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: Bill who wrote (37233)	3/8/1999 8:53:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

An Entirely New Impeachment Case By Nat Hentoff washingtonpost.com Saturday, March 6, 1999; Page A21 Last November more than 400 American historians placed a full-page ad in the New York Times. Calling themselves Historians in Defense of the Constitution, they fiercely opposed the impeachment of the president. Organized by professors Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the James Carville of academia, Sean Wilentz, the historians claimed that if the president were convicted, the presidency would be "permanently disfigured," thereby "undermining the Constitution." People for the American Way tells me it acted as a facilitator for the concerned historians, getting a public relations firm to further spread their urgent warning to Congress and the nation. Also, it enabled the list price of the ad, $75,948, to be reduced to $56,000. I recognize some of the signers of the ad as expert chroniclers of the framing of the Constitution. Reading them through the years, I had learned that one cannot know with certainty what precisely the Framers meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors." Yet in that ad, these scholars instructed us unequivocally that they did indeed know the real meaning of those crucial words. Maybe, I thought, even these distinguished academics were so fearful of Republicans taking over the White House and the Supreme Court that they shaded their previous interpretations for the greater good of the nation. Not widely known, however, is that more than 240 American historians have come forth with a call for impeachment -- on different grounds. The new petition declares: "Impeach Bill Clinton for the Right Reasons: Not for Lewinsky, but Rather for the Illegal Bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan." This proposed indictment was first circulated during the Jan. 7-10 meeting of the American Historical Association in Washington. Subsequently, the petition was published in the Nation and In These Times as well as on various Web sites on the continually churning Internet. According to one of the originators, Jesse Lemisch -- a professor of history at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at New York's City University -- additional historians as well as social scientists and graduate students keep coming aboard. He welcomes more. At that January meeting of the American Historical Association, the signers of the new petition made clear that they "strongly oppose the removal of Bill Clinton for the offenses for which he is on trial in the Senate." But they argue that he has so abused his presidential powers in the bombing of those countries that he should be removed from office. The petition cites a violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). Although Congress "shall have Power to . . . declare War," Clinton only marginally consulted a few of its leaders and did not go through the required stages of meaningful consultation as mandated by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Also violated, according to these historians, was Executive Order 12.333, Sec. 2-305, which prohibits assassination or conspiracy to assassinate human foreign targets. That executive order, issued by President Gerald Ford in 1975, says: "No person employed by, or acting on behalf of the United States Government, shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." Following the August raid on Afghanistan, administration officials denied for months that a purpose of the bombing was to kill alleged master terrorist Osama bin Laden. However, when the CIA determined that bin Laden would be at a camp in Afghanistan, more than 70 cruise missiles were aimed at him and his colleagues in that very camp. In the Nov. 14 New York Times, reporter James Risen quoted Defense Secretary William Cohen as saying that the United States had been "going after" bin Laden and his associates. The lead to Risen's story declared: "One of the clear but unstated objectives of last August's raid on Afghanistan was to kill Osama bin Laden and as many of his associates as possible, Administration officials now acknowledge." The Times report cited various administration legal rationalizations for "going after" bin Laden, including the "any means necessary" provision of the 1996 anti-terrorism act. Why, then, did the Clinton administration deny for months that the bombing was intended to kill bin Laden? Though not explicit in the historians' January petition, it has been widely conjectured that the bombing raids on all those countries were ordered by the president primarily to distract attention from his travails in Congress. Meanwhile, an American air and missile strike on Feb. 25 attacked targets 30 miles from downtown Baghdad, and the Iraqi government claims that once again civilians were killed. Innocent civilians. © Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company

To: Bill who wrote (37233)	3/8/1999 10:36:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Yes, editing "George Bush" to "President Bush" is just a simple spelling correction Bill. You're still flogging the "President Bush was never deposed line, too. Wasn't always like that, though, was it Bill? While you're busy pontificating on the conflicts in your troubled life, how about an answer to my question. Where and when did George Bush lie under oath? (Remember that hateful wild ranting accusatory post of yours?) Just wondering. Look, I'm not your shrink. Go rant to someone else. Just tell me when and where George Bush lied under oath, as you have alleged. So, you admit that you invented that stuff about Bush lying under oath. Is that what you're telling me? Are you telling this thread that you are a liar? Or are you telling this thread that you are ignorant? Nice tone. Again, take that to your shrink. What's this "I'll get back to you" stuff? You made a declarative statement and now you have to go back and look it up? Why don't you tell us what you meant by your statement that Bush lied under oath? Was it your lie or your ignorance that produced that bit of mythology? A person with integrity would have admitted he made up the statement, "and George Bush lied under oath." And an apology for being so blindly partisan that you lied to make a point would be in order. But liars beget liars, I guess. And people with no integrity are respected by the same. That explains your hateful existence. Have you no shame? Cease with the endless drivel and equivocating. You have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have lied when you said: "and Bush lied under oath." You can't even point to an instance where Bush was PUT UNDER OATH! Case closed. You lied. Admit it. Where is your integrity? And you complain about people attacking you? Who said this? You did. You're a real piece of work, liar. You lied about Bush lying under oath. You have no shame or integrity to admit it. And thank you for the "apology". That was spread over maybe 5-10 messages, over 2 hours, while I looked things up. Want to give me the lecture on juvenile taunting again, Bill? I slipped up and called you a piece of garbage in there. Well, it was a slip at the time, but also the truth. Peripherally, there was this cute little email I got from you sometime after that polite exchange: I just did a search on "liar". Haven't found even one instance where I directly called you one. Found several where I pointed out your action, the LIE. But not direct name calling. I find that offensive and so does SI. So, knock it off. Keep it at a little higher level. SI search just doesn't cut it, does it, Bill? And of course, creative Bill would never, ever engage in direct name calling. I stand by the "garbage" characterization. Walsh thought he could make a perjury case against Bush, but then there were these pardons. The facts of which I documented at the time, you little liar. Well known Marxist William Safire had some other problems with Bush in that era: Back in the Bush Administration, press reports revealed the corrupt use of U.S. Government grain guarantees to help Saddam Hussein build his war machine before he surprised us by invading Kuwait. When the Justice Department shyly turned away, the need arose for independent counsel to explore "Iraqgate." No way, said George Bush, already burned by a special prosecution of Iran-contra. His Attorney General instead used a patsy prosecutor until the Independent Counsel Act lapsed.

To: Bill who wrote (37233)	3/8/1999 11:49:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

MONICA'S NEW MOVIE - Part 2 The Wizard of Is The Frumious Bandersnatch has obtained an early treatment for a movie that Monica Lewinsky is shopping around Hollywood. Her pitch is based on updating the classic MGM film, The Wizard of Oz. Last week we presented Part I of her script. Part II of the treatment follows: Monica, having left Medialand, comes to a crossroad on the Easy Way Out. Next to the crossroad is a field of organic corn with an old scarecrow (played by Al Gore) on a post. Monica: Oh dear! Which road should I take? Scarecrow: You could take the road to the left. [Monica is startled to hear the scarecrow speak.] That would win you the support of minorities, environmentalists, labor, and feminists. On the other hand, it could cost you the soccer moms. The road to the center will win them back, and garner business support, but could cost you your base. I've been stuck here for seven years trying to decide the right way to go. Monica: Why has it taken you so long to decide? Scarecrow: It's because I have no brain! My head is filled with straw. Monica: Well, I'm off to Emerald City to see the Wizard of Is. He's going to help get back home. Maybe he can give you a brain! Scarecrow: That would be wonderful! Can you help me down? [She assists him off his perch.] Monica: What would you do, if you had a brain? Scarecrow: What would I do? [Breaks into song.] I could wile away the hours Expandin' government powers And talking acid rain I could tax your every dollar Until I make you holler If I only had a brain [Dances with Monica.] I'd be solvin' global warmin' Great policies I'd be formin' And feelin' all your pain [Monica sings:] With the thoughts you'd be thinkin' You'd remember who was Lincoln If you only had a brain [During the dancing they've lost their bearings, and they head off willy-nilly back up the road Monica had just come down. They wander off down a side road, and come to a swamp where they stop to catch crawdads. They find a tin woodsman (played by James Carville) seized up and covered in slime. Through his rusted lips he tells them he needs hog grease rubbed all over him so that he's nice and oily. After they oil his jaws, he begins a non-stop stream of talk. He tells them about growing up poor, and how it's left him damaged.] Monica: Damaged? But you look… [She looks him up and down.] Well… you don't look sick, anyway. Tin Woodsman: Listen. [Bangs on chest.] It's hollow -- no heart. Monica: No heart? Why, that's terrible! Tin Woodsman: You're telling me! [Sings.] I'd stop spendin' all my hours Trashin' Gennifer Flowers And tearing Jones apart I'd cooperate on the double -- Not pay off Webster Hubble If I only had a heart There'd be no more Corporal Cueball No longer would I stonewall Or call Ken Starr a fart I just might get some nookie >From my little right-wing cookie If I only had a heart [Setting off down the road together, they enter a rather mean-spirited part of the forest. Tattered social nets hang from twisted trees. Slimy drops of ill-gotten wealth trickle down onto the hunched backs of the proletariat. The throbbing, shamanisitc drumbeats of voodoo economics fill the air.] Monica: Do you think there are any right-wingers in this part of the forest? Tin Woodsman: Oh, I imagine so. Scarecrow [shuddering]: What kind of right-wingers? Tin Woodsman: Oh, perhaps some paleo-cons, or populists, or free-marketers. But mostly old lions, pro-lifers, and hawks. All: Lions, pro-lifers and hawks, oh my! Lions, pro-lifers and hawks, oh my! Lions, pro-lifers and hawks, oh my! Lions, pro-lifers and hawks, oh my! [A lion, played by Bob Dole, leaps from behind a tree.] Cowardly Lion: Roar! Roar! Giant tax cuts! Roar! Tin Woodsman: You mangy ol' pole-cat. More tax giveaways for your fat cat friends, hey? Cowardly Lion: Don't say that! I'm terrified of people saying that! Monica: You're afraid of what people might say? Cowardly Lion: The Cowardly Lion is afraid of a lot of things. The Cowardly Lion is afraid of his own poll numbers! The Cowardly Lion is afraid of all the urinals being taken at the public restroom. He's so scared that he hasn't been able to perform properly for Mrs. Lion in months. [Sotto voce.] In fact, I can't even remember where my den is located. Monica: I'm sure the Wizard can help you find some courage. We're going to see him at the Emerald City. Cowardly Lion: May Cowardly Lion join you? Scarecrow: Sure! Let's go. [All four head down the road. They eventually arrive at the Emerald City, and, after some difficulties and a makeover from Vanity Fair, find themselves waiting outside the Wizard's inner office.] Monica: Mr. Lion, what would you do if you were President of the Forest? Cowardly Lion: If I were Prez of the forest Not rep, not veep, not judge All my affairs would be private No Limbaugh, no Goldberg, no Drudge I'd command each thing in the forest Wear it star, wear it cross, wear it fez And the press would watch what it says If I, if I were Prez Monica: Mr. President, you wouldn't be afraid of anything? Cowardly Lion: Not a thing! Scarecrow: Not even an independent counsel? Cowardly Lion: I'd give him a good trounsel! Tin Woodsman: Not even a Grand jury meeting? Cowardly Lion: I'd give them all a good beating! Monica: Not even a flashed thong? Cowardly Lion: My Viagra would make me strong! [The door to the wizard's inner office opens, emitting clouds of dry ice smoke. They find themselves in a room with a disco ball, leopard-print wallpaper, and shag carpeting. In the far corner is a heart-shaped whirlpool. In the center is a large water bed over which is a mirror. "Disco Inferno" blares from an 8-track quadraphonic stereo: Burn, baby, burn Disco inferno! The floating head of the wizard appears before them. He has slicked-back hair, silk shirt open to navel, hairy chest, gold chains.] Wizard of Is: I am the potent and virile Is. How dare you come before me! (All except for you, Monica, you sweet little thing.) [Winks at her.] What is it you want from Is? Tin Woodsman: Well, it all started with an over-zealous special prosecutor… Wizard of Is: Quiet! Is knows what you came for! If you want my help I'll expect some payback. Monica: Payback? Wizard of Is: Yes, yes… a very minor thing, really. The Wizard wants you to bring back the cigarette lighter of the Wicked Witch of the Really, Really, Extreme Right-Wing. Scarecrow: Bring back her lighter! Why, we couldn't even pry that from her dead fingers. Wizard of Is: Go! And don't come back without that lighter! [Great clouds of tax return audits rise around the Wizard. The four companions flee the room in terror.] End of Part II © 1999, Gene Callahan and Stu Morgenstern Contributing Editors