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: Machaon who wrote (20849)	12/16/1998 8:41:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Robert, Isn't it amazing how he has no ideology. He supports a policy or not solely depending who puts it in place....ugly ! pez

To: Machaon who wrote (20849)	12/17/1998 12:59:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>>What a two faced moron! If we had a Republican President you would be jumping up and down for joy! Wrong. Bush had the support of the world. The only ones who opposed him were the Dems in Congress who voted against the Gulf War and tried to defund it. Clinton had no need to act so precipitously now, without any international support other than Britain, except that he needed to stop the impeachment process. 45% now support impeachment and he acted to stop that momentum. The rest of the world is calling this the "Monica Lewinsky War". That tells you that Clinton is not taken seriously by anyone except the willing Clinton shills in the US media and assorted rabid partisans like yourself. Thankfully the impeachment process will begin tomorrow as Congress will not be deterred by petty dictators, domestic and foreign. I now believe the Senate vote to remove him may be close - certainly he has lost some votes. A Foreign Policy Blunder By Jim Hoagland Thursday, December 17, 1998; Page A27 President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response to Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law with his own wrongdoing in the White House and the impeachment threat it created. The military campaign launched under these circumstances is a foreign policy blunder of major proportions. Striking Saddam's regime to protect Iraqis, their Arab neighbors and the world from his hidden weapons of mass destruction is a serious mission -- far too serious to be obscured and put under the cloud of suspicion that Clinton inevitably kicked up by the timing of his decision, which will delay the scheduled House vote on impeachment. Clinton refused in November to go through with planned strikes because he was concerned about how the world would react. This time, world reaction to the appearance of a politically endangered president ordering the bombing of Iraqi cities to buy himself some time at home did not count. The president and British Prime Minister Tony Blair listed in speeches last night powerful arguments that Iraq presented "a clear and present danger" to the world and had to be bombed for thwarting U.N. arms inspections. I heard nothing that I disagreed with on that score. Many of those same arguments have appeared in this space over the months and years that Clinton has allowed his Iraq policy to drift and Saddam to get away with murder. But Clinton's insistence that he had no choice but to order the bombing even as final votes were being counted for the House impeachment balloting was less persuasive. By Clinton's own account, it was the submission of a report by Richard Butler, the chief U.N. arms inspector, that controlled the timing of the strikes. Butler is an important figure in this drama, but hardly a decisive decision-maker -- unless Clinton has reason for him to be. Whatever his intentions, Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa. For the rest of the world, the looming impeachment seemed until now like a bad, inexplicable car wreck along a normally peaceful highway. Rubbernecking and tut-tutting briefly at the ghastly details, the leaders and citizens of foreign nations have sped on to their own destinations, leaving Americans to sort out the roadside wreckage and casualties. But the arrival of judgment time in the House of Representatives and the debate over the timing of the new bombing in Iraq operate together to erase this detachment. The world is now involved in what had been a largely American drama. In foreign policy at least, the threat of impeachment seems to have focused Clinton on leadership tasks that he often treated with intermittent indifference. Foreign policy analysts will perhaps one day erect a statue to Monica S. Lewinsky in gratitude. Arriving back in Washington from a historic Middle East trip shortly before the full House was due to vote, Clinton had on his schedule for Friday a semiannual summit meeting with European Union leaders to discuss trade and other matters. Clinton's repeated assertions that he is not allowing the serious business of impeachment to affect national security matters gives the House leadership an obligation to return the favor: They should not let national security delay for long the serious business of impeachment. They should hold the vote quickly. The Pentagon would benefit from being able to run this showdown with Clinton's attention elsewhere. The Judiciary Committee's hearings established for me beyond a reasonable doubt that two big things are true: Clinton lied under oath to a federal grand jury, betraying his office as well as his supporters and family. This is no mere private matter. And the evidence is equally convincing that Kenneth Starr and associates knowingly set a perjury trap around the president's sex life that Clinton foolishly thought he could outwit. I would find it impossible to vote for impeachment because of the prosecutor's tactics. But that does not mean that others who reach the opposite conclusion are acting unreasonably, irresponsibly or wastefully. It is no accident this is a close call. Another Clinton escape does not mean that the impeachment debate has been a waste to this point, or that sending the matter to the Senate in the face of likely acquittal there is futile. Even in survival, Clinton will emerge from this experience chastised if not chastened, humiliated if not humbled. He may choose not to recognize that. The constant risk would be that he would fall back into the costly mocking superiority he evinced in the wake of November's congressional elections. But no "victory" is in this battle for Clinton. If he stays in the White House, he will inhabit Eden after the fall. His days of victory and vanity are over. The nation, and the world, will watch to see if he can demonstrate that he understands this and seek genuine atonement in the time he has left. Shortly after the 1992 election, one of Clinton's closest confidants told me that their biggest job in Washington would be to restore confidence in leadership and government. Instead Clinton will inspire distrust, cynicism and revulsion for years to come among many Americans. Living with that knowledge should be punishment enough for any mortal. washingtonpost.com