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: JBL who wrote (18082)	12/10/1998 1:54:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Ok. Russia? What do you propose doing there? What has Clinton done that's particularly different from his predecessors? North Korea? The reactor deal is somewhat questionable, but a Western commercial reactor is better than an independently developed one on a number of counts. How is North Korea going to blackmail us? By threatening to blow up reactors on their own territory? Reprocessing commercial reactor fuel is not particularly easy, to my knowledge. Pakistan? US contributions to Pakistani nuclear technology predate Clinton by a lot, you know. And Chinese nuclear technology predates Clinton by even more. US military cooperation with China also predates Clinton by a lot, including technology. Of course, to China's credit, they've always been reluctant to build up their military much along with the economic boom. I don't know the details of Reagan-Bush China-US military cooperation, but it was certainly happening then. Bush prided himself on being an old China hand, and not letting Tianamen square rock the boat of cooperation. Iraq? Who does Saddam threaten, beside his own people? That last part is quite unfortunate, but it's not Clinton's fault. Israel? The US has a long tradition of paying off Israel to get successive peace accords signed. Is the Republican Congress suddenly going to find some courage there after impeachment? I haven't seen any courage in taking on Israeli aid politically up till now, have I missed something? Pollard is not likely to be released, the issue has gotten publicity and and the damage that Pollard did was not done during the Clinton administration. Releasing him would be symbolically offensive, but it wouldn't do any real damage I can see, aside from being quite unlikely. So, in your opinion, refusing to impeach Clinton makes all these situations worse, and impeaching him would improve things. In my opinion, you haven't made much of a case for that. How would a long trial followed by a transition of power make things better? As far as decency goes, I don't see a lot of that on either side in this process. Lots of posturing, though. Do you think the leaders of Pakistan, or Iraq, or China, or North Korea, would be more impressed by somebody more attuned to and obeisant of the moral reformationist Republicans? Somehow, I doubt that.