From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Only a week until four dark years
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 14:26:06 GMT

In article <C10qxM.n1C@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Brendan B. Boerner (bboerner@novell.com) wrote:
>: 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.
>
>Bush may have done more to eliminate the nasty things the CIA was used to
>doing than you give him credit for.

Such as?

>: >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.
>: 
>
>The CIA was in danger of elimination by congress because of this scandal.

Shucks, we were that close.

>Bush was a fireman in this case.  In spite of scandalous activity, the
>CIA is needed to provide intelligence.  Intelligence that has been proven

And assasinate leaders of countries which we disagree with, and prop
up governments which we do agree with...  Unfortunately, it's not
just intelligence gathering.

>useful.  The confirmation hearings of Gates for head of CIA demonstrated
>how far less competent and evil an organization you imply the CIA is and
>has been for at least a decade, and since Bush and Carter's man (Stansfield
>Turner) were head of the CIA.

So Stansfield Turner should be given credit for cleaning up the CIA,
not George Bush?

>: >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.
>: 
>
>The good thing about being representative is that he has experience in
>the legislative branch of the federal government.  I've heard this bullshit
>about Bush favoring his friends and his oil partners and such.  Texas is
>harldy kicking ass.  The oil business is hardly kicking ass in Texas.  When
>his own home in Kinnebunkport was damaged by an act of god, he didn't fund
>the repairs.

In other words, he hasn't been useful to Texas, thus even if you do buy
into nationalism at the state level, that's not a reason to elect him.
But even if he was, this MIGHT be a reason for Texans to vote for him
but would be a reason for voters from other states to vote against
him.

>: >3)      Ambassador to China
>: 
>: Is that why he keeps tolerating flagrant human rights abuses in that country?
>
>Could it just be that since he was Ambassador to China, he understands what the
>right policy is more than you or I?  I pick him over YOU.  I pick him over
>anyone.

If he does understand what the right policy is, he should have
articulated it for those of us who aren't so enlightened.  I've
actually heard an explanation which does make a lot of sense,
unfortunately, it didn't come from Bush so I'm not sure that was the
reason he acted as he did.

>: >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.
>: 
>
>You allege he is corrupt.  I say he's not.  

No, Chris was dubious that ANY high placed member of a political party
could be squeaky clean (this includes Clinton).


>: >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.
>: 
>
>HAHAHA.  The electorate chose Reagan and Bush for 12 years at a 2-to-1
>ratio over losers like Dukakis and Mondale.  There is no reason to expect
>Clinton to be any more competent than Carter was.  This qualifies him
>as a walking disaster.  The plurality that Clinton won by this time is
>14% of your electorate LESS than Reagan and Bush got.  And Reagan and
>Bush won 3 times with MAJORITY and not plurality.

But he still got votes.  If he was such a walking disaster, why did
people vote for him instead of the party of God, Bush/Quayle?  In other
words, there were still a lot of people who didn't want Bush/Quayle
even if it meant Dukakis/Mondale.  Similarly, more people in 1992
decided that they'd rather have Clinton/Gore (an unknown evil as it
were) vs. Bush/Quayle (a known evil as it were).


>: And, of course, you left out reason no. 7: Bush gave us the Persian Gulf
>: War.  Or did you mean to leave that out?  ;-)
>: 
>
>Did you see Adam Smith's Money World or Nova this last week?  Both shows
>documented how close Iraq is to developing nuclear capability.  And Bush
>did not use the CIA in this case, he used the UN and public and diplomatic
>means.  

True, but when the magical hour 100 came up, he called it quits.  If
Iraq is so dangerous (and I actually do agree with you on this one) why
didn't we actually do something about it?  Why are we 2 years later
making bombing runs into Iraq?  Shouldn't we have done this 2 years
ago?

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.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality