Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Only a week until four dark years
From: lrvanh00@nx38.mik.uky.edu (lee r vanhorn)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:21:40 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <1993Jan15.224819.12290@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com  
(Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
> In article <C0wMpJ.6K@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke  
schwartz) writes:
> >Brendan B. Boerner (bboerner@novell.com) wrote:
> >: In article <Jan.14.11.10.04.1993.22855@andromeda.rutgers.edu>  
detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
> >: >People, we are going to have FOUR YEARS of The Clinton's.  How the  
hell
> >: >the American people did this is beyond me.  It is going to be an  
insult to
> >: 
> >: Well, you might ask how the American people ever managed to elect a  
guy
> >: who once headed the CIA...  American's are a strange people...
> 
> I forwarded Mike's response to my post to a friend and I'll let his
> reply speak for itself...
> 
> Brendan
> -- 
> Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
> Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
>    or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems Mr. Schwartz was right, we were all wrong about Bush.  In honor  
of
> this discovery (and for your amusement) I've made a few notes on just  
how
> wrong we were.
> 
> Boy, are we idiots.  I scare myself sometimes.
> 
> >1)      How long and when was Bush head of the CIA?
> >A:      1 year, 1976
> 
> "I wasn't an axe murdered for very long" wouldn't be much a defense in
> murder trial.
> 
> >2)      Why was he put in charge of the CIA?
> >A:      CIA was involved in scandal, and Bush was called in to put  
things
> >        right.
> 
> CIA has been involved in scandals for as long as I can remember.  Maybe
> there was one golden year back there when they didn't get up to anything
> naughty, but I don't remember hearing anything about it.
> 
> >3)      Why is being head of CIA a bad thing?
> >A:      IS no answer.
> 
> The CIA goes out and secretly makes policy for the country, without  
being
> answerable to the American people for its actions (Hell, the people  
can't
> even find out what the CIA does until the shit hits the fan).
> 
> >Reasons to elect Bush:
> >1)      Representative from Texas
> 
> Oh, good.  Nationalism at the state level.  "Texas Uber Alles!"  Would  
you
> really want a president who would favor his "home" state over all the  
other
> states and territories?  Not me, bro.  If this was a reason for you to  
vote
> for Bush, it's definitely a reason for me to vote against him.
> 
> >2)      Ambassador to UN
> 
> No harm in that.
> 
> >3)      Ambassador to China
> 
> Is that why he keeps tolerating flagrant human rights abuses in that  
country?
> 
> >4)      Chairman of RNC, and squeaky clean, right after Watergate 
> 
> Are you saying it's possible to be a highly placed member of ANY  
political
> party and be squeaky clean?  Call me a cynic, but I'll never buy that.
> 
> >5)      Vice President under one of the top 3 or 4 presidents in  
history.
> 
> By whose standards?  Certainly not all of the electorate would agree.
> 
> >6)      Dukakis (Clinton, too) was a walking disaster
> 
> By whose standards?  Certainly not all of the electorate would agree.
> 
> And, of course, you left out reason no. 7: Bush gave us the Persian Gulf
> War.  Or did you mean to leave that out?  ;-)
> 
Well, as much as I hate Bush, I have to agree with him on the Persian  
Gulf.  Even Jimmy Carter agreed with him on that.  Now, if we could divert  
our attention to trying to find new evergy sources, we might not need the  
war.  But Reaganomics is starting to show us that it will make our nation  
crumble.  And besides, why would Bush want alternative energy?  He made  
too much money from oil.  In fact, he has controlling stock in Pennzoil.  
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14887 alt.politics.clinton:20999 alt.politics.bush:16278 alt.politics.homosexuality:10096