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: DD™ who wrote (9627)	12/20/1998 2:33:00 PM
From: ArtAlley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

At this point it is BEST to look directly into the 'EYE OF THE STORM'

To: DD™ who wrote (9627)	12/20/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 13994

<< 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. >> This change of policy, if correct, proves nothing, really. If thorough inspection is important, the desire to avoid a conflict should never be a consideration. Seems Saddam has been allowed to fluster inspections all along the way- Bad Policy, granted. If there is some proof that Clinton willfully arranged this to bolster his cause, that'd be something. I don't think there will be any if it IS true. As much as I believe Clinton needs to be removed by the Senate, I really think the points made by Double D are valid in spite of the above, unless something more is at hand by way of evidence. DanB

To: DD™ who wrote (9627)	12/20/1998 11:32:00 PM
From: Jack Be Quick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

>>Boy, do you have your facts backwards.<< The "facts" in question are Ritter's statements as quoted in the article, and I agree with you that Ritter sounds a bit confused. >>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.<< I don't know anything about it; maybe they did and maybe that means something. On the other hand, I am not surprised at another instance of the usual pattern where: (1) a Clinton hater of the usual sort says "look, look, everyone! this article shows why Clinton should be impeached!", (2) someone bothers to look into it and point out that it appears to do nothing of the kind, and then (3) another Clinton hater chimes in to say "yes, but that's because it's really all about this other thing, which is why Clinton should be impeached." But OK, I'll bite: what inconsistency do you claim exists in the administration policy today that did not exist in November during the highly publicized military buildup and withdrawn order to attack? Like, you thought that episode was going to be a prelude to a relaxation of our inspection demands? And then please tell me you haven't been spouting off for the past month about what a wimp Clinton was for not attacking then, and how his lack of backbone in dealing with Saddam was the reason we needed to impeach him. (Because, as we all know, the real reason we need to impeach him is because he parts his hair on the left. Or maybe the right. I don't know, it's possible I've got the facts backwards.) JD