SI
SI
discoversearch

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: John Lacelle who wrote (39093)3/17/1999 3:48:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
Well, if you want treason, there's always William Safire and certain business dealings preceding the gulf war:

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.


Of course, Bush set that all right with the war, which was an impressive piece of work by anyone's standards. But then, after the war, policy fell apart pretty quickly again, unless you believe in revisionist historian Neocon:

Bush expected the combined forces of the Shi'ites, Kurds, and democratic opposition, along with potential rivals within the Iraqi establishment, to eventually lead to Saddams downfall. The only way in which he could hold the coalition together was to limit the objective, and besides, the American people were not prepared to occupy Iraq to shore up a successor regime. Bush's expectations were reasonable, and it is still not clear why the regime has continued to this point. One answer is that Saddam had so much built in redundancy in his military establishment that we didn't do nearly as much damage as we thought we had. Another is that there was little preparation or coordination among the opponents of the regime. One can only hope that the years have led to greater planning, and that any new initiatives will not be easily crushed. Message 8284213

I'd missed that particular Neocon masterpiece, just stumbled on it while looking up Safire. The Kurds should have been used to being sold down the river by the US at that point, of course, and the Shiites? Iran, Ayatollahs, what can you say? Now if only a good general we could deal with had risen up against Saddam, that would have been different.



To: John Lacelle who wrote (39093)3/18/1999 1:24:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
The guy lobbies hard to get Norinco a seat on the New York Stock Exchange (Norinco makes SKS assault weapons and sells them in the US)

Which is perfectly legal and legitimate, you might have added. You're not some pinko gun-grabber are you? :-)