From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:34:10 GMT

In article <93008.28393.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <1993Jan8.063519.19284@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, Tom Peregrin writes:
>
>>In article <1Vc1wB2w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) wri
>>>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>>>I really love it when I see a liberal gnashing his teeth about someone
>>>"getting off on a technicality!". Warms my heart, it does.
>
>>Did you resort to "arguementum ad hominem" because you couldn't debate the
>>point or because you enjoy insults more than debate?
>
>>>> Walsh discovered a lot.  It's just been effectively reversed, or pardoned.
>
>Kind of like the slap on the wrist that the Senate gave to its Keating Five
>offenders, no?
>

I didn't think that the keating 5 were part of the discussion. Maybe
I need my eyesight checked. Personally, I agree that more should have
been done about them. This does not change the fact that Bush, Reagan, and
pretty much their entire administrations were engaged in illegal
activities, and attempted to coverup such activities.

>>>
>>>He's discovered a nearly endless source of cash, if nothing else.
>
>
>>PSee above... your comments do not  address the point.
>
>>>Hey, if lying were a crime, can you name one, *one* politician who
>>>wouldn't be guilty of at least 100 counts? "Lying to congress" falls in
>>>the same category of "robbing a mugger".
>>>
>>>I'm not saying lying is right - the average politician - left or right -
>>>is a contemptible jackal with the morals of a cockroach - but. Lying to
>>>congress? I can't even say it with a straight face....
>
>>Okay, let me ask you to your twisted face:  do you think that we should
>>ignore all laws about perjury, lying to congress, and such?  If
>>so, there goes any pretense of this being a country of law.   Besides
>>note that the law is "lying to congress", not "lying to congresscritters".
>>Shouldn't we have some respect for the institution, if not the individuals.
>>For example, I have respect for the office of the vice president, even
>>if a boob currently occupies the chair.   And even if I think that the
>>VP is a boob, I shouldn't be exempted from laws which pertain to his
>>office (if there are any).
>
>Neither should Congress.  And their check bouncing and shenanigans at the
>post office should be investigated.  

The problem here is more one of the rules governing the bank and
post-office, rather than any improprieties by congressmen. You are
free to write to your congressman and demand change in the rules.
Enough people do that, and it will likely happen. It is not "liberals"
fault if conservatives are not politically active enough.

>Since they are not being given a thorough
>invstigation (Congress could have appointed a special prosecutor there, too),
>I can only include that the entire affair is a political witch hunt and not
            ^^^^^^^
>a "quest for justice."

I believe you mean conclude, though this too is wrong. You are likely
correct to some extent when you claim it to be a witch hunt; There are people 
who will do anything to throw the bums out. However, last I checked
Mr. Walsh was still a Republican. Who do you claim is pulling his
strings?

As for congressional actions, it would be naive to say that politics has
not or will not play a part in such actions. So what? Politics was part
of the impetus behind the watergate investigations;Do you condemn those?

>Sorry, I can't agree with you.  Let's see some of our
>(Democratic) Congresscritters indicted for their actions, and I might be
>inclined to support Walsh's investigations

Completely irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right, last I checked.

>--if they didn't take 6 years and
>$50M.  As it is, the entire investigation is pure politicking by the Democrats
>in Congress.  That's what pisses me off about the entire affair--the hypo-
>crisy with which the holier-than-thou Democrats operate.  Ever since Watergate,
>the Democrats have thrived on looking for Republican scandal.

Of course they do. Such is the nature of our government, as implied
by the constitution. Nothing is going to change that. What makes you
think politics has been dirty only since Watergate?

>And since they
>control Congress, they can appoint a special prosecutor each and every time
>they think they have found it.  

You dont like it? Then vote them out! No need to bitch and whine.
It would appear that most people do not agree with you, as they have
not been voted out. Chew on that.

>What of the investigation into the so-called
>"October Surprise" even though House Speaker Foley admitted having "no evi-
>dence?"  There was *plenty* of evidence in the House Bank and Post Office
>scandals.  Why weren't most Democrats for full disclosure or a thorough inves-
>tigation?  Case closed.
>

Your case must be opened before you can close it.

>>>I have more admiration for a man who is willing to be scorned by the
>>>whiners of an entire country in order to right something that he
>>>actually believes in, than I have for someone who votes for things that
>>>he knows are wrong simply for political gain.
>
>
>>At last, we agree on something.  I too have admiration for Walsh, who
>>is willing to ignore the whining of the republican party while trying
>>to right the wrongs committed by reagan/bush/quayle.
>
>Why do you include Quayle in this?  Has anyone (even the most truth-be-damned-
>I-have-an-agenda-to-follow Democrat) suggested that Danny Boy was "in the
>loop?"  That's why it's important to hire investigators without an agenda.  You
>are fingering Quayle when he was almost certainly not involved.  I do think
>that he was just some young Indiana senator at the time.  Get the damn facts
>right.  Your agenda and disdain for the facts are becoming obvious.
>

It is most likely that the previous poster used reagan/bush/quayle as
a shortened form of the reagan/bush and bush/quayle administrations.
This is in no way an indictment of quayle. the boy is to stupid to
be a successful criminal.

>You've got an axe to grind, fella.  The truth be damned.  Right.
>

When you take everything written at face value, without paying any
attention to implications, you show your own agenda. Unless you wish
tosuggest that you are incabable of understanding implication. is this
the case?

>>Humor aside,  the main 'arguement' you advanced was "they are doing it too",
>>which doesn't make it right for the White House to engage in the that
>>behaviour which you so rightly condemn in the congress.   You used the term
>>"robbing a mugger".   Even if the victim (?) is a mugger, that doesn't
>>excuse the robbery.  It is still a crime, and most lower court judges would
>>LAUGH at a defense plea "But your honor, the defendant was doing it as
>>a civil service!".
>
>I'd laugh too.  But I also laugh (and agonize) when I hear the jokers in
>Congress refuse to find the truth (and indict the guilty parties) in their
>own scandals.  The Democrats in Congress have played politics far more than
>the Bush Administration have--and I'm no fan of GHWB, either.
>

Vote them out, if that's how you feel.
Who would think that such a simple idea could seem so difficult to some 
people?

>I'll bet that if your favorite (liberal) Democratic Congresscreature were to
>be indicted, you'd call for the investigations to stop, too.
>

Why? I don't see that anywhere in what has been quoted. Calm down.
Take a pill.

>Hypocritical bastards.
>

Nice to see that you are well versed in irony.

>
>Tim Irvin

Robert Johnston

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc