A CNN poll today revealed that Clinton's approval rating jumped 10 points since last week and is now at 73%. I think this may be an all time high, at least in our era. All I can say is thank God the Right Wing zealots are being kept in check.

Clinton's critics on this forum remind me of the y2k polyannas. They fail to address the issues and cannot provide facts. Please answer the following before responding with Bible passages:

A. Where is all the evidence for the (insert conspiracy name here)-gate? Please don't point me to an X-files web page where they claim to have the "smoking gun". Can't you fools understand that if there was any substance to the long list of allegations on Clinton, that asshole Starr would have dredged them up during his $50,000,000.00 "investigation"? All he could come up with was a stinking lie about a marital affair - and he had to be ENTRAPPED to get that!

B. Why does Clinton's half-truth about a sexual relation deserve impeachment when Regan lied about thwarting National Security (Iran Contra), Def Sec. Weinberger lied about contact fraud, Newt lied about his million dollar book deal, etc. etc. etc. These men only received slaps on the wrist, if that.

C. Why does the right wing insist on ripping the heart out of the presidency in the middle of Y2K, a global economic meltdown, and the Iraq situation?

D. Why did Paula Jones wait 8 years to bring up her case - and why was it thrown out by the presiding WOMAN judge? Who were her backers?

E. Why would Clinton win not one, but TWO elections by a landslide if he's such a lousy person? A lot of us would have some explaining to do if we were put under the same microscope.

F. Why is infidelity an impeachable offense for Clinton, but not for every other government official that has committed it? Why don't we put every man and woman in this country on a polygraph, shoot them up with truth serum, and then imprison each and every one that has committed these acts?

G. Why is Clinton's private sex life anyone's business but his own?

H. Where will the Right's invasion of privacy stop?

Please address these issues without pointing me to Joe Smoe's Illuminati page, and don't just whine about how indecent it was for him to accept sex from that "poor little innocent girl".

Now that it is a matter of public record, I can say I don't approve of Clinton's behavior. But the MUCH greater danger, if we continue on the path of Ken Starr-type prosecution/persecution, is that we will become a totalatarian state where liberty, privacy, due process and all those other good things will be lost forever.

The problem seems to be we have lost our sense of balance. The airwaves used to be free from trash like Jerry Springer, although adult entertainment was available "behind the counter". Drug dogs were not required in schools, although a small percentage of students experimented with drugs. We are rapidly polarizing in this country, and with Y2K setting in, that can only mean trouble.

Please try to understand my reasoning and don't be so quick to judge our President.

If I have offended anyone, that was not my intent.

-- a (a@a.a), December 20, 1998

Answers

Sex is the evidence, perjury is the crime.

-- dpitts (bdp@accessunited.com), December 20, 1998.

Oh come ON a, Clinton and his advisors know full well about the calamity of y2k - who are you trying to kid? He has chosen not to address the situation. To me this shows that he is playing a game with the people. From day one this guy had had to deal with scandal after scandal ad nauseam, all of his own making. But hey, 73% approve. Take the same poll in February 2000.

This is a y2k forum, not a Clinton conspiracy page.

The fact is, one year to go, we've heard *NOTHING* of substance from his administration on y2k. This is by desire, not stupidity.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1998.

I voted for Clinton in '92, abstained in '96, btu let's remember: Bush had record approvals in 1991 and had his posterior handed to him a year later. All it takes is the sense that the Prez is not handling important issues well enough. I wonder what issue might qualify next year...

-- voice of reason (truth@consequences.com), December 20, 1998.

Nixon won two elections.

Clinton has trouble with the TRUE also.

Thank you Monia, for that little navy blue dress.

Now I am waiting for Clinton to tell the truth about Y2K.

Reader

-- Reader (Reader@home.com), December 20, 1998.

Mr @

I have learned to go just the opposite direction of the masses.

Plain and simple. Mister President smells bad. Big chief speaks with forked tounge. Bad medicine for my daughter.

I really really really hate being called a "right wing nut" because I ask for some honesty in leadership.

Lets think about this. Do you really think this man is to be trusted to inform us about Y2K if it could possibly hurt the economy through panic. Remember "the economy stupid" statement. This is the only legacy this man has. If therefore he fails to warn the USA of Y2K that he may preserve his "legacy" he is not worthy to lead this country.

One more thing, if polls are to be followed, and they shouldnt (we are a Republic not a Democracy) why has not Mister President followed the will of the people and reinstated prayer in school. 80% of the public thinks he should. And what about partial birth abortion. He vetoed the bill to end this practice while a majority of people object to the practice. You got have it one way or another baby.

Its a good thing not to run with the herd. WW

-- WAYNE WITCHER (WWITCHER@MVTEL.NET), December 20, 1998.

Before you label me a right wing zealot let me say that I believe that George Bush should be doing life without parole. Now that thats out of the way I also believe that Bill Clinton should be doing life without parole. I could list many reasons but one is enough. Murder by gas and fire of nearly 100 people mostly women and children in Waco, TX. To call it anything less than cold blooded murder is to pretend it didn't even happen.

For much more evidence try reading THE SECRET LIFE OF BILL CLINTON by Ambrose Evans Pritchard of the London Sunday Telegraph. Don't sit down to read this book without a barf bag.

We are going to have an economic crash period. Y2K is going to be much more than a bump in the road. It is to late to hope for better. The only thing you can do is to prepare for great changes and make the best of it. My job is to provide a future for my children period. Nothing else matters. If the future is a 1950's lifestyle or even a 1920's lifestyle I intend to get them to that future. Nothing else matters!

If the government falls tough for them not me. A new government will arise from the ground up that serves the will of the people within the constraints of a limited government. I say goodby Bill. Goodby Newt. Goodby police state. Let the future come and make the most of it.

-- Ed (ed@no.mail), December 20, 1998.

Years ago, I kept a "scorecard" of women I've had sex with. Interestingly, I wasn't quite sure whether or not to include one young lady with which I shared "oral gratifications", but never went "all the way". I decided not to put her on my list because in my mind, this didn't constitute sex (sexual intercourse) the way I understood it. Anyone who keeps screaming perjury is wrong. It has never been proven that he committed perjury, and he adamantly refuses to admit doing this. Because although he may have cleverly been trying to conceal the very personal nature of what did take place, this in his mind did not meet either his definition of sex, or the defintiton provided by the court. Conservative Replubicans need to grow up, admit that they are not perfect (as Livingston did when forced to), and learn mind their own business. I think it is great that Larry Flint is causing the truth to surface about these "Holier than Thou", dishonest, hypocritical, outdated Republicans.

As for Y2K, I'm sure the Republicans will blame Clinton for anything bad that happens. The thing is that Clinton is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation on Y2K. If he announces to the country that it is going to be a catastrophe, then it will cause panic and anarchy. No one will pay their taxes and he will be blamed. If he doesn't say anything, people will blame him for not saving them, because they are too helpless to take care of their own lives. What would you do in his shoes? It's a NO WIN SCENARIO!

-- (q@q.com), December 20, 1998.

-- (q@q.com),

If he wants to be the "Marshal of Dodge City" that just goes with the badge.

He knew it going in.

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), December 20, 1998.

q, you said a "no win scenario"???

He should do the *HONEST* thing for once in his life and tell the people - better to panic now when it can be controlled than in one years' time when innocent people will die through no fault of their own other than they trusted government. And what about the children, do they have a say in the matter?

"The secret Life Of Bill Clinton"

"Cited by White House press secretary Mike McCurry as the origin of every major Clinton scandal story, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has done more than any other journalist to expose the truth about the Clintons. Now Evans-Pritchard is breaking the biggest scoop of all: an assiduously documented expose of "the black-water scandals" - the scandals that have gone unreported in the American media, but that characterize the Clinton presidency as the most corrupt in history. Among the secrets Evans-Pritchard exposes: The Oklahoma City bombing as a government sting operation that flew out of control when the stingers were outstung. Evans-Pritchard tells the story that the FBI and the Justice Department don't want you to know. Eyewitnesses to corruption in Clinton's Arkansas - many have met with brutal harassment, physical intimidation, and, in some cases, even suspicious death. Those who survived tell Evans-Pritchard their story. Bill Clinton's involvement in the drug underworld of Arkansas. Evans-Pritchard talks to the smugglers, the Arkansas state troopers, the federal agents and prosecutors, and the young girls who were the victims of "the good times." The true story of Vince Foster's death - what the official report won't tell you, but what eyewitnesses saw, and why the government is being sued for falsifying sworn testimony. In the aftermath of Vince Foster, the shocking story of the murder of Jerry Parks, head of Clinton security in Little Rock. Why Parks predicted his own death. Why the Left was right about Mena Airport: Evans-Pritchard discovers the missing evidence.

An illustrious investigative reporter adds shocking new and exclusive revelations to his swelling bag of Clinton scandals.

From Wes Pruden: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's reporting made Washington a lifely place, and he was a source of misery for certain occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. -- The Washington Times From R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.: For the past decade one of the greatest journalists covering America has been Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. No one has written more elegantly and intelligently about Clinton's crimes. -- The American Spectator"

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1998.

Order:

"Clintons rise to Power" 1-800-771-2147 ext 85

or write to Bozeman American Trust 1627 W main Suite 313 Bozeman, MT 59715

Get this Tape. Watch it. Judge it. If only 5% is right, this man is a criminal.

Y2K will be used to his advantage, in his timetable. Dont think this man is unaware of whats on the horizon.

The myth of Continuity. Enjoy the bath little frogs. ww

-- WAYNE WITCHER (WWITCHER@MVTEL.NET), December 20, 1998.

Reviews of "The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ts/book-customer- reviews/0895264080/qid=914203107/002-1046380-8743039

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1998.

Which scandals do you want to impeach him for?

120 eyewitnesses related to the China bribery scandal either refused to testify (pleading slf-incrimination) or fled the country. John Glenn shut up the Senate hearings about it, then just as he had accepted bribes from Keating in the S&L scandal, got his ride in space in exchange.

Whitewater alone resulted in 12 convictions and prison sentences, more were directly linked to Clinton(s) but Susan M. and Webb Hubble refused to testify. Hubble subsequently received a series of bribes totally 450,000.00 from Democratic contributors.

I believe now 18 cabinet level Executives or direct associates of Clinton have been indicted, convicted, or were accused (some then then died, like Ron Brown and McDougal) of felonies.

Janet Reno had reason to begin 3 more special investigators, but refused for patently political reasons - she did not them to begin investigating the White House.

There are now sworn eye-witness accounts of FBI files being transcribed into DNC computers by White House employees on government time. The information in these files is linked directly to subsequent White House personal attacks on Republican lawmakers. Also to leaks from these files to news reporters for later articles.

At least twice Clinton was being serviced by Lewinsky on governemnt time; in one case he deliberately made a mid-east terrorist wait for him to finish ejac---ing before walking out of the Oval Office and shaking hands with the foreign leader, a Muslim who has strick sanitary and moral rules. Now, he is trying to negotiate with that same mid-east terrorist about the safety of an foreign country. Still think it was a "private sex act?" Still think it doesn't matter?

He is impeached for perjury. Well, it's not the worst offense i guess, but the only "crime" Al Capone was convicted of was income tax evasion.

By the way, every Democrat is now claiming a lie while under oath doesn't count and is meaningless.

Will some one please tell me how I should know when he is telling the truth? That is, when should I believe him?

Also, ref your comment about dividing the country into factions - the very essense of every Clinton campaign (including such budgetary campaign lies as cutting school lunches, destroying the environment, cutting Medicare, etc.) is division: splitting the nation by exploiting class anger, class envy, racial hatred, and religious intolerance towards Christians. His supporters are spewing the worse hatred possible in their continual attacks on anyone who does not support the man. Black, venonous, fiery hatred is a staple from every Democrat speaker - and I have never heard anything similar from a Republican leader, spokesman, or conservative representative.

There is no level that the Democrats have not stooped to keep this man in power - but if he had a soul, he could not sell it to the devil. It's already bought with Communistic Chinese missile technology money and Indonesian coal money.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 20, 1998.

More on "The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton"

"These days, it seems like everyone's a Friend of Bill--Clinton's buddies from Arkansas are turning up in powerful White House positions faster than you can say "Whitewater." But make no mistake, British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is no F.O.B.: in the course of The Secret Life of Bill Clinton's 350-plus pages, he manages to connect the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones. According to Evans-Pritchard--who has reported for the London-based Spectator, Sunday Telegraph (where he served as Washington bureau chief), and Daily Telegraph newspapers-- Clinton's "original sin" was the Waco incident, the FBI's much- criticized assault on the Branch Davidian community in Texas that led to the deaths of 76 people. From that point on, the author asserts, it was all downhill for the American people. Evans-Pritchard's exposi of Arkansas's favorite son is indeed scathing: he documents the then-governor's drug use and consort with prostitutes (primarily in the company of ne'er-do-well brother Roger); innumerable lies to friends, staff members, and the people who empowered him; numerous infidelities; blackmail--the list goes on and on. Evans-Pritchard claims that, because he is not an American citizen, he is not "beholden to any political or financial interest in the United States," and he does not "hang on lips of official sources," nor does he "fear the loss of access in Washington, or the blackball of [his] profession"; in other words, he ain't afraid to call 'em like he sees 'em. And although many of his seemingly wild claims and accusations are substantiated by thorough notes and appendixes following the text (including copies of original FBI documents), you're never quite convinced of the author's theories. Whether or not you come to believe, as Evans-Pritchard does, that "Arkansas was a mini-Colombia within the United States, infested by narco-corruption"; that--because of William Jefferson Clinton--"you can sniff the pungent odors of decay in the American body politic"; that the president's "actions and character ... have engendered the most deadly terrorist movement in the industrialized world," you will most certainly be entertained and enlightened by the dirt this British muckraker has uncovered. You may not be an F.O.B., but after reading this book, you may not mind so much."

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1998.

Andy you should have stuck to your confusing smoke and mirrors cyberbabble about Visa. Now you've outed yourself to be the head lunatic in the extreme Cuckoo's Nest

To the deep thinker who started this thread. That was sure a lot of trouble you went to just to let us know you once got enough sex to keep a scorecard. You're still my idol though

To anyone new to this forum. Get out while you can before they take over your mind. This board is great entertainment but nothing more

-- the ultimate warrior (stalker@lurker.com), December 20, 1998.

>>Clinton's critics on this forum remind me of the y2k polyannas. They fail to address the issues and cannot provide facts. Please answer the following before responding with Bible passages:<<

Folks, this is a repost of an answer on the "What's Bill Clinton experiencing at this moment" thread. If you read it, please note that "a" has chosen not to answer any questions there either. (At least, not the last time I checked.) I think he's being slightly disingenuous by demanding facts. So, if a Clinton critic is a pollyanna, then you, "a," are a political Milne? How so? By questioning the veracity of our "lust" erless leader's statements or merely by swallowing his line and calling all critics "butthead"? Furthermore, your list of strident questions more accurately reflects the tone of the pollyannas than the Milnes.

>>A. Where is all the evidence for the (insert conspiracy name here)-gate? Please don't point me to an X-files web page where they claim to have the "smoking gun". Can't you fools understand that if there was any substance to the long list of allegations on Clinton, that asshole Starr would have dredged them up during his $50,000,000.00 "investigation"? All he could come up with was a stinking lie about a marital affair - and he had to be ENTRAPPED to get that!<<

"a," When did you stop beating your wife? Ask a legitimate question to get a legitimate answer. Clinton was not entrapped, he had to be cornered before admitting the truth. Delay and deny, delay and deny.

>>B. Why does Clinton's half-truth about a sexual relation deserve impeachment when Regan lied about thwarting National Security (Iran Contra), Def Sec. Weinberger lied about contact fraud, Newt lied about his million dollar book deal, etc. etc. etc. These men only received slaps on the wrist, if that. <<

Half-truth? Surely you jest! He shook his finger at the country and lied through his teeth. He lied to his staff and advisors. You can list all the names you like but that doesn't exonerate Bill from his actions. An appeal to relativism doesn't cut it.

>>C. Why does the right wing insist on ripping the heart out of the presidency in the middle of Y2K, a global economic meltdown, and the Iraq situation? <<

Another straw man. If Clinton is taking no action on Y2K, it is his own doing. Here I thought the polls indicate he's doing a great job! If he is saying nothing and doing nothing, perhaps you should begin to question his agenda. Economic meltdown? What can he do about it? Iraq? He *orchestrated* the "crisis."

>>D. Why did Paula Jones wait 8 years to bring up her case - and why was it thrown out by the presiding WOMAN judge? Who were her backers? <<

I don't know, what took Anita Hill so long? Pure misdirection.

>>E. Why would Clinton win not one, but TWO elections by a landslide if he's such a lousy person? A lot of us would have some explaining to do if we were put under the same microscope. <<

More relativism. To the point, Clinton did not win the first election in any landslide, he was elected with the largest minority vote in a three way race. Add revisionism to your mistakes.

>>F. Why is infidelity an impeachable offense for Clinton, but not for every other government official that has committed it? Why don't we put every man and woman in this country on a polygraph, shoot them up with truth serum, and then imprison each and every one that has committed these acts? <<

Same lament as question B. I am certain you are aware of the number of perjurers currently in prison; should they be released? Just as relevant as your question, which is none.

G. Why is Clinton's private sex life anyone's business but his own?

His sex life in his own bedroom is indeed private, but sex in the Oval Office, his workplace, becomes a public affair. His choice. If the issue is such a minor infraction, why did it take so long to get the truth out of him?

H. Where will the Right's invasion of privacy stop?

900 FBI files of political opponents misplaced and later found in Hillarious Clinton's offices proves that the "Right" holds no lock on invasion of privacy.

Get over it, you cannot trust any of them. Your problem is not that you condemn Reagan, et al. but that you think the Clinton gang is different, even when your nose is rubbed in it. You have an idealogical problem, not an objective case for his innocence.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), December 20, 1998.

hmmm ...18 cabinet level indictments...boy, that's almost as bad as the Regan era!!

Grow up people. Leaders and shakers like Clinton and Bush are not choirboys. Old George B. and his dad and granddad had plenty of bones in their closets...not the least of which was their close ties to the Nazis during WWII and more recently the drug cartels. Remember BCCI and the octopus? What makes you think that its corrupt tentacles don't continue to reach well within both parties? Life is complicated folks. Get over it. Start thinking for yourself.

By the way - the missile technology transfer to the Chinese was begun under the Bush administration.

-- a (a@a.a), December 20, 1998.

Would anybody actually believe Clinton if he said Y2K is a serious issue? Or, would he be accused of trying to create a diversion to take the public's mind off of impeachment?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 20, 1998.

Hey Ultimate,

"Andy you should have stuck to your confusing smoke and mirrors cyberbabble about Visa. Now you've outed yourself to be the head lunatic in the extreme Cuckoo's Nest."

My VISA cyberbabble is heartfelt cyberbabble (sic), maybe confusing to you, but not to anyone with half a brain and an ounce of logic - if you don't like my opinion of Clinton, don't attack my thesis on imported data, that suggests that you are not thinking straight.

As for my opinion on Clinton and his cronies - it's backed up by many many hours of research and listening and asking questions and having an open mind. If the guy was a stand up, honest, straight dealing guy with just a problem with his pecker - most of us would make allowances, just like JFK and every other recent President except maybe Carter and Nixon. I call things as I see them - nothing more, nothing less. Take it or leave it.

I'm constantly amazed at how blinkered many people are on the man and his legacy - is it that difficult to see through him? What's his record on y2k for example? Is it something to be proud of? Contrast it with Canada and the UK.

I'll say it again, Ultimate, since this is a y2k forum, why the deafening silence from Washington on this looming calamity. Why isn't your hero making speeches *RIGHT NOW* on the problem?

Come on Ultimate, answer this one question for me.

Give me a logical detailed explanation why this is so.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1998.

a

A. Where have you been for the last six years? I guess all those chinese and indonesians running to the white house with bags of money was...well what was that? Just because Starr didn't make a referral doesn't mean he didn't have evidence. He just didn't have the proof to convict a president. As for 'fools' thinking klinton is a criminal...I'll tell what I really think...and that is that anyone could possibly type the post you did... it reveals who really is being fooled and thus the true fool. And the 50 mill was a result of Clinton stonewalling and obstructing justice and tampering with witnesses.

B. This one is simple. klinton raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth. He lied under oath. No other president has lied under oath.

C. klinton has himself ripped the heart out of the presidency. His lack of honor and shame is appalling. Do you think if he really cared about y2k he would be so silent? It would have been the perfect issue to distract from his problems. It makes me wonder why he didn't use y2k like he did the Iraq attack. I fear klinton during a declared martial law or national emergency. He would take our guns and who knows what else.

D. Paula Jones case was motivated by klinton's political ememies. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen does it? It happened...the evidence is that Paula has knowledge of a distinguishing feature. The woman judge threw it out because, ready for this....HE LIED IN HIS CIVIL DEPOSITION ABOUT LEWINSKY. HE KNEW IF HE TOLD THE TRUTH A PATTERN COULD BE ESTABLISHED SO... He lied to keep a woman from getting her civil rights.

