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: Curlton Latts who wrote (11973)	3/18/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: cody andre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Yeah... Besides Goebbles, Sid Blumenthal is playing Himmler as well.

To: Curlton Latts who wrote (11973)	3/18/1999 10:10:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 13994

The wanton irresponsibility and recklessness of a proud and practicing sociopath creators.com Originally Published on 3/9/99 Linda Bowles One of the defenses of Bill Clinton spun out by his apologists is that the people of America have always known what they were getting when they voted for him. Everything about him was in full view from the beginning. I challenge these defenders to produce one politician or one ordinary citizen who knew before voting for him that Clinton was a cheat, a sexual predator, a chronic liar and believably a rapist. But now, there is no longer the excuse of ignorance or reasonable doubt. When Democrats honor and applaud Clinton, they do it knowing what he is and what he has done. It is one thing to argue that it is not in the interest of the country to throw a lecher and unconvicted felon out of office; it is quite another to put him on a pedestal and shower him with praises and gifts. Those who are nuzzling up to Bill Clinton might do well to reconsider. In the very middle of the furor over Juanita Broaddrick's credible accusation of rape against the president, two of the top three Democrats in America began to back away from him. First, Al Gore presided over a ceremony in the White House to announce $223 million in grants to fight violence against women. Gore spoke passionately against the mistreatment of women. He said, "As a society, as a country, as a national family, we don't have to put up with this kind of abuse, and we will not." Is that so? Has anyone at any time heard a word from Vice President Gore concerning his pal Bill's abuse of women? Not a word. His consensual silence brings to mind the story of the cowards who closed their apartment windows when they heard a woman in the streets screaming for help. Second, a week after Gore spoke, co-president Hillary Rodham made a powerful speech at a United Nations conference on women. She railed against domestic and sexual abuse around the world and exhorted women to take more control of their own lives. She deplored that women are "used as objects" by powerful men. "It is no longer acceptable to say that the abuse of women is cultural," she said. "It should be called what it is. It is criminal." I am not sure why Hillary believes she has the right to make intolerant, moral judgments of other people and call them criminals. I am not sure why she feels virtuous in intruding into the private sex lives and practices that exist in different cultures and religions. Where is her sense of diversity, and why is she attempting to impose her western values on others? In any case, she is hardly a credible spokesperson for the abused women of the world. This is the woman who stood by her husband through his serial adulteries and predations, lying for him, making excuses, covering up for him, never once lifting a finger for any of his victims, never once expressing compassion for their hurt and humiliation. Rodham and Gore are intelligent, politically astute people. The timing of their remarks is not accidental. They are taking the first steps in moving away from the president, because close association with him is becoming a liability. They are leaving indefensible positions while the leaving is good. What is also becoming clear, and will soon become even clearer, is that Bill Clinton not only soiled the presidency, he endangered the nation. If the president wasn't blackmailed, it was luck. He made 50, late-night phone calls on unsecured lines to Monica. Many of these calls were for the purpose of phone sex. There are reports that the Israeli spy agency Mossad tapped 30 hours of these phone sex calls, as did the FBI, as part of its counterintelligence operations. The fear is that others, including the Chinese, were also listening. In an interview on CNN TV in late January, retired Sen. Sam Nunn, former chairman of the Armed Forces Committee, sounded a warning to which nobody paid any attention: "For people to say that the president of the United States having -- allegedly -- telephone sex is strictly private, has nothing to do with official duties ... it means they've never been acquainted with the world of espionage, with the world of blackmail. ...The White House itself is one of the most targeted places in the world in terms of foreign espionage." Clinton knew he was playing with disaster. Monica testified under oath that Clinton told her "he suspected that a foreign embassy was tapping his telephone." Our national security has been jeopardized, and our foreign policy decisions made suspect by the wanton irresponsibility and recklessness of a proud and practicing sociopath. not for commercial use freerepublic.com