Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 16:40:32 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: ==> Tell the Truth Mr. President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 October 14, 1992


                   TELL THE TRUTH, MR. PRESIDENT

   [Statement of George Stephanopoulos, Communications Director]

         "The American people should demand that their
                  President tell the truth."
                       -- Dan Quayle
                       October 13, 1992

      We couldn't agree more.

      It took a while but we finally uncovered something that Dan
 Quayle said last night that rings of the truth.  His boss, George
 Bush, should tell the truth.  Mr. Quayle added: "You cannot lead this
 great country of ours by misleading the people." Right again.

      So in the interest of uncovering the truth and setting the
 record straight before the American people vote, here are a few
 topics and questions that George Bush ought to tell the truth about.

 #1.  "Stategate": Who Asked for What?

      Today's Washington Post reveals that, in a last-ditch attempt to
 smear Bill Clinton's character, the Bush Administration has been
 acting like the Nixon Administration.  The Post reports that a Bush
 Administration political appointee directed the U.S. embassies in
 London and Oslo to search their files on Bill Clinton.

        The Post characterized the requests, by Assistant Secretary of
 State for Consular Affairs Elizabeth Tamposi, as "unusual," and said
 that they received "extraordinarily high-level attention." Passport
 files are -- as the State Department's own director of its Freedom of
 Information Office, Frank Machak maintains -- "covered by the Privacy
 Act." [Washington Post, 10/14/92]

       The State Department, in a policy statement sent to the
 National Security Archive in Washington D.C., notes that FOI requests
 are expedited only in "truly exceptional circumstances." These
 circumstances include: "(1) whenever it is demonstrated that an
 individual's life or personal safety would be jeopardized by the
 failure to process requests immediately, and (2) whenever it is shown
 that substantial due process rights of the requester would be
 impaired by the failure to process immediately, and that the
 information sought is not otherwise available." [Letter to National
 Security Archive, 11/22/91; attached.]

 The questions:

 *    Who approved these approve "unusual" searches of Bill Clinton's
      passport files?

 *    Were the searches reported to Tamposi's superiors in the State
      Department and if so, who?  Were the searches reported to anyone
      in the White House or the Bush/Quayle campaign?

 *    How will Bush determine who is responsible, and what actions
      will he take against them?

 *    Is this search connected to Bush's secret White House meeting
      with extreme right wing Republican Congressmen like Bob Dornan
      to plan political attacks on Bill Clinton's trips to Eastern
      Bloc countries?

 *    Which of the State Department's two FOI criteria for expedited
      search did this request meet?

 *    Will the Administration come clean and immediately release all
      material related to the FOIA requests and State Department
      searches?

 #2. Iran-Contra: The Truth About Arms for Hostages

      For six years, George Bush has said he did not know the U.S. was
 trading arms for hostages with Iran.  He claims he was "out of the
 loop" and unaware of the ill-fated deal -- and gave testimony to the
 Tower Commission and Iran-contra investigators to that effect.  "I
 sensed that we were sending arms.  And I sensed that we were trying
 to get hostages out.  But not arms for hostages." [UPI, 1/8/88]

      And yet when asked on October 13th by Katie Couric whether he
 knew about the arms for hostages, George Bush replied, "Yes, and I've
 said so all along, given speeches on it." [NBC "Today," 10/13/92]
 When asked about his boss' role in the scandal this morning, the
 Administration's attack puppy, Dan Quayle replied: "Well, he said it
 all along.  That's no news." [NBC "Today," 10/14/92]

 The questions:

 *    Did he or did he not know about the arms for hostages deal with
      Iran?

 *    If he knew, did George Bush mislead the investigators or has he
      misled the American people? Or both?

 *    How could he have sat through three dozen briefings on the
      issue, been in the room when President Reagan signed the order
      for the arms-for-hostage deal, sat in the meeting where Shultz
      and Weinberger voiced their strong opposition, sat through
      briefings on the issue with National Security Advisor McFarland,
      his aide Howard Teicher and Israeli intelligence officer Amiram
      Nir -- and yet still not catch on to the deal?

 *    George Bush has testified twice on his role in the scandal.
      Once to the Tower Commission and once to the Iran-contra
      investigators.  Will he now  make public his testimony to those
      two bodies?

 #3. Iraq-gate: Just how much did we help Saddam?

      George Bush likes to pretend we "did not enhance Saddam
 Hussein's nuclear, biological or chemical weapons capability,"
 despite mounting evidence that dual-use American technology helped
 him in his bid to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

      George Bush maintains he was unaware of any diversion of loans
 to Iraq -- and yet we now learn that his Administration had direct
 evidence of diversions of loans made through the Atlanta based branch
 of BNL but tried to cover them up.  Marvin Shoob, the US District
 Judge in the BNL case said, "Certainly, either the CIA or the Justice
 Department or both have misled me." [LAT, 10/13/92]  It is time
 George Bush came clean with the American people on his role in
 Iraqgate.

 The questions:

 *    What's he hiding? What are we going to find out after November
      3?

 *    Why won't George Bush release the key documents that would
      reveal just who was doing what with Saddam up to the eve of the
      invasion of Kuwait?  These documents include:

        -    The transcript of the cables between the Administration
             and US Ambassador April Glaspie revealing U.S. messages
             to Saddam;

        -    The text of National Security Directive 26 ordering
             closer political and economic ties with Iraq.

        -    The text of George Bush's personal communique to Saddam
             Hussein on July 28, 1990 five days before the invasion.

 *    If George Bush thought he was doing the right thing by trying to
      bring Saddam Hussein into "the family of nations," why won't he
      come clean?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10761 talk.politics.misc:52155