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: one_less who wrote (12026)	3/30/1999 1:22:00 PM
From: cody andre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Clinton should have sent Larry Flynt in to attack Slobo.

To: one_less who wrote (12026)	3/30/1999 10:47:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Bring the troops home now Joseph Farah is editor of WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1999 "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" I Corinthians 14:8 KJV Compare and contrast: Bill Clinton refused to serve in the armed forces because he believed the Vietnam War was a civil war in which the United States had no business. Flash forward 30 years. The draft dodger turned commander-in-chief is now using the U.S. "war machine" to take sides in a civil war in which the United States has even less business. What am I missing here? Oh yeah, now Bill Clinton says intervention in the Balkans is a moral imperative because civilians are being killed in Kosovo. I guess nobody ever bothered to tell young Bill Clinton about the horrific slaughters of civilians in South Vietnam by the Communists. Well, I guess that was then and this is now. But one thing hasn't changed. Our little hot war in Serbia has much in common with our Vietnam experience: There is no definition of victory, there is no clear objective, there is no honorable exit strategy. Those were good and honorable reasons to oppose the Vietnam War -- not to mention the fact that it was never declared by Congress and was, thus, unconstitutional. But those weren't Bill Clinton's reasons for opposing the war. His opposition was two-fold: He sympathized with the Communist aggressors and he feared getting his ample butt shot off. How ironic that the anti-war protester has become the warmonger. With such moral inconsistency and divergent courses of action in similar situations, you might think that, by statistical chance, Clinton would have made the correct decision once. Amazingly, that is not the case. Defying the odds, Clinton has proved that even with inconsistent application of his twisted sense of morality that he is fully capable of being consistently wrong. He has no problem ordering other braver men into a battle remarkable in its futility, its purposelessness, its immorality -- his own stated objections to service in Vietnam. While Vietnam had its share of murkiness insofar as mission, objectives and strategy, by comparison to the civil war in the Balkans, it was a black-and-white struggle of good vs. evil. Let's see. Our "friends" in this war are funded by drug sales, and armed and trained by Iranians and other international terrorists, including the infamous Osama bin Laden, who Clinton supposedly tried to take out with failed bombings in Afghanistan and of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Our "enemies" are people who were our allies in World War II -- people who courageously battled Hitler and risked their own lives rescuing hundreds of downed U.S. airmen. Welcome to the New World Disorder. Do you see any light at the end of that tunnel yet, Lyndon -- I mean, Bill? Maybe just a little bit more escalation will do the trick. Clinton and his buddies in NATO are already openly discussing the prospect of introducing ground troops into the fight. Clinton's secretary of the Army even talked last week about reinstituting the draft! I wonder how Bill Clinton feels watching those protests out in the street now? I wonder how he justifies all this to himself? Or does he try? Is all this part of a much bigger game plan that only elitists like him, Rhodes scholars and the like, can understand? Can he sleep at night knowing the carnage for which he is responsible? Does he have a conscience at all? What every American should have learned about Bill Clinton in the last two years, if not earlier, is that he does not know nor care about the difference between right and wrong. There is no use in trying to appeal to the soul of the soulless. Back in the '60s when Bill Clinton was protesting a war, the chant was: "Bring the troops home now." In retrospect, that was good advice then. Must we waste the lives of more U.S. pilots and crewmen, not to mention innocent civilians on the ground, to learn it's the only rational course for America today? Posted for discussion and educational purposes only. Not for commercial use. worldnetdaily.com