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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gauguin who wrote (39934)	12/18/1998 2:57:00 PM
From: Ralph W.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Gauguin - Don't apologize. You're right. Slick understands a lot of things. His illness prevents him from acting on them. Ralph

To: Gauguin who wrote (39934)	12/18/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

>>I think KNOWING I would go to jail, for this, is what makes me snippy. Sorry. No, you wouldn't have gone to jail. No one but the President would have been prosecuted for this -- because no one but the President would have had the Paula Jones' suit brought against him (no lawyer working on commission would have taken such a weak case), and no one but the President would have had an "independent" counsel working with an unlimited budget for four years until he could find something to pin on the guy. Which Bill Clinton obligingly provided, by lying under oath about the world's stupidest affair. The President should not be above the law. He should not be below it, either. Consider the process that has been used in this case. Ken Starr's report was released before the President's lawyers had a chance to read it. The Judiciary Committee sent the articles of impeachment to the floor without having investigated the charges -- none of the prosecution's witnesses have been cross-examined! Nothing could be more different from the way that Rodino's committee proceeded twenty-five years ago (including the magnitude of the charges). Think about the precedent this sets. Think about what will happen the next time there is a Republican President with a Democratic Congress.

To: Gauguin who wrote (39934)	12/18/1998 3:13:00 PM
From: Merritt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Gauguin: I agree with you, and think his perjury underlines his poor character. His lack of ethics and his cynical nature, combined with his intelligence, makes him a very dangerous "leader." Operation Desert Fox. Fox, as in Sly Fox. In a post on the Strictly Drilling thread, a note was posted that contained the following: "...According to Koranic tradition - building on pre-Islamic customs - warfare is strongly discouraged in the four lunar months after Ramadan. But no mention is made of an injunction against fighting in the Koranic chapter (Sura al-Baqara) specifying observance of Ramadan." "...Diplomats note that neither Iran nor Iraq stopped fighting during Ramadan during their long war in the 1980s. And the joint Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel in 1973 was launched during Ramadan." So, if the Islamic nations can raise no objections to an attack during Ramadan, based on their own history, and there's little likelihood of obtaining any meaningful strategic benefit from bombing Iraq (for an insightful article on this, see the-times.co.uk ), then the only motive left is that Clinton's risking American and British lives, and killing Iraqi civilians, in a truly cynical attempt to ward off impeachment. That's despicable. Merritt