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: j_b who wrote (7502)	10/6/1998 5:42:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

"...the motives of the anti's are irrelevant. The issue is not their motives, but BC's actions and motives...." j_b, again you raise a number of interesting points. Since I'm really short of time, let me respond to just one of them, for now. Apparently, I did not make it clear enough that I was listing not "debating points," or "positions," but "concerns," which I hoped someone out there might address, and hopefully alleviate. I was not saying that because a "right-winger" makes a charge it is therefore, ipso facto, incorrect. I have done my best, I think, to avoid "name-calling," "blame-shifting," as you put it. What I was saying is that, yes, I AM worried about the motives of the vociferous organized anti-Clinton "movement." That is a psychological reality, not an argument. That psychological reality will inevitably color my perception of the issues, much as I might not want it to. For example, I might be more likely than jlallen, say, to believe the charge that Ken Starr misrepresented certain facts in order to obtain Janet Reno's consent to widen his investigation to include the Paula Jones/Lewinsky matter. That is, I would be more likely to believe that a sort of "sting operation" was being put in place here. This, in turn, would affect my assessment of the seriousness of any lies the President may have uttered during his testimony in the case. That does NOT mean I would immediately conclude the charges were true, just because they were being made against people I do not trust. (I have here deliberately used an example of an issue I have not looked into at all.) Incidentally, I do not think it is possible to treat the "issues" in the abstract, apart from the context in which they arose, as desirable as that might appear to be. The Clinton investigation(s) did not spring out of nowhere; somebody wanted them to be undertaken, and for certain reasons. And those reasons are going to affect how the issues are presented and perceived. As Max Weber once observed, perfect objectivity is not possible. We can approach objectivity, according to Weber, only insofar as we recognize, and make allowances for, just this inability to be completely objective. (From which it follows that the most unobjective person of all is the one who insists he/she is perfectly objective!) Beyond that, I am truly concerned about whether the organized anti-Clinton crowd is going to go after Gore, if they succeed in getting rid of Clinton. Many of them SAY they plan to. This certainly affects my position. As I pointed out, I, for one, might otherwise join in the demand for the President's resignation. Why go through the effort of persuading the President to resign, if the whole thing is only going to start all over again with his successor? I have asked this question many times, but without getting much of a response. Can you alleviate my concerns on this score? jbe

To: j_b who wrote (7502)	10/7/1998 3:29:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

No offense, but the motives of the anti's are irrelevant. The issue is not their motives, but BC's actions and motives. If we can't stick to the actual issues, the entire debate ends up where you pointed to in the rest of your post - a discussion about policies. Impeachment absolutely must not ever be used to resolve policy disputes (in my humble, quiet, soft-spoken, understated opinion)!!!!!!!! That is, I guess, Iran/Contra was OK, even if the Boland amendment was a duly enacted law, and George Bush lied under oath. That's one way to look at it. And again, I won't argue that Bush should have been impeached, but he wasn't called on any of it. Congress should hold hearings, and if Monica is the only issue being discussed, it should be dropped. Cool. I missed this the first time around. What are the odds on that? (that being if it turns out to be just Monica, it gets dropped) Do you consider the current perjury / obstruction of justice / conspiracy charges to be "Monica" issues or not? I can't quite tell. On another post of yours, j_b, you brought up the White House travel office affair as some kind of political dirty trick, comparable to the Arkansas project dirt digging or Willie Horton. It certainly wasn't a shining moment for Clinton, another early blunder like nannygate and gays in the military. But my recollection of the news is that, while nothing criminal was found, the WH travel office was supposed to be a mess, with very lax accounting. Nobody cared, though, it was just money from the press and the press liked them. A first-class political blunder, and certainly reprehensible on a personal level but hardly a political dirty trick. Mr. Dale had his moment of infamy, which was unfortunate, but he was exonerated and now has a slew of new friends. And he doesn't have $6 million in legal bills, with the clock set to run a lot longer. How that compares to the anti-Clinton industry, or the relentless smearing in Vince Foster's name, I don't know. Cheers, Dan.