From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:35:28 GMT

Tom Perigrin (tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu) wrote:
: In article <93008.28393.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
: 
: >>>> Walsh discovered a lot.  It's just been effectively reversed, or pardoned.
: >
: >Kind of like the slap on the wrist that the Senate gave to its Keating Five
: >offenders, no?
: 
: For the sake of arguement, let us say that the Keating five senators are
: totally corrupt and deserve to be shot, and that the lawmakers dropped
: the ball when they gave them a slap on the wrist. Even given this, how can 
: you argue that 'justice is served' by allowing other crimes and misdemeanors
: to go unpunished?  Should we just give up and allow all of our elected
: representatives (and thier underlings) to break the law?
: 

Who says justice shouldn't be equal, except for you?  Let's see Walsh bring
his charges against Reagan and/or Bush and let's get it on.  In the mean time,
those YOU would choose to let go unpunished deserve the same "fair" justice.
That's all we are asking for and commenting about.

Enough of the witch hunts.  We had October Surmise, and now we have 
Iran-Contra Surmise, and we also now have IraqGate Surmise.  Until the
Surmise part is proven wrong, all you are talking about is totally unproven
allegations.

Keating 5 is not unproven allegations.


: >>if a boob currently occupies the chair.   And even if I think that the
: >>VP is a boob, I shouldn't be exempted from laws which pertain to his
: >>office (if there are any).
: >
: >Neither should Congress.  And their check bouncing and shenanigans at the
: >post office should be investigated.
: 
: 1) There were no laws broken in the supposed check bouncing scheme.  My
: credit union is also very lenient with overdraft protection

Not true according to the Wall Street Journal.  The house bank is indeed
a bank.  The people's money was indeed used.  And as you say:

: 2)  Rostenkowski IS under investigation, as are other people involved
: with the post office mess.

Many more people than we think.

: 
: 
: >>At last, we agree on something.  I too have admiration for Walsh, who
: >>is willing to ignore the whining of the republican party while trying
: >>to right the wrongs committed by reagan/bush/quayle.
: >
: >Why do you include Quayle in this?  Has anyone (even the most truth-be-damned-
: >I-have-an-agenda-to-follow Democrat) suggested that Danny Boy was "in the
: >loop?"  That's why it's important to hire investigators without an agenda.  You
: >are fingering Quayle when he was almost certainly not involved.  I do think
: >that he was just some young Indiana senator at the time.  Get the damn facts
: >right.  Your agenda and disdain for the facts are becoming obvious.
: >
: >You've got an axe to grind, fella.  The truth be damned.  Right.
: 
: You are right, in this case.  There is no evidence linking Danny Boy (yur
: words) with the Iran Contra crime.   I guess the reason I included
: Quayle in my comments is that it is widely reported that Quayle was
: one of the prime movers in the pardons.   Thus I guess I associate
: him with the coverup, if not the crime.
: 

What evidence is there that Reagan or Bush was involved in the Iran
Contra crime.  Remember, the only CRIME was in giving the $30 million
proceeds from the weapons SALE (not trade for hostages) to the Contras.
There is ZERO credable evidence to suggest that Reagan ordered the
proceeds to the contras, knew about the transaction, or anything.
Do you or do you not agree that guilt by association is a violation
of rights of the accused?

If I am ever subject of a witch hunt, I will be SURE to answer
"I don't remember" to ANY question asked to me.  That is not purgery,
nor illegal, nor obstruction of justice, nor anything...

: That said, I would like to comment that I feel only distain for the
: fact that you could not present the facts, and allow truth and justice
: to carry the arguement.  It is sad that you felt impelled to immediately
: attack me with labels, profanity, and innuendo.   Although I do
: not normally inject comments about myself, per se', I wish to point
: out that I do have the ability to admit I am wrong, when the case
: is argued persuasively.  Heck, I used to be a rock bottom conservative,
: but sufficiently powerful arguements were made by moderate and liberal
: freinds that I have abandoned that position, and have drifted to slightly
: left of center.
: 

YOU present the evidence that Reagan/Bush is guilty.  Walsh is
incompetent, does not pay attention to the details, and is incapable
of doing so.  If he can't do it after 5 years of investigation and $50
million, I'm sure YOU can without any of that benefit.

