From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Only a week until four dark years
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:44:49 GMT

Brendan B. Boerner (bboerner@novell.com) wrote:
: 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?

Such as propping up banana republics so the American Fruit Companies wouldn;t
lose profits.  Or Iran-contra even.

: 
: >: >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.

Unfortunately, the CIA is necessary - for its intelligence value alone.

: 
: >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.
: 

Who was assasinated by the CIA when Bush was either 1) head of CIA or 2)
president?

: >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?

No.

: 
: >: >Reasons to elect Bush:
: >: >1)      Representative from Texas
: 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.
: 

You babble.

: >: >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.

Bush has said numerous times theat MFN status helps the Chinese who are
against communism.  Removal of MFN status would HURT the people we claim
to want to help.

: 
: >: >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).
: 

Well, Woodward and Bernstein, special prosecutor, and senate investigators
found nothing wrong with Bush's activities.  Until you can prove otherwise,
clam up.

: 
: >: >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.

By electoral standards, for sure.  Reagan not only had a plurality, he had
a majority.  And with less voters than voted in the 92 election.  Both
times.  So did Bush when he won.

: >: 
: >: >6)      Dukakis (Clinton, too) was a walking disaster
: >: 
: 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).
: 

Your unknown evil lied and lied and lied and promised and promised and
promised his way into office.  We'll see how the voters like him after
100 days, 6 months, and 4 years from now.

: 
: >: 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?
: 

No.  Sadaam has 20,000 nuclear engineers who are twiddling their thumbs
because of the UN sanctions and investigations.  We bombed the major
political centers of Iraq during the gulf war, and did not get sadaam.
We tried to get him with collateral damage...  We have a fragile alliance
of arab states suporting the resolutions.  Recent actions by Russia and
arab states makes it clear that to a degree we are being to harsh on
Sadaam as it is (in their eyes).

If we want to get rid of Sadaam, it must be muslims that do the deed.
I can see no other way.


: 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