From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:36:37 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In his post below, Scott seems to be saying that since he didn't have
anything constructive to say he made a snide comment and now he's not
too thrilled that I assumed that he might actually have been serious
and responded seriously explaining just why his comment was stupid.

If I'm wrong I'm sure Scott will explain.

Scott also demonstrates that he has been happily posting for the last
two weeks without knowing what he is talking about - he seems to think
the press release with the suspicious date came from the government
rather than from the Clinton campaign.  See below..

In article <BxzpxD.6s7@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.032115.24586@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <Bxr67q.71r@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov15.013551.19696@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>In article <BxJ2M8.5ns@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>>>>In article <1dm90nINNheb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>>>>>If you seriously believe there was a Clinton/Walsh conspiracy against 
>>>>>Bush, then you should also readily believe that there was a Reagan/Khomeini 
>>>>>conspiracy against Carter.  Anything else would be inconsistent.

>>>>This seems pretty idiotic to me.

>>>>There are good reasons for believing that a Clinton/Walsh conspiracy
>>>>existed.  There was motive and opportunity and now there is some
>>>>pretty good evidence.

>>>>There are good reasons for believing that a Reagan/Khomeini conspiracy
>>>>did not exist.  In particular, there was no opportunity.

>>>>I have repeatedly challenged the October Surprise theorists to explain
>>>>how the supposed deal could have worked.  Every dingle one has
>>>>implicitly admitted that even they do not relaly belive in the October
>>>>Surprise by ignoring the challenge.

>>>>In particular, why should the Iranians have trusted Reagan?  What
>>>>tcould htey do if he didn't send them arms?  Well, they could have
>>>>exposed him... but in that case how could Reagan have trusted the
>>>>IRanians not to expose him as soon as they received the arms in order
>>>>to screw him over?  What could Reagan have given the Iranians as an
>>>>assurance that they would not have used anyway when we had problems
>>>>with the IRanians, for example when the Airbus was shot down?

>>>Re: Reagan/Khomeini Conspiracy...
>>>Well, gee.  I was just tossing it out as a joke.  You, on the other 
>>>hand, seemed to have spent a lot of time seriously thinking about it!
>>>  :-)

>>Scott, I didn't spend a lot of time seriously thinking about it.  I
>>spent two minutes thinking about it the first time I heard the
>>accusation, said "Nah.  It's unworkable." and then dismissed it.
>>Anyone with half a brain could do likewise.

>Well, sorry.  I misinterpreted your statement "I have repeatedly challenged 
>the October Surprise theorists..." to imply that you talked about this issue 
>frequently.   

I have.  I have repeatedly explained to the conspiracy theorists
exactly why their theory is unworkable.  It takes all of two minutes.

>Your two paragraph reply to my one line joke also left me with 
>the impression that you thought this matter was worthy of discussion (which 
>I don't think it is).  Since we both agree the idea is silly, let's
>drop it.

If it isn't worthy of discussion then why do you post this kind of
stupidity on the net?  If it isn't worth your time is it worth your
readers' time?

>>>Why would Walsh, a Republican, conspire with a Democratic campaign committee? 
>>>What's the motivation?  Did EVERYONE want Bush out of office?  :-)

>>Scott, read the damned papers some time.  (I mean a real one, like the
>>Wall Street Journal or the Economist).  

>Well, excuse me for reading the UNREAL newspapers.  I probably also 
>subscribe to the wrong religion and have various other unsurly 
>characteristics.  I will try to behave better in the future.  :-)

I don't care how you behave, but if you aren't getting the real scoop
- as is obvious from your posts - you should take the trouble to
educate yourself before using up bandwidth.

>>Walsh hates Bush's guts.  He
>>and his subordinates feel that Bush has been dicking them arround
>>since day one.  The overturning of the North and Poindexter
>>convictions and the hung jury on that CIA guy were major
>>embarrassments for Walsh and victories for Bush.  
>  [...]

>Ok, ok.  So Walsh is the Republican who has been browbeat into a 
>pseudo-Democrat.  I see.

Don't put words into my mouth.  You have this nasty habit of finding
yourself without a reasonable argument and then responding with some
snide comment that you then dismiss as a joke when somone calls you on it.

>Now, what's the big problem with this news release?
>It's not the first or last time that an official government press release 
>reached the media a day before it was officially announced.

Scott, I suggest that you check out the facts and then rewrite your
article.  The Clinton campaign issued a release on the Weinberger
indictment dated a day before the indictment was announced.  The
obvious question is how Slick's boys knew about it.  You seem to be
responding to something that did not happen.

>The wrong-doer 
>would be the person on Walsh's staff that leaked the info.

Yes.  Who leaked it to the Clinton campaign... and the Clinton
campaign official who have not identified that official.

>So, one more reason for the Republicans to browbeat their fellow 
>Republican.  They may go to it.  I'll watch.

Scott, you once again reveal your abysmal ignorance of what has been
going on in this country for the last few years.  All of Walsh's top
people are Democrats.  The guy who handled the Weinberger indictment
had contributed to the Clinton campaign and had testified against the
Thomas and Bork nominations as well as Rehnquists elevation to Chief
Justice.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24108 talk.politics.misc:60792