From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 07:37:57 PST

In <1istkaINN4d0@shelley.u.washington.edu>, Ryan Mcneilly writes:

>HOLD THE PHONE!!!  I thought the arms sales to Iran was to help in getting
>our people out of Lebanon.  Am I wrong?  And the money going to the
>Contras, congress already appropriated money to them.  It sounds like all
>they are guilty of is over giving to the contras.

Well, if my understanding is correct, Congress ordered the CIA to stop fund-
ing the Contras.  There were actually a few pro-Sandinista members in the
Congress, too.

Anyway, the money sent to the contras (technically) never entered the hands
of the U.S. government--or so they say.  I have no reason not to believe that,
but I don't wholeheartedly accept it without proof.  If that is true, then
there is technically no violation of law, even if the actions were clearly
undertaken as a sneaky way to circumvent the law.  I will say, though, that if
this is the worst thing that an administration has done, then we've had lots
of creampuffs in government.

>If the crime was ment to be benificial and doesn't hurt people, why wory
>about it to this degree.  I mean congress use this excuse all the time.
>They do a no no and say it was in the best intrest of the people and it is
>okay.

The actions and the holier-than-thou attitude of the Congress have pissed me
off for years.  Thankfully they've exposed themselves more in the last couple
of years as the boobs that they are.  As I said, if the Iranian money never
entered the U.S. Treasury, and if the profits which were not earmarked for the
Treasury went (in part) to the Contras, then I see no *technical* violation of
the law.  Certainly the spirit of the law was violated, but I would (if that
secnario as I understand it is true) not say that there has been criminal acti-
vity.  Sneaky and underhanded, yes.  Ill-advised, probably.  Criminal?  I
really don't think so.

>I dream of the day when the petty crimes that congress does are persued to
>the degree this was.  --Ryan

I agree.  Where Congress is concerned, there is a whiff of contempt and hypo-
crisy when they look for any GOP scandal while ignoring their own or anything
which happens to their political cronies.  That doesn't make the actions of the
Reagan Administration right about this, but if they were to say that they were
being persecuted by Walsh and Congress because of political differences and not
because Congress wants only the truth, I would believe it.

I do think that Reagan knows a hell of a lot more than he was telling.  I have
little doubt that in any case, North was a fall guy and a scapegoat who was
following orders.  If he was following orders, a pardon and/or exoneration was
in order *for him*.  That's not to say that higher-ranking officials therefore
deserve the same consideration.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12328 talk.politics.misc:67434