From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: BCCI and Jimmy Carter (again)
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:14:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1992Aug28.171312.19696@inel.gov>, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:

|> I will assume this is an appology for accusing me of saying unemployment under
|> Carter was 12%, something I have not stated.

	No, that was a separate posting. You should have seen it already, if 
not, want to apologise again - I'm sorry that I said that Don Palmrose said
that we had 12% unemployment under Carter, as I incorrectly stated.

|> Again, Alex has twisted some I have stated to mean something else.  What I
|> reminded you of was the fact that you misinterpreted my postings several
|> months ago and that Carter's dealings with BCCI was very suspicious.

	Nope. This time I'm sure that you said it. It was before Clifford
was indicted, and you claimed that Carter would be indicted with him, 
referring to Clifford as "Mr. democrat" because of his connections with the
democratic party. You may have been wrong, but you most definately wrote it.
I think your claim was that it would be bigger then Watergate (although
that might have been Mike Schwartz).

|> If Congress wants a special prosecutor to investigate Regan-Bush on the 
|> "October Surprise" based on almost no evidence then it is just as proper and
|> right to demand that Carter be investigated for his involvement with BCCI.
|> That is it!

	This is backtracking, but even so, there is no reason to suspect 
Carter of helping BCCI, except for his connections with a charity that recieved
BCCI funds. That relationship has already been explored, and Carter has been
exonerated. It's not clear what you would have Carter investigated for, or
where such an investigation would start.

|> 				What I get adament about is when people like
|> you are so quick to declare Regan or Bush are guilty based on no evidence 
|> but will not accept any criticism or admit to the potential of wrong 
|> doing by Liberals or Democrats like Carter.

	"No evidance" is a little weak when talking about Iran Contra. Oliver
North was convicted, and while that conviction was overturned, he was not
proclaimed innocent - his technicality was equivelent to a miranda violation.
At least one of the core orginizers killed himself rather then face trial,
and judging from the newly released diaries of Casper Weinberger, George
Bush was discussing the details of the operation at a time that he claims
he was "out of the loop".

	"No evidance" might apply to october surprise, but calling for an
investigation is no worse then having a congressional "scandle" that broke
no laws and didn't cost the taxpayes a cent. Your right in that it would
be fair to investigate Carter, but your wrong if you want to convict him
first, and your wrong if you think that an investigation is being supressed.
If you want to trash somebody for political purposes, its your responsibilty
to set up the scene. If your party can't muster a smear campaign against 
carter, thats not the fault of the democrats.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc