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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (7206)	10/5/1998 3:26:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Ross Perot happens to have asked, in a public TV show, the question I myself have posed: Why won't President Clinton release his medical records? Is he hiding something? Past treatment for drug use, perhaps? You have no answer for the question either. So when a President shrouds his personal medical report in secrecy, we can only speculate on his physical fitness for the office. As for my moral views and judgments, its none of your business how they are framed, anymore than my sex life is your business, which its not. However, when the President is using the Oval Office as sexual romper-room, with underling federal employees, which conduct moves him to lie to the American people, impede a lawful investigation into perjury in a civil sexual harassment trial, then yes, I think that is my business. Fwiw, I still do consider Clinton to be Caligula-like, because while Caligula was given to outrageous acts, so is Clinton with his "oral sex isn't sex, therefore I was truthful" argument. He may as well have argued that he didn't perjure himself because he had his fingers crossed while he spoke the oath to tell the truth. I do not believe that hairsplitting over precise definitions will shield President Clinton from being guilty of perjury. When the Veterans Administration employee was recently prosecuted and convicted of perjury, that perjury was described by the judge as "making statements designed to mislead the court". Surely that was what Clinton was doing to the Paula Jones court, and he has even admitted as such.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (7206)	10/5/1998 8:39:00 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

Heaven forbid anyone should make a "moral judgment". JLA

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (7206)	10/5/1998 9:49:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

T0P U.S. BRASS KEPT 0UT 0F L00P 0N MISSILE RAID: MAG By TRACY CONNOR The White House reportedly kept the nation's top military officials and the FBI in the dark while it plotted anti-terrorist bombing raids in Sudan and Afghanistan. The president and his men never talked to the pros, a senior general told The New Yorker magazine in an article that raises questions about whether the strikes were justified. Four members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not told of the plan to hit suspected terror boss Osama bin Laden until the last minute, according to an article by journalist Seymour Hersh. In fact, Joint Chiefs Chairman Henry Shelton, who was consulted, was ordered not to breathe a word of the impending missile strikes to the other four members, the report said. He was presented with a fait accompli ... and obeyed his orders. And now he's catching it from both sides, one source told the magazine. FBI Director Louis Freeh, who had deployed hundreds of agents to Africa after the terrorist bombing of two American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, was also out of the loop. The FBI has left a bad taste in other departments because it leaks like a sieve, a national-security official involved in the planning explained. The White House did consult Attorney General Janet Reno - but ignored her advice to delay the raids until there was more evidence linking the targets to bin Laden, the magazine reported. On Aug. 20, the United States launched 80 Tomahawk missiles at a suspected chemical-warfare plant in Sudan and alleged terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The Pentagon did not dispute that key officials were left out of the planning. General Shelton played an active role throughout the planning and execution of this operation, a statement said. As is appropriate for any sensitive military operation, planning was limited to those who needed to be involved. The article questions whether the White House authorized the strikes based on flimsy evidence. A congressman who took part in a classified CIA briefing on the case against bin Laden was unimpressed by the presentation. They came up with a lot of suspicious activity, but nothing conclusive, he said. Some officials in CIA's Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Science and Technology have reportedly told CIA chief George Tenet there was a rush to judgment. In his article, Hersh claims the CIA's case was weak. The agency was relying on a soil sample from the Sudan's Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant that contained Empta, a chemical used to make VX nerve gas. But a chemical-weapons expert at The Hague told the magazine it was unlikely the highly reactive chemical would have been found unaltered in the ground. The only way this chemical could be in the ground is if somebody had emptied a flask ... and then taken a sample. That's credible, a senior inspector insisted. Some in Washington blamed National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for pushing forward with the bombings before the bin Laden connection could be nailed down. Madeleine is willing to fire a missile at anybody, a general said. Others raised the wag-the-dog scenario: The president took action to deflect attention from the sex scandal at home. If Clinton was not in all this trouble, he wouldn't have done it, a former high-level State Department official said. He's too smart. nypost.com