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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Enigma who wrote (17473)	12/17/1998 9:30:00 AM
From: Link Lady	Respond to of 18056

Something as important as this should not be tainted with words of impeachment. It makes the presidents choice of bombing Iraq seem petty and also makes US seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel,however that Saddam needs to be stopped. US is in a sad state of affairs. U.S. Officials Assess Iraq Damage newsday.com In Washington's tense political atmosphere, Republican leaders postponed the House debate on the impeachment of President Clinton after the attack began Wednesday evening, even as some voiced suspicions about the president's timing. Around the capital, security was tightened at embassies and other ''critical installations.'' The House had been scheduled to begin debate on four articles of impeachment against Clinton today, with votes likely on Friday. Instead, it will today take up a resolution supporting the troops. Cohen, CIA Director George Tenet and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton held a rare closed-door briefing for House members in the House chamber. Several lawmakers said the only moment of discord came when Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, asked why the impeachment proceeding could not continue during the bombing. Some colleagues hissed and booed.

To: Enigma who wrote (17473)	12/17/1998 10:38:00 AM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18056

Enigma, for starters, the logic of the impeachment process isn't mine, it came from some old dead guys. I just try to understand it. But, I sure appreciate the compliment. Next, I don't agree with the rest of your assessment. The Nixon impeachment wasn't as cozy and non-partisan as some would lead us to believe. Representatives back then were just as unwilling to concede points to the opposition as they are now. The main difference was that some Republicans on the J. Committee eventually yielded to public pressure, media attacks on them, and some of the facts before them. This is as opposed to today's congress, where there is no media pressure on the Dems, and the public seems almost apathetic. They will acknowledge the facts of the matter (perjury in particular), but without the pressure are unwilling to take the next step, impeachment. I also object to your charactorization of impeachment as a coup d'etat. That's like calling a veto override a "usurpation of power" by the congress. It is not; it is a means of check and balance, and a difficult but wholly reasonable means of keeping things in balance. In this case, by removing (or threatening to remove) a person who does not lend the required qualities to the Office of President. If it were a coup d'etat, or an "overturning of the election" as some unthinking people say, it would result in Bob Dole or some other Republican taking over the office -- and that is not even a consideration. And, finally, there is a point of agreement -- nothing but muck survives inside the Beltway. But, at least it's American Muck, and as much as we abhor it, we try to tolerate it. jim