Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:21:15 GMT
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 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.

>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).  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.  The WSJ, with tacit
support from the right, has been publishing articles detailing Walsh's
own padding of expense accounts and acceptance of illegal gifts.  At
this point it isn't political.  It's personal.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23917 talk.politics.misc:60383 tx.politics:7376