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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack Be Quick who wrote (9625)	12/20/1998 1:54:00 PM
From: dfloydr	Respond to of 13994

My wife got a call yesterday that started out as a poll on political views. As soon as she let on in question # 2 that she feels Clinton should now be impeached in the Senate they switched to asking questions about what toilet paper we use and which baby food would we choose for our grand child. Hmmmm .... and today they announce that 70% now support Clinton?

To: Jack Be Quick who wrote (9625)	12/20/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: DD™	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Boy, do you have your facts backwards. What you are conveniently forgetting is that it was this very same administration who told Ritter earlier this year to back-off on the inspections of highly sensitive areas for fear of provoking a conflict. Why do you think Ritter quit in protest? It has been the Klintoon administration that has been inconsistent in their policy on inspections, not the Republicans. DD

To: Jack Be Quick who wrote (9625)	12/20/1998 5:51:00 PM
From: Michael Sphar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

From a private message to a friend: I've be thinking through this US vs Iraq situation too. I am now opposed to the sanction method as a means of enforcing our American view. I believe it has perverted a once noble goal by its misguided action. I think it was because Clinton had no standing in world affairs that foreign policy towards Iraq settled on the non-dramatic siege effect. I believe that Bill Clinton is accountable in this and is probably a war criminal. The suffering in Iraq caused by sanctions have not been effective in the original goal, and that is not Saddam's fault but American policy makers. They should have seen the unintended consequences and fixed their policy much earlier on. This latest military strike is 6 years late. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died during the interim millions of others have suffered deeply. We cannot lay this at the feet of Saddam Heussein with clear conscience. All organisms struggle to survive for the smallest of single celled amoeba to the now impeached leader of the free world. Saddam is no different. Revile him or not, he is human and created equal in the eyes of our Founders, entitled to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. It is not our duty to police the world. Only to defend against enemies that pose a clear and present danger. Saddam Heussein clearly does not. Although he may be bent on developing WMD, he has not threatened any other country with their use in 8 years. Many other countries possess, develop and enhance WMD, do we now put them in our gunsights ? Should Israel, France, England, India, Pakistan, and Russia have their WMD targeted by an American police state ? We on the other hand have imposed a political weapon of massive destruction in the form of sanction against the whole country of Iraq, during the Clinton watch, killing and crippling millions. I view this action as essentially cowardly and criminal, and lay it at the foot of the Commander-In-Chief. Bill Clinton is no great leader and to stand in support of him as if he were is no great gesture. Rather the mindless act of political zealotry bordering on a Sig Heil rapture.