From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Bush and Iran Contra
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:28:24 GMT

In article <1a5nbnINN745@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.022554.16175@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <19vqb2INNaa8@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>>General Secord said Bush is lying about his role in Iran Contra.
>
>>	Why discount it? There was nothing wrong with Iran Contra but the fact
>>that it violated 'proper routes.'
>
>Perhaps because of your youth, John peter, you've seem not to know what
>Iran-contra was about. Let's look at the first part of the program. We
>wanted help from the Iranians in releasing American hostages held in
>Lebanon (preferably in time for the midterm election -- remember the one
>hostage we did bribe free was feted on the White House Lawn). To do this
>we decided to sell arms to Iran, led by Ayatollah Khomeini.
>However, we had declared an embargo on Iran. In fact, at the same time
>we were secretly sending arms to Iran, our officials were complaining to
>our European allies that they weren't being strict enough with Iran.
>In fact, sending arms to Iran WOULD have been illegal, except that
>Ronald Reagan, Mr. Tough Talk, signed an executive order permitting it.
>At least, he might have. It was retroactive, it was initially given
>orally (? -- my memory on this is hazy), and when examined on the issue
>later, he had forgotten everything. It has, of course, become clear
>that Mr. Reagan was pretty out of it mentally by the end of his terms.
>George Bush said that he (with  secys Schultz and Weinberger) was
>against this stupid, craven [do you know the word, jp] attempt to bribe
>Khomeini. But now the facts out: he thought it was peachy-keen and cool.
>I wonder what you would say about that Great Satan Jimmy Carter if he
>had pursued the same policy. Probably called him stupid and cowardly.
>And you would have been right.
>Hope this fills in your memory lacunae.
>andy

	Gee, I am impressed by the use of your big vocabulary. Thank you
for educating me.  Yours is after all the education party.
	Now I would like to ask, again, how did the sales of weapons
to Iran do more than violate 'proper procedure?'  That sale, that operation,
and those weapons have not been used against the U.S. or its alies.
The only reason, and you admit it, for the arms sales going sour is
the fact that they violated an embargo! If I break the law in Chicago
to carry a gun, and save many innocent people with that gum, sure,
I have broken the law, you may even cal me 'cowardly' for 'hiding' it
on my person.  But the fact is, I saved those innocent people AND
I did not harm anyone.  You Demcrats are assanine in the sense that you
worship the form, the outward appearance of things rather than the
nuts-and-bolts, the underlying concept, the below the surface appearance.
This is shown in your 'self-proclaimed superiority of thought' based
upon your 'vocabulary!' Give me a break! A vocabulary, the cosmetic,
the outrward appearance is most useful in the goal of deception, i.e.,
you would deceive others through the use of your 'big vocabulary.' I tell
you truly, your 'big vocabulary' means nothing in the light of reality.
The same is true for your worship of grades and 'academic standings,'
ala Quayle.  You would hide your ignorance of what is real behind
a facade of pedantry!  1)'Iran Contra' violated procedure (embargo),
but 2)caused no harm, and yet helped free hostage(s).  The essence of
the policy was beneficial, and weighed out in action, while you Democrats
would damn it for its superficial shortfalls! Why don't you go read
your dictionary and impress the ladies at the Lawn Club with your
big vocabulary and your pithy `qualifications' and leave the thinking
to the men!

				J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections