From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush and Iran Contra
Date: 29 Sep 1992 17:02:11 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep28.042824.26230@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

JP, do yourself a favor and read the back newspapers in the library.

>	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!

In other, shorter, words, even the Iran part of Iran-contra was in
violation of the law--the embargo had the force of law, and the US
prosecuted civilians who traded with Iran at the same time it was
secretly doing so itself--except for the possibility that Ronald Reagan
authorized it.

The reason the arms sales went sour is that attempting to ransom
hostages with arms is stupid, craven, and poltroonish. Jimmy Carter
could have figured it out, but the cloak-and-dagger boys like George
Bush, thought it was worth a try anyway.

>.  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 wouldn't have a personal reason for this disdain of grades, would
you?

The underlying form here is whether we have a government of laws or an
executive dictatorship which is free to subvert them.

>  1)'Iran Contra' violated procedure (embargo),
>but 2)caused no harm, and yet helped free hostage(s).

For procedure, read "law".

As you would find out if you read before opening your mouth,
so full of the instant understanding of everything, the
arms-for-hostages swap was a complete failure. Only one hostage was
released, and I do believe that a new one was taken afterwards. That's
hardly surprising.

Your claim that "it caused no harm" is false on many counts: (1) we have
no way of knowing what became of the arms, whether they are already in
terrorist hands, or whether they may be so in future; (2) we lost face in
front of our allies, who saw that our tough talk directly contradicted 
our actions; (3) the people of the United States, and their elected
representatives, were treated like subjects of an absolute monarch, and
not like the participants in a republican (small 'r') government which
the Constitution provides.

> leave the thinking to the men!

Yes, John Peter, nothing like a man of action to rouse you! There are
names for people who like government full of men of action who need
heed no laws, but you probably wouldn't recognize them.

andy

PS If the Republicans are so courageous, where's the debate?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections