From: ftoppin@eis.calstate.edu (Frank Topping)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TO GEORGE:  COME CLEAN ABOUT IRAN CONTRA
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:56:44 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services


Would you trust this guy with four more years?
 
I wouldn't even buy a used car from him; ...it's a matter of
honesty and character.

...was it also the Republicans that gave us Watergate?

I don't think Ronnie was as forgetful as he'd have led us to believe
either.  ...seems like we have a real running pattern here.


Bert Smith <samsung!ulowell!genome.wi.edu!bowler@uunet.UU.NET> writes:
> [IRANCO.TXT file date 9/24/92]
> Please Distribute September 24, 1992 
> 
> IT'S TIME TO COME CLEAN, GEORGE BUSH
> Statement by George Stephanopoulos, Clinton Communications Director]
> 
> 	  It's time for George Bush to come clean with the American people.
> 
> 	  Time after time, his administration secretly deals with dictators and
> terrorists, to the detriment of U.S. interests.  Then, when the policy
> blows up, Bush and other officials deny the facts and try to cover-up. 
> When it comes to Iraq, like Iran-Contra before it, Bush's flat denials
> are consistently refuted by the evidence.
> 
> 	  These ongoing contradictions concern matters of great public
> importance.  They demand a full response, not more evasions.
> 
> 	  What did Bush know and when did he know it?  Why won't he tell the
> truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? IRAN-CONTRA
> 
> 	  Bush said he was "out of the loop."   Newly released secret memos tell
> a different story.  When will Bush come clean on his real role in
> Iran-Contra?  Why does he continue to tell a story that's contradicted by
> every piece of evidence?
> 
> 	   Bush said he was unaware that Secretary of State George Schultz and
> Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger were strongly opposed to selling
> arms to Iran.  "If I'd have sat there and heard George Schultz and Cap
> express it [opposition] strongly, maybe I would have had a stronger
> view," Bush told the Washington Post. "But when you don't know something,
> it's hard to react. . . . We were not in the loop."
> 
> 	  BUT.... Today's Washington Post reports a memo in the possession of
> prosecutors that shows Bush was present at a January, 1986 meeting where
> Weinberger argued against arms sales.
> 
> 	  BUT.... Notes dictated by Schultz quote Weinberger as calling Schultz
> and saying that Bush had said he was "not exposed to Cap or my arguments
> on Iran arms.  Cap called me + sd [and said] that's terrible.  He [Bush]
> was on the other side.  It's on the record.  Why did he say that."  The
> notes came out on August 25 as part of Cap's pretrial procedures.
> 
> 	   Bush said in his autobiography that the first time he knew that the
> arms sales were in fact an arms for hostages deal was when Sen. David
> Durenberger visited him in December, 1986.
> 
> 	  BUT.... According to the Washington Post, Bush was present at "several
> dozen" daily Presidential national security briefings where the arms for
> hostages deal was discussed.
> 
> 	  BUT.... Bush was one of only five people present at the January 17,
> 1986 meeting where Reagan signed the intelligence finding that for the
> first time authorized the U.S. to sell arms directly -- instead of
> through Israel -- to Iran in exchange for hostages.  One month later, the
> U.S. shipped 1,000 TOW missiles to Iran.
> 
> 	  AND.... According to today's Washington Post, "He attended three White
> House meetings in November 1986 that Iran-contra prosecutors working for
> independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh have concluded set the stage for an
> attempted coverup of one particular set of Hawk missile shipments to Iran
> in 1985."
> 
> 
> 
> 	  QUESTION: HOW CAN BUSH CONTINUE TO CLAIM HE DIDN'T KNOW SCHULTZ AND
> WEINBERGER WERE STRENUOUSLY AGAINST THE ARMS DEAL?  IS HE SAYING THEY ARE
> BOTH LYING?
> 
> 	  QUESTION: WHY DID BUSH SAY HE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS AN ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES
> DEAL, WHEN HE WAS AT SEVERAL DOZEN MEETINGS WHERE THE SCHEME WAS
> DISCUSSED?
> 
> 	  QUESTION: DID BUSH PARTICIPATE IN PLANNING A COVER UP OF MISSILE
> SALES, AS REPORTED IN TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST? IRAQGATE: SECRET HELP FOR
> SADDAM HUSSEIN
> 
> 	  We know now that Saddam Hussein used billions of dollars in American
> taxpayers' foreign aid to build up his weapons of mass destruction -- the
> very weapons our troops faced in Desert Storm. George Bush and James
> Baker have denied knowing anything about it at the time.  Newly released
> document confirm that they did know -- and didn't act to stop it.
> 
> 	  Bush has repeatedly said that the Administration did not know that
> Saddam Hussein was skimming American money to build Iraqi military
> capabilities:
> 
> 	  On CBS Morning News (7/1/92), Harry Smith asked: "Why did we continue
> to support Saddam Hussein even though we knew he was skimming US support
> to help develop nuclear arms?"  Bush replied: "We didn't know that.  I
> don't know where you got that, Harry.  The State Department didn't know
> it, and what we did is try to bring him into the family of nations.  And
> what you're doing is repeating something that these candidates are
> saying.  We did not go to enhance his nuclear, biological or chemical
> capabilities."
> 
> 	  In July, Bush said: "We didn't know that.  The State Department didn't
> know it. . . . You can talk about what one State Department employee, and
> if we had known it wouldn't have happened."  (NY Times, 7/9/92)
> 
> 	  BUT.... The State Department document released yesterday -- a July 24,
> 1990 memo signed off on by James Baker -- directly contradicts this
> statement: "Iraq is actively engaged in developing chemical and
> biological weapons and ballistic missile systems, and may be seeking to
> develop nuclear weapons as well.  Iraq has been attempting to obtain
> items to support these proliferation activities from U.S. exporters, in
> some cases successfully."
> 
> 	  AND.... Just one week after Baker signed off on the memo, U.S.
> Ambassador April Glaspie was assuring Iraqi officials of State Department
> efforts to continue agriculture credits to Iraq.  Baker instructed
> Glaspie to assure Saddam Hussein that the U.S. would take no position on
> Iraq's buildup against Kuwait.
> 
> 	  QUESTION: WHY DID GEORGE BUSH SAY THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T
> KNOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS GETTING HELP FROM U.S. FIRMS IN HIS DEADLY
> WEAPONS BUILDUP?  HOW DOES HE RECONCILE HIS FLAT DENIALS WITH THE
> EMERGING EVIDENCE?
> 
> 	  QUESTION: DID GEORGE BUSH KNOW THAT IRAQ WAS DEVELOPING CHEMICAL,
> BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS?  IF HE DID, WHEN DID HE KNOW IT AND WHY
> DID HE CONTINUE U.S. AGRICULTURAL LOANS TO IRAQ?  IF HE DID, WHY DOES HE
> CONTINUE TO ISSUE BLANKET DENIALS OF ANY KNOWLEDGE?
> 
> 	  QUESTION: WHAT DID JAMES BAKER TELL GEORGE BUSH ABOUT THE IRAQI
> WEAPONS PROGRAM?  HOW EARLY DID BAKER KNOW?
> 
> 	  QUESTION: HOW DOES JAMES BAKER RECONCILE HIS MEMO TO BOB MOSBACHER
> WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO APRIL GLASPIE ASSURING SADDAM THAT WE WOULD
> CONTINUE AGRICULTURAL CREDITS?
> 
> 	  End of Statement
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc