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: Les H who wrote (18297)	12/11/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I think I prefer lying to defend attempting to secure the release of hostages, to help arm Iran against a belligerent Iraq, Tee hee, arming Iran against a belligerent Iraq sure turned around once that affair blew over, didn't it? In case you didn't notice, we sided with Iraq there, which just might have had something to do with subsequent events. We sank Iranian ships, shot down an Iranian civil airliner. Iraq shot missiles at our ships, killed some guys, and it was cool. Iraq also got some agricultural credits that I hear got diverted. Maybe that nice link you contributed says something about that, too. and to help the people of Nicaragua get rid of the communists. Forunately for the people of Nicaragua, the Sandanistas agreed to elections, somewhat different than those in neighboring Guatamala, where the opposition tended to get killed before the elections took place. And more fortunately for them, they didn't elect the contras, who probably would have turned out to be like many other of Jean Kirkpatricks reformable "authoritarians", still hanging around after all the "totalitarians" are gone. It looks like the Democrat Congress was out of touch with world events. They spend so much time trying to figure out ways to bankrupt this country. My, we're being substantive here today, Les. Would you like to review the difference in spending levels between the budgets Reagan sent up and the budgets Congress passed in those years? Quite substantial, not. But of course, anything good that happened in the Reagan era was due to Reagan, and anything bad was Congress's fault. Now, anything good is due to Congress, and anything bad is Clinton's fault. Objective analysis, as prefered by the "biased liberal media" crowd around here.