E. To say he won by two landslides is a lie. The first election he won by less than fifty percent of the vote. If it wasn't for Perot and Bush's support of the U.N. he would have lost big time. He only beat Dole because of Dole being a horrible candidate, and klinton's lies, and his criminal fundraising.

F. Infidelity or one's private life is not at issue here. It is his public life like oral sex in the oral office. It is his lying under oath. It is his wagging his finger at you and me and lying.

G. The right's invasion of privacy? Who has the secret police? Who has hired these people to intrude into the private lives of Hyde, Burton, Chenowith, and Livingston. That is the kind of president you bow to a.

The threat to our freedoms is not from Starr ...it is from klinton. The only way to preserve freedom is to preserve the rule of law which klinton thumbs his nose at. Remember this... a democracy is ruled by the majority which evolves into socialism and then into anarchy. A republic is ruled by law regardless of the polls or the majority. America is a republic. This whole sad sorry episode is about whether we want to remain a republic or become a society ruled by polls. If the latter, I'll see you later because intolerance is just around the corner.

Last Saturday when Livingston stood up to speak, I thought what a hypocrite. When he was finished I thought now there is a man who has some honor and can look himself in the mirror. Y2k will demand leaders with character and courage ...something your beloved leader lacks.

-- b (b@b.b), December 20, 1998.

He is only one man. Who or what is the power behind him. That is what should be feared.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), December 20, 1998.

Andy,

I'm not Ultimate, but there are at least three answers to your question. First, Clinton hasn't made speeches about Y2K for the same reason Newt didn't make speeches about it...for whatever reasons.

Secondly, some people would say we'll have less problems in 2000 if the economy can be held togther long enough to get 85% of the computers remediated before 2000. Not saying I agree, but it is a good point.

And third, would anybody believe Clinton if he said Y2K is serious? The public is so cynical that they'd say he was just trying to wag the dog again.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 20, 1998.

Clinton critics:

All I can say is, after y2k, when you're drinking Milne's proverbial "dog piss out of a rusty hubcap", I hope you are happy with what you and your Republican ilk have wrought by destroying the presidency over a sex scandal in the midst of the most threatening times of this century.

Yep, it will be nice to have a good, moral, celibate, perfect person in the White House...too bad there will be few left in this country to give him the Heil Hitler.

-- a (a@a.a), December 20, 1998.

Kevin - thanks - your third point hits the nail on the head. He has cried wolf so many times we don't know what to believe whenever he opens his mouth. Whatever he does people think "wag the dog???" - that's his problem, his past will always dog him.

Let's see what Ultimate has to say.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1998.

a,

"I hope you are happy with what you and your Republican ilk have wrought by destroying the presidency over a sex scandal in the midst of the most threatening times of this century."

This is naievety in the extreme.

Sex scandals = self inflicted.

Impeachment = self inlicted.

Iraq = orchestrated.

y2k = purposely ignored.

Republicans/Democrats = all the same, what is the difference between the two parties, they both kow tow to the elite. Wag the dog = Clintin's mantra, his Modus Operandi.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1998.

a,

Look what you're reduced to saying.

If Clinton can bomb Iraq during this "crucial" period, who is stopping him from taking action on Y2K? The buck stops with Clinton.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), December 20, 1998.

Hey Andy, trusting the government is a major fault and not an excuse.

-- curtis schalek (schale1@ibm.net), December 21, 1998.

Does anyone have any suggestions on what President Clinton should do exactly about the millenium bug thing? Can the National Guard write code or whatever it's called? Should he tell everyone to run out to Costco and but bags of rice? Should he give away bags of rice? I think the president is handling the problem the only way he can. He has Mr Kosekian on the point who along with Senator Bennett is slowly bringing the public up to speed and eventually the media will take the ball from the public and hopefully without causing a panic/deprission be able to get as much done as possible. Someone before mentioned like triage. The worst possible thing would be a panic which would surely cause a depression by crippling the financial system. As far as I can tell the only one who would benefit from a panic would be Mr. Yourdonefor and profiteers of that ilk. Thank you for hearing me out.

-- KarenKurious (bubblehead@thinking.com), December 21, 1998.

Over in another Greenspun forum, The Government of the United States, I started a thread, What _should be_ the federal role in regard to Year 2000 computer problems (Y2K)?

It hasn't seen much response yet (and it has sunk down into the "Uncategorized" archives), but all you folks are invited to wander over and post to it. However, I should note that in my original question there, I requested, "Please minimize or skip your attacks on Clinton, Gore, and Koskinen ... Suppose for a moment that you could completely change the government's course, from whatever it has or hasn't done about Y2K up until now, to whatever you think would be its best course of action about Y2K from now on. What would that course of action be?"

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 21, 1998.

Has it jumped the 10 points because of bombing Iraq, good timing. Think about this Saddam has outlasted all his erstwhile opponents in the gulf War, more bombing will serve no purpose whatsoever, except of course to improve Clinton's popularity. You wage limited war, bomb a foreign country for a couple of days (NB I don't support Blair's stance, didn't vote for him) to improve you popularity stakes (time to quit I think!). Most 3rd world countries have dictatorships and "weapons of mass destruction"), including others in the Middle East, are Britain and America going to bomb the lot! Sooner or later, the Arabs will not tolerate this any more neither will the Russians, when Yeltsin goes there'll be an extreme leader in charge of the Soviet Union. I can see the scenario of escalation, I'm not saying it will happen but there is a high risk. Clinton and Blair are risking global conflict by this military action. I would say we are a little closer to the action than yourselves, psychologically as well as physically. I feel there is extreme naivete in US foreign policy. If Clinton wants to start a war to improve his rating why not choose somewhere on the S American continent, thanks.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 21, 1998.

Why not bomb the shish kebob out of the Medellin Valley? That way you:

a) Get to bomb someone, which increases your popularity, and

b) Get to hurt someone who is actually HURTING you- if you turned the Medellin Valley into the Medellin Desert, your meddlin' would actually impede the drug supply and take out a lot of scuzzbags into the bargain.

--Leo

-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 21, 1998.

Well a@a, it looks like Andy, Wayne, Robert, and Elbow have effectively shredded your argument (or shall we say 'list of worries' ...shredding can be a good and healthy thing) so just to finish it off with a couple observations (and then can we put this little newborn attention-getting subject to bed).

There is a superabundance of incriminating evidence to warrant the question of fitness for duty, and one has to look beyond the fact that they are only getting him on a technicality (not telling the truth about some unimportant personal behavior) and see the pattern of behavior and decide if this is the most suitable person (out of the US pop. 260 M) for the job. One tends to expect a higher level of intelligence and personal discipline to qualify for this position than what we are seeing. Your list of 8 arguments (in the form of rhetorical questions) against impeachment is a nice summary of the liberal-media programmed content, and you have picked up all the main propaganda points. However these are all straw-men, and none of them can stand up to close examination. The label for this position is 'Clinton Pollyanna.'

a writes:

Clinton's critics on this forum remind me of the y2k polyannas.

[the irony is not lost]

....

Now that it is a matter of public record, I can say I don't approve of Clinton's behavior.

[did you change your position (Clinton critic?) while working out the writings]

But the MUCH greater danger, if we continue on the path of Ken Starr-type prosecution/persecution, is that we will become a totalatarian state where liberty, privacy, due process and all those other good things will be lost forever.

[and an even greater danger would be that deceitful and subversive behavior becomes accepted Presidential conduct]

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), December 21, 1998.

Does anyone have any suggestions on what President Clinton should do exactly about the millenium bug thing? Can the National Guard write code or whatever it's called?

He should (or rather should have back in 1994):

Get all IT Gov. Depts working on y2k and nothing else till its finished.

Force y2k compliance certification on local gov.

Freeze all other legislation affecting computer systems, eg Finance Bills.

Force y2k compliance certification on companies.

Give regulatory bodies teeth (eg NERC).

Take the problem seriously, get others to take it seriously.

Put his own house in order.

Reform the US legal system.

Reform the US education system.

Stop bombing Iraq.

Resign.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 21, 1998.

That's a tall order, especially items 7, 8, 9. But if the federal government were to do something useful to help the y2k problem (beyond its own preparation), it would include offering support (information and/or other resources) to state, county, and municipal governments, and set up guidelines and protocols. As for commerce and industry (private and public companies), the government can mind its own business and let them sink or swim on their own strengths. Ditto for the money systems.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), December 21, 1998.

Forgive me Richard but I was trying to be serious

"Get all IT Gov. Depts working on y2k and nothing else till its finished." you are sure they're not now

"Force y2k compliance certification on local gov." after the republicans have been deregulating and shoving states rights and home rule down everyone's throat for 18 years

"Freeze all other legislation affecting computer systems, eg Finance Bills." because????

"Force y2k compliance certification on companies." another legislative comittee-----great

Give regulatory bodies teeth (eg NERC). You mean like the geniuses at EPA??????

"Take the problem seriously, get others to take it seriously." i think i pointed out how i thought he was taking it seriously

Put his own house in order. huh????

"Reform the US legal system." that's an easy one. most lawyers would gladly give up 1.5 trillion bucks for the good of the commonwealth

"Reform the US education system." and this would help how?????

"Stop bombing Iraq." he did

"Resign." gore lover!!!!!

I'd like an answer form someone who's given this thought.

-- KarenKurious (bubblehead@thinking.com), December 21, 1998.

"Get all IT Gov. Depts working on y2k and nothing else till its finished." you are sure they're not now

Most Y2k IT budgets are a fraction of the total IT spend, even now.

"Force y2k compliance certification on local gov." after the republicans have been deregulating and shoving states rights and home rule down everyone's throat for 18 years

See below.

"Freeze all other legislation affecting computer systems, eg Finance Bills."

There are many tax changes and legislation that always requires changes to computer systems, the Euro being a classic (yes that even affects you lot). These are additional work for IT. Y2k has a non-movable deadline.

"Force y2k compliance certification on companies." another legislative comittee-----great (see your comments above)

It can be done without bureaucracy, in the UK the auditors will "qualify" a companies accounts if they're not going to be y2k ready, concentrates the minds of the bean counters wonderfully.

Give regulatory bodies teeth (eg NERC). You mean like the geniuses at EPA??????

Why can't you employ competent people in government surely thats possible.

"Take the problem seriously, get others to take it seriously." i think i pointed out how i thought he was taking it seriously

Put his own house in order. huh????

Scandals, corruption, mysterious deaths etc

"Reform the US legal system." that's an easy one. most lawyers would gladly give up 1.5 trillion bucks for the good of the commonwealth

Your legal system is an evil joke. Why can't you do something about it, surely you have the intelligence?

"Reform the US education system." and this would help how?????

By producing intelligent people (for the next millenium)!

"Stop bombing Iraq." he did WHY DID HE START

"Resign." gore lover!!!!!

No I just want a warmonger out of the Whitehouse whether Dem. or Rep.

Go and bomb S America.

Richard

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 21, 1998.

Jon, if you call the previous postings "shredding an argument", you would be lost on a high school debate team.

People will see what they want to see. Some want to see the US stop enforcing weapons bans on Iraq. I think that in 1999, as the world teeters on the brink of disaster, this is a naive proposition. Saddam will eventually use his weapons, as he tried in Kuwait, and if we wait around with our hands in our pockets, he'll find a way to use them on us. Inflicting death and destruction on another people is not a nice thing to do, but "war is hell". In my opinion, Clinton and Blair have demonstrated great restraint by not lowering the boom on this bastard years ago.

And please don't insinuate this is a "wag the dog" situation. Clinton has been under the magnifying glass for the past year and a half - and will be for some time to come. National security action cannot wait until the history of the president's tallywacker has been detailed to everyone's satisfaction.

Clinton still has a 2/3 vote in the Senate ahead in his impeachment process, as well as a Congressional trial, before he can be ousted. This will no doubt drag on until next summer, and based on his track record, he will probably remain in office.

Ironically for all you detractors, y2k may cause the 2000 election to be cancelled because of national emergency, and Clinton may remain our leader for many years to come.

-- a (a@a.a), December 21, 1998.

Good recommendations Richard. Thanks.

Clinton is doing (and saying) *nothing* about Y2K. He has one person assigned - and that person is talking a vague wishy-washy stance between Pure Polyanna and direct Government take-over of all utilities.

What the h**l kind of policy is that?

Other cabinet and executive level officers are as bad as the FAA - who failing tests and "rush" installation of badly written software have cuased near-collisions in Chicago, Denver, and San Diego. Under protest, her own agency recalled the software and is trying again.

Should we believe her that the software is correct and fully tested before we fly again? Or should we believe the air traffic controllers?

Focus only on Y2K isues. Half of his departments are receiving a D or worse. Is that alone not a reason to remove him for incompetence and failure to do his duties? He has been in power for six years and no government agency is ready - the only one that began its remediation efforts in time *under the Bush administration* is Social Security. No government agency has released a reasonable, achieveable timetable yet. Those schedules that are available - like that of the IRS - are themselves blatant lies and hypocritical self-serving lists saying "vague "mission critical" elements will be compliant".

Whatever they want to claim a "mission critical" element is and what they want to claim "compliant" is. For example, the Air Force payroll system is not deemed "mission critical" - I hope the DOD learns how to feed its soldiers and their dependents when they don't get payroll checks and direct deposit fails.

No - you are so blinded by your self-serving hatred of the conservatives that you are willing to accept any level of hypocrisy and propaganda, any level of simple incompetance and failure to perform a job, and excuse any level of criminal behaivor - including deliberate murder of Iraqi's for trumped up political reasons - simply to keep his pretty face in office.

And I deliberately said "pretty face" for a reason - Gore is even more liberal than Clinton, and perhaps he has even a shred of a conscious left - though none is exhibited yet, but he does not have the television style and "face" that can deceive the TV-inspired voters who the Democratic Party sucks their taxes from.

Instinctively, the Democrats know that even though Al Gore is more liberal than Clinton, more ready to push their agenda with a firm spirit than Clinton, and though they know they (the DNC leaders) could trust Gore to keep his word and do what he says he will do, thay also kow that he does not have a TV personality.

And they must have that TV image to deceive the public about their actual failures and lies and propaganda of devisive, visous hatred. The media image that Clinton can get from the camera by deliberately manipulating a Nazi-like compliant and fully supportive Democratic national press is the only thing keeping him in power.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 21, 1998.

Or do you (as a Clinton propagandist) really want anybody to look at what he has done to support the national security ... of China?

Read this - then justify Reno's partisan decision to ignore the head of the FBI (and others) and deny a criminal investigation of receving bribes at the White House - when they have already *convicted* Chinese Communists of giving bribes to the White House!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981221_xex_is_clinton_t.shtml

But I guess a bribe given is more criminal than a bribe taken.....at least to a Democrat.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 21, 1998.

Robert: I am not a Democrat. I vote both parties, and also independent/libertarian.

I read the article. The "missiles for money" deal with the Chinese was initiated under the Bush administration. It was perpetuated under Clinton with the support of republican allies such as the Huges corporation. I am not happy about it. But I am not willing to impeach him because of it.

We live in a complicated world. During the Carter days, we agreed to give the Panama Canal back to Panama next year. Now Panama is negotiating with China for military protection of the canal. Am I happy about this? No, but I don't think Jimmy Carter should have been impeached because of it.

Campaign bribes (no need to call them contributions) are a way of life in this political system. It is interesting to note in the headlines of two weeks ago, following an investigation into financing during the last election, Clinton was ordered to pay back 7 million in illegal contributions. Bob Dole was ordered to pay bay *17* million.

One thing we all seem to be experts at is hypocrisy.

-- a (a@a.a), December 21, 1998.

Robert, I bow to your much superior knowledge of US politics, you're much more aware of the issues over your side of the pond. I can only comment from afar, we don't get the real story over here.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 21, 1998.

I do know that the scumbag (oops..sorry) was real concerned about Nuclear, Biological and Chemical terrorism and now is really worried about Cyber-terrorism. These aren't systemic, and can't take an economy down.

Face it: he's either stockpiling a BUNCH of stuff for each and every American, or he has signed the death warrants for each and every American. There is no middle ground here. One or the other.

Or maybe there is: he's stockpiling a BUNCH of stuff for half of Americans, and signed the death warrants for the other half.

Did y'all catch where in California there was an anthrax evacuation in a federal building the other day?

-- Lisa (nomail@work.com), December 21, 1998.

Robert,

I so seldom disagree with your opinions that when I do, as in the case of your characterization of "Slick" as being a "pretty face", I must protest.

While I understand and agree with your comments regarding his effectiveness as a media presence, I must confess that my first thoughts on ever seeing his face were, "Wow! His nose looks like little nalgas!" In fact, I instinctively believe that his attraction to Paula Jones was due in large measure to the prominance of her nose.

However, lest anyone think that my disgust with this despicable excuse for a man stems from the fact that each time I see him I am reminded of a Proboscis Monkey, I shall explain.

In freshman psychology, we were shown a film on human behavior which depicted an experiment as follows:

Five university students are seated in metal folding chairs, facing a projection screen with a slide projector behind them. The projector will flash simple symbols on the screen (a circle, a square, a triangle, a cross and a line) and the students will be asked what they have seen.

Students #1, #2, #3, & #4 are a part of the experiment while #5 is the subject of the experiment. #5, however, has been lied to and told that all of them are participating in an experiment in perception.

The projector shows a circle on the screen for a short time and the five are then asked what they saw.

#1 reports that he saw a square.

#s 2,3 & 4 do not react at all, but #5 (who is sure that he saw a circle) starts violently.

#2 then reports that he too, saw a square.

#s 1,3 & 4 do not react, but again, #5 is visibly agitated.

The process is repeated with #s 3 & 4, with #5 becoming less noticbly reactive each time.

When #5 is asked, he reports that he saw a square!

I promised myself at the time that I would always trust my own perceptions before I trusted the words of others.

Now I do not hold Rush Limbaugh to be an authority on anything, but merely one of many "talking heads" with an agenda to advance, and I do not make a habit of watching or listening to him. On the other hand, he seems to be pretty open about what he thinks and it seems plain where he stands.

I was not surprised therefore, to see him presenting material detrimental to "Slick" at every opportunity. However, inasmuch as the prevailing opinion on this forum is that Gary North's information links are valid irrespective of North's political views, I suspect that you will be forced to concede that Limbaugh's information must be judged on its merit rather than its source. I refer to Limbaugh's presentation of "Slick's" performance at the funeral of Ron Brown.

For those of you who may not have seen it, "Slick" is returning from the graveside services for Brown and is (for lack of a better term) "yukking it up" with some stooge who is walking at his side. Truly a candid moment. At this point, another underling of some stripe alerts "Slick" to the fact that there are cameras watching him and points them out.

"Slick" then damned himself for all time to me, and I suspect a great many others, when he looked into the cameras, morphed his face into a caricature of grief, either mimed or actually produced a tear, and dramatically wiped it from his eye. It was, for me, truly bizarre and surreal. It was like nothing so much as one of those scenes in a horror or sci-fi film where one of the characters turns into a werewolf or an alien right before your eyes.

I had what psychologists call an, "Ah hah!" experience. I trusted my perceptions then and I trust them now. I would not trust Clinton's words if he told me the sky was blue. My first reaction would be to go see what color the sky had become.

As to "Slick's" popularity rating, I was able to put it into proper perspective when one of the CNN newsreaders announced that, "CNN's overnight poll of 500 people. . .", had said thus and so. I am not a statistician, and I was born in the morning, but it wasn't this morning! Goebbels would have been ecstatic! Surely you can see that while such a small sample is statistically meaningless, it is 100% valid for propaganda purposes.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), December 21, 1998.

Another suggestion for Clinton, he should make the heads of the various Gov. departments personally responsible for the success or otherwise of their y2k remediation efforts. Perhaps they already are, I know in the UK even though there have been many IT spending disasters in the public sector but no-one ever loses their job.

Correction to my previous post, I mean ALL IT staff in Gov. Depts should be put on y2k, rather than working on ANY other project. I suspect that although they all have a y2k project team, this would normally only represent say 20% of the total IT spend.

Saddam has outlasted Bush, he'll outlast Clinton. Even the Gulf war didn't get rid of him.

I'm as anti-Saddam as anyone but there is a wider picture, and I think a very dangerous situation. The bombing may actually provoke him to use weapons rather than otherwise, its not just a question of "bomb the bastard" diplomacy.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 21, 1998.

Doesn't he have some bizarre fantasy that he's JFK II, instead of the man on the moon, its sending craft to Mars.

He plays a mean "sax" though (that was really pathetic) guess he never grew up from the 60s or 70s Fleetwood Mac era.

Regarding his "pretty face", yes Robert agree with Hardliner you're a bit off beam there. He looks more like Yeltsin than anyone.

I feel sorry for Chelsea, for her own good hope they're out of the public eye before the spotlight burns on her.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 21, 1998.

Loral's president - the *other* company in the fifth of twelve White House-Chinese Communist technology sales - is the single biggest donor to the Democratic Party. Hughes Aircraft (their president) was not as large a contributor as Loral, and Hughes had previously donated money to the Republicans, but they stopped their Republican contributions in 1992-93 when Clinton came to power. Their subsequent money all went to Clinton.

The Chinese sales began under Bush were for telephone satellite launches, conducted only under the DOD's specific technology export control authority. All satellites launched under Bush were "sealed" - there was no technology transfer, only a "blind" launch of a payload. But the Chinese missiles were regularly failing - specifically the separation and staging "technologies" didn't always work on the Chinese "Long March" strategic nuclear launch boosters being used for the telephone satellites.

This of course means that the Chinese nuclear warheads that would have been launched by these missiles would also fail - and US citites would NOT have been blown up.

Enter Clinton. Over the specific requirement of the laws about nuclear proliferation, nuclear technology transfer, and strategic technology requirements, and against the specific recommendation from both his Department of Defense and State Department, Clinton by personal signature, gave control of missile technology "licensing authority" to Ron Brown's Commerce Department.

Once the Commerce Department had control, Clinton specificly transfered Chinese military agents into the satellite technology office from his executive department, who then controlled and sold advanced grpahics and super-computers and automated machining controls (all made by his Silicon Valley DNC donors) to Red China. These were installed in military complexes, or have "disappeared". We think they are being used to machine plutonium, and to make calculations for more powerful Chinese bombs. No one can tell where the super computers have actually been installed, nor what they are actually running. They are *Not* in the government offices that the export license said they are supposed to be.

In the mean time, Clinton's Chinese agents were faxing classified documents from their Commerce ofices to Red China, were taking missile, satellite and computer documents from the Commece Dept across the street to a commercial offcie paid for by the Chinese, and apparently sending these US documents, drawings, and plans to Chinese military. They placed Chinese scientists inside Loral and Highes, who were forced ti give them security clearances. The Commerce Dept ignored security violations thaqt would have imprisoned US citizens, and forced US designers to troubleshoot and "fix" the Chinese nuclear rocket separation, guidance, and orbitting failures.

Congratulations. The Chinese "Long March" nuclear rocket now enjoys the same reliability as the Minuteman and Peacekeeper. You too can now reliably be blown by Clinton's nuclear warheads.

Also, certain classified communication and control circuit boards inside the satellites were stolen from the satellites by the Chinese - again with no repercussion or penalty. These control boards control the satellite-to-earth radio links, are made by the National Secutiry Administration to allow US control and reprogramming of our (and other nations ?) satellites duiing war - and so now the Chinese can control (or interfere with) US satellites any time they see fit.

Like during an invasion of Tawain, South Korea or Japan.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 21, 1998.

Robert: The Chinese missile situation is similar to the Toshiba propeller machining technology "breach" that occurred during the Regan-Bush watch. At the time, it was said to be of the same dire consequence that you now claim for the Chinese missiles.

If what you have stated in your previous post is indeed factual and worthy of impeachment, one can only ask why in the HELL have they wasted 50 million dollars and only come up with a lie about marital infidelity?

I'll tell you why. Because money makes the world go round. There are just as many republicans as democrats profiteering from lax trade arrangements with our allies and adversaries. An investigation into the missile situation will show that everyone's hands were dirty, on the right as well as the left. So they resort to attacking the man's morals instead. Typical partisan politics in the 90's.

Note that I have a personal distaste for politicians in general, and am not claiming to favor this morass as status quo. I am rallying for Clinton only because I feel he has been treated unfairly and because the investigation and trial is going to, and has, shanghaied the country (no pun intended).

And after studying US and world history for most of my life, I believe him to be the lesser of two evils.

-- a (a@a.a), December 21, 1998.

For several reasons.

One. Reno refused to allow Starr to investigate this issue. She did allow him to investigate the Paula Jones deposition - which - unknown to the White House and Reno at the time - led to Linda Tripp reporting that she had recorded phone conversations between her and Lewinsky indicating Clinton lied during that sexual harassment lawsuit. (At the time, the White House believed there was no physical or audible evidence available, else they would not have permitted the review of the Paula Jones case.) True to his "charter", Starr did not go into any fund-raising issues.

Likewise, one condition that Clinton imposed to permit the Aug 17 depostion on TV was that *nothing* except the Lewinsky situation would be permitted. Therefore, again, Starr followed the rules and only questioned him about that issue. Questions afecting filegate, travelgate, and whitewater were specifically excluded - and had been previously covered up by the White House - so there was no credible (visible) evidence to personnally link Clinton to that mess. (Other than Hillary's fingerprints on billing records, a check made o Clinton, 100,000.00 laundered to Hillary, etc. etc. .....)

Two. Reno has refused to investigate the issue at the White House, but is convicting people still left in the US. This despite protest from the head of the FBI and others. (Most foreign witnesses have already fled the country.) Because Clinton, again, personally issued (over several Justice Dept protests) letters to Loral and Hughes (among others) these companies (at least their Presidents, don't know about other under employees) cannot be prosecuted now for spying or treason.

Three. The House and Senate investigations were shut up by Glenn and the Democrats, and by external Democratic partisan pressures to hide evidence and excuse known bribery - based on, for example, Glenn's comment "Do you know what the Chinese were trying to get for this money? Nothing? Well, then, that's not a problem. Next witness."

In other words, Glenn was saying "You proved he was bribed, you proved that he received the money, but you cannot show me what the return was." Therefore there was no crime.

At the time, no, the evidence of Chinese nuclear payloads was not visible. It is now. The Senate committee evidence is definitely conclusive and is published, but Glenn postponed it long enough to get it from under the public eye.

And the partisan Democratic media is continuing to hide it from the public eye. Unlike Watergate, the media is going out of their to promote and excuse and publicize every position and trial ballon the White House brings out. In on three hour period of six radio "propaganda" reports, for example, on CNN, there were 55 sentences favorable to Clinton (or taped interview "sound bite" quotes from Clinton defenders) and two from a Republican - editted to emphasize the two comments denying "partisan" politics. (Which further plays into the White House hands.) (25 sentences in this period were nuetral in poltical tone or content.)

A question. Do you really want these points investigated?

Among other references: www.worldnetdaily.com

First read all their links and background stories today. I've looking through these scandals since 1993, so I'm unfamilar with your background knowledge. Then reply.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 21, 1998.

Why not bomb the shish kebob out of the Medellin Valley? That way you:

Cut off party funds.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 21, 1998.

Yeah - he did get drug money from down there didn't he.

Actually, bombing Columbia right now might kill our troops on the ground down there. Wouldn't be good publicity.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 21, 1998.

A few random points for those that read and digest newspapers and CNN every day. As expected, ultimate chose not to respond.

Bush is an old buddy of Saddam, from way back.

Bush and Clinton are puppets of the same feather, as is 33rd degree John Glenn.

Saddam was armed by the USA and the west.

Saddam was and is still useful for the USA to drop bombs on, every now and then, as a diversion.

Saddam was not "taken out" after desert storm for precisely this reason.

Saddam was told by the US Ambassador in Baghdad, before the invasion of Kuwait, that the US would *not* intervene.

Post-desert storm, Iraqi dissidents were served up on a plate to Saddam for execution, by the CIA.

There will be no election in 2000.

Slick will hang on and on as long as possible. When martial law is introduced in 1999 we'll never get rid of him.

Slick and his gang will hold off on mentioning y2k in the mainstream as long as possible in 1999. We all know what happens next.

The UK and Canada are totally up front about introducing martial law and mobilising troops - not so in this country, the natives would get too restless with advance warning, it will come as a fait accompli.

Look for a major terrorist outrage next year on US soil (either by bona fide groups or their CIA equivalent) to usher in martial law. If Clinton can hang on 'til this happens we're stuck with him. Hint - if a real one does not materialise, expect a wag the dog one.

Hint - if it looks like the Senate are about to impeach (late) next year (for it will be purposely dragged on as long as possible) - expect the above, or a variation thereof.

Wise up a, don't be so naieve.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 21, 1998.

Don't Sir Andy, don't know....I can't predict the future (but personally am not willing to be quite as definitive as you), but will stick to merely trying to be sure the past is not whitewaterwashed.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 21, 1998.

Andy: I agree with your synopsis. But what I disagree with is that the Republican solution would be any better. Impeaching Clinton will only serve as a distraction. Think of what could have been accomplished if the billions of dollars of productivity wasted on the prosecution of the president had been directed to a more positive cause.

-- a (a@a.a), December 21, 1998.

FYI

Did White House Orchestrate The Iraq 'Crisis'?

By Rowan Scarborough

The Washington Times 12-20-98

The White House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current government officials charge. Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector who resigned this summer, said Thursday the U.N. Special Commission (Unscom) team led by Richard Butler deliberately chose sites it knew would provoke Iraqi defiance at the White House's urging. Mr. Ritter also said Mr. Butler,executive chairman of the Unscom, conferred with the Clinton administration's national security staff on how to write his report of noncompliance before submitting it to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday night. The former inspector said the White House wanted to ensure the report contained sufficiently tough language on which to justify its decision to bomb Iraq. "I'm telling you this was a preordained conclusion. This inspection was a total setup by the United States," Mr. Ritter said. "The U.S. was pressing [the U.N.] to carry out this test. The test was very provocative. They were designed to elicit Iraqi defiance." Mr. Ritter resigned from Unscom in August, accusing the Clinton administration of interfering in how and when inspections were carried out. Mr. Butler, in charge of inspections to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, denied the charges at a U.N. press conference. "Now, I want to say simply, slowly and plainly that any suggestion that that report was not factual, was not objective, is utterly false," he said. Military sources say the White House notified the Pentagon on Sunday -- the same day that Mr. Butler ordered an end to inspections -- that air strikes would begin this week. The warning came two days before Mr. Butler submitted his report -- the catalyst the administration cites for Mr. Clinton ordering Wednesday's start of a four-day bombing campaign. Asked about a Sunday decision before the report was done, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen told reporters, "We have always been prepared to go during the month of December, to take action. We were not going to take any action until such time as a report was filed, we knew what it -- what was said, and the president actually called for a strike." Mr. Butler defended his report amid charges by Mr. Ritter that the White House helped him write it. "I want to say it as simply and as plainly as I can. That report was based on the experts of Unscom," he said. "It danced to no one's tune. It was not written for anyone's purposes, including, as some of you have suggested, for the purposes of the United States, for example." Republican lawmakers, retired military officers and military experts have questioned the attack's timing. Some GOP lawmakers bluntly accused the president of orchestrating a war to shore up waning public support in his impeachment battle. Administration officials, including Mr. Cohen, vehemently denied that charge. Pentagon officials, rebutting an impeachment motive, said Thursday that Mr. Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been looking for another opportunity to strike since mid-November, when Mr. Clinton called off a planned attack after Saddam pledged to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors. They said they wanted to take action before the month-long Islamic holiday Ramadan began this weekend and they grew tired of seeing badly needed budget dollars drained by on-and-off military buildups in the Gulf. Mr. Ritter's charge that the White House co-authored the Butler report is at odds with the version of events given by administration officials. For example, as Tomahawks began destroying Iraqi targets Wednesday, Mr. Cohen was asked if he had any advance warning of the report's contents. "No. There was some speculation about what it might contain," he answered. "And frankly, we had assumed that it might be mixed. We didn't know." Said Mr. Ritter, "If Bill Cohen said he did not know this report was not going to trigger a military response, he is being disingenuous." He added, "On Tuesday they worked closely with Richard Butler to make sure the report had no wiggle room. The concept this is the first time they saw the report is ludicrous. They orchestrated with Richard Butler." Mr. Ritter said he is criticizing the timing of the attack in the media because Mr. Butler has become a "tool" of the White House and has "corrupted" Unscom's independence.Gen. Henry H. Shelton, Joint Chiefs chairman, said planners had been eyeing Wednesday for a possible attack for weeks because they had the right mix of forces in the region and it also would commence before Ramadan. If Iraq had not defied inspectors, the military would have lost its "window" of opportunity. "We were looking at the calendar seeing Ramadan that we've got to be sensitive to," Gen. Shelton said. "And so we had to prepare for a window during which time, if there were a failure to comply, we could take action. And so, it was not until Mr. Butler filed his report that this became a reality as far as we were to go and then the decision had to be made." Mr. Ritter cited two inspections as proof that Mr. Butler wanted to provoke Saddam. Mr. Ritter said Unscom demanded access to Ba'ath Party headquarters, even though an intelligence report that ballistic missile parts were inside was three months old and, as sources told him, no longer accurate. Mr. Ritter also said inspectors chose to inspect the building of the Iraqi commission overseeing weapons development even though intelligence reports said it was empty. Indeed, he said, nothing was found. The White House knew by Dec. 9, when U.N. inspectors were in Baghdad, that the House had planned to debate impeachment as early as Wednesday, Dec. 16. Air strikes began that day. The Washington Post first reported Wednesday that administration officials "played a direct role in shaping Butler's text during multiple conversations." "The decision to attack was driven on Sunday," Mr. Ritter said. "Ask Richard Butler why he stopped inspections on Sunday. The answer is, 'We have enough. We have enough points here. Get your team out.'"

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 22, 1998.

Thank you Andy.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 23, 1998.

73% approval rating????

Where is the proof??

Who is being polled??

ARE polls being taken??

Its very easy to announce a poll result. I for one do not believe.

-- Sheila (sros@bconnex.net), December 23, 1998.

Clinton 73% approval Saddam Hussein 99% approval the people love them both.

-- Bubba (Badhabbit@water.com), December 23, 1998.

Here are Gallup Poll results on Clinton for the last few months. A lot of info here, including approval and disapproval rates for the Democratic and Republican parties.

http://www.gallup.com/POLL_ARCHIVES/981220.htm

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 24, 1998.

Kevin, thanks for the line to the Gallup Poll. But I have a rebuttal to those who complain that Clinton has dropped the ball on y2k. Of course, I'm complaining too, but then he also dropped the ball on the environment, which is one reason I voted for him. But the Republicans are not shy; they have big, flapping mouths, and rag him about everything non-stop. Therefore, why haven't they, in all their vast and sanctimonious wisdom, taken up the cause of y2k. It would be a winner for them to address the problem, since the president hasn't. I think they'd rather gouge him, than work on something that requires serious planning.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), December 25, 1998.

Gilda,

I've read more than once that some Republicans are already planning to use Y2K as an issue against Al Gore in 2000. I'm not sure what effect Newt's resignation will have on this, but here's an interesting link:

http://www.freedom.gov/y2k/

"Freedom Works: Home Page of the Office of the House Majority Leader"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 25, 1998.