From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 13:50:59 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:54:42 GMT

In article <bhayden.725732024@teal> Bruce Hayden, bhayden@teal.csn.org
writes:
>>  The big deal is that Reagan/Bush and company felt they could do
>> anything they damn well pleased even though Congress and most of
>> the American people said NO to giving military support to the Contras.
>
>Most of the American people?? Where do you get that?? 
>This was a policy dispute between a Republican president and a 
>Democratic congress.

Don't muddy this with partisanship. The special prosecutor happens
to be a very ethical conservative Republican thus blowing this silly
interpretation out of the water. I'm sure there are partisan aspects to
this but it does not change the fact that these people believed themselves
to be above the law.

>You forget that Reagan was elected by these
>same people that you assume so glibly opposed his policies, by
>a margin significantly higher than Slick Willy's "Mandate". 

This has nothing to do with whether there is enough evidence to
bring these people to trial or not. I doubt Reagan's so-called mandate
included Godhood in the minds of most of his supporters.

>
>>  To Reagan/Bush this obviously meant, lets sell some arms to `moderate'
>> Iranian leaders so that maybe they'll release our hostages, take the 
>> money made from the deal, skim a percentage off the top to line our
>> pockets for the good idea we came up with and send the rest down
>> to support the Nicaraguan opposition
>
>And exactly how many people working for Reagan have been convicted
>of lining their pockets? Especially with a $31 million dollar budge
>(so far) to root out the evil..

We'll never know. Bush has guaranteed that the facts will remain
buried under the rugs they were swept under.

>
>>  No big deal.... Laws? What laws?
>
>>>It's all just a big liberal-sponsored
>>>witch-hunt.
>
>
>>  Oh sure. Lifetime conservative Republican Lawrence Walsh is now a
>> liberal on a witch hunt. Too bad we don't have more like him. You know,
>> the kind of person who doesn't take sides based on their political 
>> affiliations......
>
>I think that a lot of attorneys would have found a lot of dirt for
>$31 million.

Most attorneys are not dealing with the single most powerful individual
on the planet.

>You can live a long time on that much money. Besides,
>Walsh has had little to do with the prosecution for a while. There
>are a number of fairly activist prosecutors running the show anymore,
>without any effective control.

Name them. Show me where Walsh has approved of the pardon.

>
>>>  Why should such a powerful position be given to just one
>>>person?
>
>
>>  Because the legislative and executive branches granted him that
>> power......
>
>
>>>  He doesn't have to answer to *anyone*.  That's just not right,
>>>IMHO.
>
>
>>  That's the whole point. He's not a liberal on a witch hunt nor a 
>> conservative trying to protect his buddies. He's out solely for the
>> truth wherever the cards may fall....
>
>And $31 million dollars. After all, aren't all conservative
>republicans greedy?

Do you really think that is his salary????   :-/
>
>>  Doing "unpopular" or "politically incorrect" things to get the job
done
>> is fine with me and most likely the rest of the people of the country,
it's
>> when people break the law and feel they are above the law when caught
is
>> what, well frankly, pisses me off......
>
>Which laws are you talking about? Jaywalking? Lying to Congress?

Lying to Congress, embezzling government funds, circumventing national
policy, ....

>
>>>  It's the way the world works.  It may not sit well with
>>>the average citizen whose only link to the rest of the world is CNN
Headline
>>>News.
>
>> Seems to me that may be YOUR only link to the rest of the world from
your
>>above statements.....
>>> 
>>>Ah, but this is all speculation on our part.  The only one who knows
>>>the "real" story are the people involved.
>>  Yeah, like Gene Hausanfus, Ollie North, Poindexter, Secord, McFarlane
>> (who for all intents and purposes admitted to what was going down),
etc.,
>> etc.,....ad nauseum.....
>
>Yes - and he thought (and probably thinks to this day) that he was
>being patriotic in what he was doing. 

Delusion is not a defense.

>
>>  Ahh... something we can agree on. IF the Clinton administration pulls
>> anything similar or feels THEY are above the law, then I hope Walsh
>> will be re-instated as a Special Prosecutor and go after those people
>> with the same amount of enthusiasm.....
>
>I don't expect to see the criminalization of policy differences 
>between a democratic president and a democratic congress. 

Speculation of the opposition's future behavior is not a defense.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13483 talk.politics.misc:65466