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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Slemmer who wrote (3648)	9/3/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<But don't take my word for it. Wait for history to record the Clinton legacy.<<>> That's something that scares me. I'm afraid we won't recognize the Clinton Administration that THEY will paint in his library. They are the best at rewriting history I've ever seen. I will be up to US to make sure that history records this administration ACCURATELY.

To: Rick Slemmer who wrote (3648)	9/3/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 13994

Here's a perfect example: Clinton's Lewinsky Story Evolving By RON FOURNIER AP Political Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Throughout his quarter century in politics, Bill Clinton has always talked himself out of trouble. Now his skill with words may be his curse. Put on the defensive at a news conference in Russia, Clinton reverted to his habit of mining verbal loopholes and changing his version of events in the ever-evolving Monica Lewinsky matter. ''Whenever he comes back to a position to gain support again, he will sort of rewrite the history of what he has done before,'' said Clinton biographer David Maraniss. With Russian President Boris Yeltsin at his side on Wednesday, Clinton addressed the criticism of both Republicans and Democrats who feel he did not show enough contrition during his Aug. 17 address to the nation. A reporter asked if he was concerned that he might not be effective as a leader any longer. ''No, I've actually been quite heartened by the reaction of the American people,'' Clinton said, apparently referring to still-high job approval ratings. He did not mention that a growing number of Americans now think less of him personally. ''I have acknowledged that I made a mistake,'' Clinton went on to say, using the singular version of the word ''mistake.'' What was the mistake? Having a relationship with an intern half his age? Lying about it to his aides, his Cabinet and the public? Allowing officials to defend him under false pretenses for seven months? ''Those are mistakes, plural,'' said Kathleen Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania who has otherwise defended Clinton's public statements on the Lewinsky affair. ''The way he framed it in his original speech is much broader than this answer.'' Clinton also said he had ''asked to be forgiven.'' Yet his Aug. 17 address to the nation did not include a request for forgiveness. Indeed, a staff draft of the speech included that kind of language, but Clinton rejected it. More than 10 days after the speech, with pressure mounting from Capitol Hill, the president mused about the issue. ''In these last days, it has come home to me again, something I first learned as president -- but it wasn't burned in my bones -- and that is that in order to get (forgiveness), you have to be willing to give it,'' he said in Oak Bluffs, Mass., while still on vacation. Later in the news conference, the president was asked why he didn't offer a formal apology. Saying he had reread the speech, Clinton told the reporter, ''I was expressing my profound regret to all who were hurt and to all who were involved.'' In the Aug. 17 speech, Clinton did say he ''misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.'' He did not specifically mention Ms. Lewinsky or the American people in his expression of regret. And he never said, ''I'm sorry.'' Unlike in August, when a clench-jawed Clinton appeared as angry as he sounded, the president looked more contrite Wednesday. His shoulders were slouched and he fiddled with a pen while he spoke softly. Yet he was almost as defiant concerning Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, saying ''most reasonable people'' would think Starr's investigation has cost too much money and time. Verbal gymnastics seemed to backfire on the president when he swore last January that he did not have ''sexual relations'' with Ms. Lewinsky. Under pressure from Starr, he later told grand jurors that he did engage in sexual impropriety, but did not commit perjury. Clinton's escape hatch: a tortured definition of sexual relations that he said made his deposition, as he so carefully said, ''legally accurate.'' Since his days as Arkansas governor, Clinton has both avoided and created problems with his own words. When asked on CBS' ''60 Minutes'' in 1992 whether he denied having an affair with Gennifer Flowers, Clinton answered, ''I've said that before.'' Actually, he had never flatly denied an affair; five years later, he admitted to Mrs. Jones' lawyers that he had sex with Flowers. When reports of his Vietnam-era draft status threatened his campaign in 1992, he said he had answered all those questions during his Arkansas political life. Actually, he had told reporters as early as 1978 that he had never received a draft deferment -- a statement proven false later in the 1992 campaign. Teachers and labor unions accused him of breaking his word in Arkansas, but he eventually won them back. ''The same things that get him out of trouble, keep him in trouble,'' Maraniss said. ''He's always sort of playing for time and forgiveness, if not forgetfulness. Now his statements are subject to more scrutiny -- word by word.'' ------< EDITOR'S NOTE -- Ron Fournier has covered Bill Clinton for 10 years.

To: Rick Slemmer who wrote (3648)	9/3/1998 4:11:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Rick, Fine, as I said I didnt like Hillarys health care plan either. But what is wrong with thinking something up and proposing it? Its more than the Bush administration ever did. I didnt know anything about those "open meeting" rules being violated, in fact I have never read that anywhere, but all I can say is that the last thing you want when you are trying to put something together is a huge meeting - nothing ever gets done. Better to design the plan with a few key participants, while trying to anticipate answers for the naysayers, and then present the plan to the audience. Then they can accept it or reject it, in this case they rejected it. I have no problem with the expense of this exercise because prior to it there was all this grumbling in the country about health care and there were lots of groups advocating the Canadian system, but no one knew whether a Canadian system would fly - now we know. I just cant see any relationship between this health care proposal and the dislike of Hillary here. MH