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: pezz who wrote (20247)	12/16/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

No, pezz, JR didn't - the underlings she inherited shortly after her appointment were engaged in the "investigation" for some time before she was handed the responsibility. Don't you remember all the stories of the dreaded militia that were circulating at the time? The real mistake in judgement was that the administration (DOT under Bentsen) ATF had assumed a responsibility to disarm politically-incorrect opponents and to root out those who "stockpiled" arms and ammunition - legal or otherwise. A culture was established that let the cowboys get out of hand - some of them privately thought they had been given carte-blanche to finally move against the militia movements themselves, and the Weaver episode and the lack of punishment of those responsible simply fueled their resolve and emboldened them. Yes, a mistake in judgement. A politically-motivated one, at that. Much like the mistakes in judgement that the nut-cases who are out terrorizing abortion clinics and doctors - the opponent must be punished for wrong-doing. Now before us comes one William Jefferson Clinton, who, through his administration's desire to quash the noise from the far right, saw fit to have the far right punished for their alleged transgressions. And, of course, those deeply held personal religious views of the Korseh nuts aren't anywhere near as valid as Clinton's view that his personal life and perjury about it make it inappropriate to prosecute him. Intersting dichotomy, isn't it? Then comes LesX, who also views Clinton as being above the rule of law, who advocates the demise of opponents by violence. In this case, of course, he doesn't have the resources of the administration to perform the acts, but seeks to accomplish essentially the same thing - punishment for socio-political disagreement. Another mistake in judgement, yes, and in both cases, the similarity is that the persons engaged in the decisions made those decisions with the goal of punishing their opposition. Mr. K.