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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (5293)	9/25/1998 11:26:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Vatican to apologise for sins of 2,000 years By Bruce Johnston in Rome THE Vatican has prepared a document in advance of the Millennium asking for pardon for its "sins" over 2,000 years, including outrages perpetrated in God's name during the Crusades. The document is said to analyse "acts of violence and repression" prohibited by the Church's teachings but committed by its institutions. The writing is intended as the basis of a request for pardon which the Pope will pronounce at a solemn Mass in Rome on March 8 next year. But the document and its list of "wrongs", which includes the burning of the stake of the Dominican preacher Girolamo Savonarola in 1498, the Czech religious reformer Jan Hus in 1415, and the philosopher Giordano Bruno in 1600 is not final. Next week, a draft will be examined by an international commission of experts chosen by the Pope. Their findings will be passed to the pontiff, who will use it to create the request for pardon he will make to the world. Last March, the Vatican produced a document on the Holocaust, as part of its "examinations of conscience" ahead of the Millennium, which is also a Jubilee or Holy Year. That said the Church "deeply deplored" the "fault and error" of many Christians in the wartime treatment of Jews, and admitted that its own "anti-Judaism" had helped to foment the Holocaust. But it avoided any admission of collective guilt, and exonerated Pope Pius XII of claims of anti-Semitism or that he remained silent in the face of such horrors. The Pope's desire to proclaim a mea culpa for the Church's misdeeds in order to cleanse its conscience as it enters the new Millennium is well-known. But this is the first time the Crusades have been mentioned among the Church's "wrongs," the list of which was yesterday being called "2,000 years of horrors".

To: dougjn who wrote (5293)	9/25/1998 11:30:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Clinton's absentee presidency There's one positive thing about the Clinton presidency. He really hasn't done much governing. Oh, he plays golf. He attends fund-raisers. He travels to foreign countries. He dispatches troops to every corner of the world to serve as global policemen. He makes speeches. He signs executive orders, issues presidential decision directives. He makes proclamations. He reads polls. And, of course, he hustles women -- constantly. But for a guy who frquently talks about "getting back to work for the country," he really doesn't do much -- at least not in the traditional sense of the presidency. Earlier this month we learned that he hadn't convened a Cabinet meeting for the previous seven months. That's right. Seven months. I was shocked. I'm still amazed that not one press outlet in the country saw that as significantly newsworthy. No stories have been filed about his absentee presidency. But that's exactly what it is. He truly is dysfunctional in more ways than one. Can you imagine if President Reagan had gone seven months without holding a Cabinet meeting? We know he held them regularly because of all the stories about him dozing off during the sessions. How can a president carry out an agenda without regular meetings with Cabinet-level department heads? These are the people who are charged with taking the directives from their leader and executing them. Clinton spends far more time with his lawyers, fighting off impeachment threats and lawsuits, than with his top-level officials. Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey recently told the London Telegraph that, during his two years in the administration, he managed to secure only two conversations with Clinton. Two conversations -- not meetings. So, this style of management -- or non-management -- is nothing new for Clinton. This is the way he has carried out his responsibilities from day one. Again, for this we should be grateful. Because if Clinton were an effective administrator, we would all be in much deeper trouble today than we are -- and we are in plenty as it is. Think about it. Clinton had far more "meetings" with his intern, Monica Lewinsky, than he did with his CIA director. Once again, while it's shameful, disgusting, immoral, disgraceful and embarrassing, in a way, it's also fortunate. Can you imagine the kind of mischief this president could create for our nation had he met more frequently with his CIA chief? His FBI director? His Health and Human Services secretary? His Education secretary? It's frightening to think about. Nevertheless, without the accountability those Cabinet meetings require, Clinton's department heads are left to make policy, create regulations, enforce laws and generally terrorize the population on their own initiative. This is not good, either. And it's one more reason -- as if we needed one -- that Clinton has to go. Evidently, Clinton doesn't trust his Cabinet. He prefers to meet with members individually rather than collectively. It's no wonder. When the Cabinet did convene earlier this month, the public was treated to a blow-by-blow description of a confrontation he had with Donna Shalala. But that's one of the healthy aspects of Cabinet meetings. The more people involved in governing the country, the more likelihood there is that the American people will find out what the rascals are doing to us. Clinton prefers secrecy. He prefers governing by edict. This is further evidence that Clinton has actually created a whole new system of government, subverting the Constitution, bypassing the process of checks and balances and turning over the executive branch to a shadow regime of attorneys, pollsters, media spinmeisters, corporate hucksters and Arkansas political cronies. That's Clinton's real Cabinet. Let me give you a couple of examples. Janet Reno has never really been the attorney general. In the beginning, Webster Hubbell, technically the No. 3 person in the Justice Department, was the actual liaison with the president. Clinton's first choice for Defense secretary was Bernard Schwartz of the Loral Corp. When it was clear that appointment would never fly, Schwartz still got all he wanted from the administration -- all the waivers he needed to allow his company to go into business with the Chinese government, sharing technological secrets that threatened the national security of the United States. Warren Christopher was never really the secretary of State. He was a puppet, a figurehead. Strobe Talbot was the real deal. So who needs Cabinet meetings? They require messy details like the taking of minutes, official records, press conferences. The shadow Cabinet, on the other hand, can meet between quickies in the Oval Office anteroom, phone sex and visits with Eleanor Mondale.

To: dougjn who wrote (5293)	9/25/1998 11:37:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I smell big backlash coming. >> I agree, but I doubt it will show at the polls. I don't think there will be any change at all in voting patterns. The Republicans haven't picked up any strength, but no one is happy with the Democrats either. Look for little, if any, change in the composition of the house and Senate - that in itself would be a defeat of sorts for the Republicans. <<Many previous Independent Counsels have said they would long ago have dropped the Lewinsky line of inquiry entirely>> A couple have also said that Starr did the right thing. It's not as cut and dried as you might like. <<E.g., the absolutely ridiculous thundering Starrism, that asserting privileges, from attorney client to executive privileges, any of them, all of them, constitute abuse of office and obstruction of justice>> Agreed, but.......the President did the country and the Presidency a disservice by pursuing that legalistic line of defense. Of all the things he has done related to this scandal, the hairsplitting and stalling seem to be what the public has objected to the most. <<His report is stuffed with overreaching claims, as well as a thorough going effort to convict the President though lurid detail which Starr fervently and piously hoped would be as prejudicial as possible.>> Notice that you use the same sort of hyperbole (lurid detail, prejudicial as possible, etc.) when you discuss Starr. You are doing the same thing to him that you accuse him of doing to Clinton. Your basic premise is completely accurate, IMHO, but you are still attacking him on a visceral level instead of an intellectual one, in order to try to influence people.

To: dougjn who wrote (5293)	9/25/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

doug: Your opinions are not facts. The assertions of executive privilege could very well be construed as an abuse of power since they were asserted for the sole purpose of saving Bubba's lying a**, instead of a legitimate reason related to his duties as President. Clearly, the lying to cabinet officials and aides and using them to lie on his behalf to Congress and the public IS an abuse of his position, IMO. S'pose I'm just being "disingenuous" again. BTW I note you never answered the question. JLA