Here's the persuasive argument you ask for.  Pretend you are Bush.
Pretend you are innocent.  Pretend you know Reagan and Weinberger
are innocent.  By pretending these things, you are doing exactly what
I am doing - assuming innocence until guilt is proven.  Now that you
are pretending, how do you feel about what Walsh is doing to you?
Is it just a "little" bit possible that your civil rights are being
violated big time?

But on the other hand, if Walsh can actually prove Bush or Reagan
guilty, I want box seats at the lynching.

: Your tactic of polarization, witting or unwitting, makes it very hard
: to arrive at a consensus.  Nowadays the American people are being polarized
: into camps by politicians who use wedge issues for the short term benefit
: of a few more votes, but do not care about the long term effcts of
: dividing the  country in hate filled camps.   This saddens me.
: 

Your man clinton won because of hate politics.  Hate politics is in NOT
being colorblind to Willie Horton's color.  Hate politics is stuff like
the October Surmise smear (and it failed under investigation by those
who would have dearly loved to have found ANYTHING).  

I note that you say politicians and do not use the typical democrat/liberal
claim of republicans-only.  For that I salute you.

: 
: >I'd laugh too.  But I also laugh (and agonize) when I hear the jokers in
: >Congress refuse to find the truth (and indict the guilty parties) in their
: >own scandals.  The Democrats in Congress have played politics far more than
: >the Bush Administration have--and I'm no fan of GHWB, either.
: >
: >I'll bet that if your favorite (liberal) Democratic Congresscreature were to
: >be indicted, you'd call for the investigations to stop, too.
: >
: >Hypocritical bastards.
: >
: 
: You make a prediction, without the benefit of enough knowledge to know
: how I would actually react.  In effect, you have prejudged me,
: thus exhibiting prejudice.
: 

I agree with you.  But I also accuse you of the same prejudice with respect
to Reagan/Bush.  Because you write:


: The reason I am insensed about the Iran Contra mess is that I view it as a
: violation of trust.  If my favorite MODERATE Congresscritter were to
: be indicted, then I would wiegh the evidence, consider the situation, and if
: I felt the person were guilty, I'd call for harsh penalties.  Long ago
: I used to be a trusting republican... then the revelations about Vietnam,
: Nixon, etc... destroyed my trust in the system.  I am still angry about
: that, and that is why I froth when further abuses of the system I
: used to love, and still WANT to love, arise.
: 

Nixon is a gimme.  YOu win this point.  However, have you considered that it
is possible to be a crook AND a good governor at the same time (governor as
in one who governs).  Do you question Nixon's love of the USA?  (I don't).
I am glad he resigned.  I am glad for the reforms that took place.

But things are way out of hand.  I'll grant you that somewhere between 3
and 10 underlings in Reagan's administration violated the public trust.
Reagan is in no way comparable to Nixon's evils, although both did fine
jobs as president (relative to LBJ or Carter, for sure).  Now grant me
that there are tens of thousands of corrupt congress critters and their
staffs.  Literally.  

: By the way,  if you had asked me a year ago who some of my favorite
: congresscritters were, amoung my answers would have been Packwood,
: Aspen, Glenn, and a few others of similar ilk, and a few liberals.
: 

Those guys are the tips of the icebergs.  Funny you bring up Packwood and
not Inouye (sp?), though.  Inouye served on the comission that got Nixon,
which is admirable.  But the "crimes" that Packwood is "guilty" of are
identical to those of Inouye.  Pardon me while I cry "hypocricy" about
why Packwood gets hung by the thumbs and Inouye gets NADA.

: Please, if you want to argue the points, fine. If you want to simply
: call me names or label me so that yu don't have to go to the bother
: of really debating what I stand for, then don't bother.

I tried to do exactly what you asked.  And I appreciate that you want
a good debate, as I do.  It is clear that there's hope for the both of
us, because we are both (supposedly :) open to a valid argument...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh