the interview during its lunchtime, evening and late-night news. There also will be a half-hour special, "Monica Lewinsky: My Side of the Story," at 2200 GMT on ITV1. Reuters New Service,2004