From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:15:55 GMT
 <1992Dec29.100820.404@hsh.com> <15266.2b409043@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <15266.2b409043@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> In article <1992Dec29.100820.404@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com writes:
>> In article <1992Dec28.144039.23072@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>> 
>>> This country is founded on law....maintained on a foundation of law
>>> and freedom. What Bush did was to circumvent the legal system. If
>>> they were all innocent as they claim, than the truth would have
>>> been evident in the facts or in a lack of hard evidence. However, it
>>> has become increasingly clear that this hard evidence does exist.
>> 
>> Before you get carried away on the emotional tide that is swamping all good 
>> liberals, perhaps you can provide a little perspective.  What laws had those
>> six men been accused of breaking?  Hint: some of them aren't crimes at all. 
> 
> 	How come they needed to be pardoned then if they didn't break the law?
> 
>> Were ANY of the six accused of doing ANYthing illegal in connection with the
>> arms sales to Iran, or with getting that money to the Contras?  Hint: the
>> answer is No.  But, to hear Walsh (and others) foaming at the mouth, that
> 
> 	How come they needed to be pardoned then if they didn't break the law?
> 	If they didn't break any laws, then what was the problem? Why did
> 	they need to be pardoned?

They needed to be pardoned to prevent Lawrence "Captain Ahab" Walsh from 
persecuting them into bankruptcy over minor infractions that had NOTHING (I 
repeat, NOTHING) to do with arms sales to Iran, or cash diversions to the 
Contras.  Let's get this point very, very clear -- it's central to the 
discussion.  If you (or others) refuse to accept it, then you're guilty of 
the same obsessive behavior as Walsh & Co.

>> obviously doesn't matter at this point. Heads must be taken, hides must be
>> displayed on the wall. 
> 
> 	Walsh is a Republican, appointed by Bush, who apparently isn't
> 	buying into the Republican secret code of honor.

Let's get this point clear, too.  The rest of the world has known for MONTHS 
that Walsh isn't running the show.  His second in command -- a devout liberal 
Democrat -- has been pulling Walsh's strings.  

> 	If they are innocent, what were they being pardoned from?

That's the third time you ask.  Obsessive behavior is SO hard to break.

>>> What kind of message does this pardon send to our children. Does it
>>> say "It's only a crime if you get caught"? Does it say "If your rich
>>> and/or powerful enough you can get away with anything"? We should
>>> be aware of the grave implications of actions like these to the
>>> defining principles of our society.
>> 
>> Oh, puh-leez.  The "message" being heard loud & clear is the one Congress is
>> sending to any foolish (Republican) mortal who dares oppose them.  Their
>> message is, don't cross us.  If you dare to disagree with our way of running
>> foreign policy, we will bury you.  Somewhere, sometime, you must have 
>> committed SOME crime we can bury you with.
> 
> 	If they didn't break any laws, why did Bush pardon them?

That's four.  Take a valium.

----------

Paul Havemann (paul@hsh.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush