From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:50:05 GMT

giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:

>	As stated previously, I don't personally believe the 
>Clinton campaign was told about Walsh's supposed plan to time the
>release of information on the Weinberger case.  HOWEVER!  Your
>statement says that even if it is true, that it's alright.  It most
>certainly is not since there are ethical problems with this
>abuse of power.  Digging up info and starting rumours about a
>Bush mistress or Clinton's war protests are just that... Ethical and
>possibly legal abuse is something entirely different.
>	We'll have to hope that some electronic dating or other
>proof halts an investigation.

Tell me that every announcement regarding economic health,
trade developments and so forth, in the last month was not
timed by the current administration to help the President as
much as possible in his re-election attempt.  That's the power
of the incumbancy.  From what I understood, the Walsh announcement
was expected at the end of October anyway.  I do not see digging
up factual information regarding Bush being at a meeting that he's
claimed not to be at and taking a stand that he's claimed not
to have taken as being more unethical than digging through 20 year
old passport records looking for something fishy.

>	You mean 1 month ago.  That's when the original release of
>info on Weinberger was supposed to be.  How do you suppose that the
>president was going to get this "out in the open years ago" anyway?
>The investigation hasn't exactly been slowed by him-- or am 
>I forgetting something?

Okay, I'm sorry it didn't come out a month before too - then I 
might not have had to worry so much about the chance of Bush
getting re-elected, nor the chance that pertinent information
would come out one day after the voting.

Dig this: Iran-contra is about trading weapons for hostages,
and diverting acquired to an illegal private war in Nicaragua,m
and then covering up the information.  Yes, you're missing 
something - Bush has lied repeatedly over the last 7 years 
regarding this, obstructing justice and making a mockery of
representative government.  Weinberger unfortunately gets a
bit stuck because he took notes, but I don't have a lot of
sympathy, because if he or Bush or somebody had told the
truth 7 years ago, we would either have put Reagan on trial
or we would have accepted that the President can go ahead
and wage private wars.  Then we wouldn't have needed to spend
$40 million to dig it up.  \

Bush was point man on Central America.  He was the CIA expert,
and he had all the information.  Even his son helped raise
money for the Contras.  Blaming Walsh for his efforts is like
blaming Manson's prosecutors for the Sharon Tate killings -
(not really, but it sounds good...) - the Justice department
sat outside North's office and let him shred documents, and
Congress gave out too many promises of amnesty, so Walsh
got stuck with an uphill case.  North was found guilty of
his charges and then the case was overturned because some
of the evidence was taken from his congressional testimony.
This is not the same thing as North being innocent.  Clair
George got a hung jury because everyone knew that his
superiors were in on the deal.  So yes, who were his 
superiors?  Casey, Bush and Reagan.  Casey's dead.  Reagan's
a clinical vegetable.  Snag Bush before his brain slips 
away from us too.

Any questions?

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal