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 (13673)	11/7/1998 8:55:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Daniel - if we are to step back into the Iran/Contra affair we have to open the doors of the discussion to the somewhat tedious issues that surround the control of foreign policy in our system. The root cause of whatever was done, centered around attempting to manage foreign policy, something that has historically been the purview of the administration. When it became apparent that the situation in Nicaragua was being manipulated through legislative means, certain members of the administration cooked up a scheme to circumvent the intent of congress - believing that congress had extended its authority beyond constitutionally defined boundaries. Our history is replete with covert operations that either supported or attempted to destabilize various governments with the purpose of perpetuating our power and influence around the world. We were all singing out of the same book for a number of years, and then, when we had lost face in the battle with communists in Indochina, the tone in the congress became "maybe we just ought to leave the communists alone," and some touted a non-involvement stance. Reagan re-set the tone - he was the one who publicly called the Soviet Union the "evil empire." In the administration, at least, communists were not something you let run around unchecked. Congress, on the other hand, decided that you could manage foreign policy through legislation if you didn't like the President's tone. Given a majority, Democrats pushed through limits on funding for a cause they weren't willing to make sacrifices for. The differences between then and now make any correlation of the character of the men involved (Reagan / Bush / Clinton) an extreme stretch. In the Iran/Contra case, the actions taken by administration officials (North, Poindexter, et al) may have been illegal. Walsh believes there was a coverup that was at least, in part, engineered in the White House with the intent to protect Bush with plausible deniability. He was never able to prove that and, in fact, it remains a supposition on his part. In the case of our current President, the smoke from the fires is so thick we can't even find the source of the blaze. He is and was surrounded by persons of questionable character. He has a long history of stupid personal behavior and now he has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, er, or maybe I should say his cigar . . er, no, let's not go there. No, he's been caught at his monumentally arrogant worst - with the lies of a man who believes he is personally above the law he has sworn to uphold. I'll say it again, Daniel - it is a symptom. This is not just a unique manifestation of a simple, human error on his part. You claim that if Iran/Contra didn't merit impeachment then "BJgate" as you refer to it, doesn't. Again, I'll remind you of something I said, in effect, many, many posts ago: Past failures of investigation or prosecution are irrelevant to subsequent investigations or prosecutions. That is a very important principle of law and continually trying to make the stretch that there is some "injustice" in that fact is meaningless. That won't work for you and me or for the people that have been convicted of it, either, and no matter how much you want to ignore it, there are people who have been prosecuted (and convicted) for lying, about sex, under oath. You also imply that we shouldn't reach back into wrongdoing in Clinton's case; why do you and I have legal responsibility for our actions and he and his friends do not? I said it before, Daniel, the "SO WHAT" light keeps flashing and you still don't see it and continue to try and drive the discussion away from defending him and his actions into making his opposition respond to irrelevant issues. Mr. K.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13673)	11/7/1998 9:17:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Respond to of 67261

Daniel - I just noticed your post was as of 4:18AM EST - and frankly, it was one of your most lucid. Up early or staying out really late up there nowadays, eh? <vbg> Best regards. Mr. K.