Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: ==> Bush Needs To Come Clean On Iran/Contra
Supersedes: <92285.171303U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 16 Oct 1992 03:04:44 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>

Repost for new readers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 September 24, 1992
 IT'S TIME TO COME CLEAN, GEORGE BUSH
 Statement by George Stephanopoulos, Communications Director]

      It's time for George Bush to come clean with the American
 people.

      Time after time, his administration secretly deals with
 dictators and terrorists, to the detriment of U.S. interests.  Then,
 when the policy blows up, Bush and other officials deny the facts and
 try to cover-up.  When it comes to Iraq, like Iran-Contra before it,
 Bush's flat denials are consistently refuted by the evidence.

      These ongoing contradictions concern matters of great public
 importance.  They demand a full response, not more evasions.

      What did Bush know and when did he know it?  Why won't he tell
 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 IRAN-CONTRA

      Bush said he was "out of the loop."   Newly released secret
 memos tell a different story.  When will Bush come clean on his real
 role in Iran-Contra?  Why does he continue to tell a story that's
 contradicted by every piece of evidence?

       Bush said he was unaware that Secretary of State George Schultz
 and Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger were strongly opposed to
 selling arms to Iran.  "If I'd have sat there and heard George
 Schultz and Cap express it [opposition] strongly, maybe I would have
 had a stronger view," Bush told the Washington Post. "But when you
 don't know something, it's hard to react. . . . We were not in the
 loop."

      BUT.... Today's Washington Post reports a memo in the possession
 of prosecutors that shows Bush was present at a January, 1986 meeting
 where Weinberger argued against arms sales.

      BUT.... Notes dictated by Schultz quote Weinberger as calling
 Schultz and saying that Bush had said he was "not exposed to Cap or
 my arguments on Iran arms.  Cap called me + sd [and said] that's
 terrible.  He [Bush] was on the other side.  It's on the record.  Why
 did he say that."  The notes came out on August 25 as part of Cap's
 pretrial procedures.

       Bush said in his autobiography that the first time he knew that
 the arms sales were in fact an arms for hostages deal was when Sen.
 David Durenberger visited him in December, 1986.

      BUT.... According to the Washington Post, Bush was present at
 "several dozen" daily Presidential national security briefings where
 the arms for hostages deal was discussed.

      BUT.... Bush was one of only five people present at the January
 17, 1986 meeting where Reagan signed the intelligence finding that
 for the first time authorized the U.S. to sell arms directly --
 instead of through Israel -- to Iran in exchange for hostages.  One
 month later, the U.S. shipped 1,000 TOW missiles to Iran.

      AND.... According to today's Washington Post, "He attended three
 White House meetings in November 1986 that Iran-contra prosecutors
 working for independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh have concluded set
 the stage for an attempted coverup of one particular set of Hawk
 missile shipments to Iran in 1985."

      QUESTION: HOW CAN BUSH CONTINUE TO CLAIM HE DIDN'T KNOW SCHULTZ
 AND WEINBERGER WERE STRENUOUSLY AGAINST THE ARMS DEAL?  IS HE SAYING
 THEY ARE BOTH LYING?

      QUESTION: WHY DID BUSH SAY HE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS AN
 ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES DEAL, WHEN HE WAS AT SEVERAL DOZEN MEETINGS WHERE
 THE SCHEME WAS DISCUSSED?

      QUESTION: DID BUSH PARTICIPATE IN PLANNING A COVER UP OF MISSILE
 SALES, AS REPORTED IN TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST?

 IRAQGATE: SECRET HELP FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN

      We know now that Saddam Hussein used billions of dollars in
 American taxpayers' foreign aid to build up his weapons of mass
 destruction -- the very weapons our troops faced in Desert Storm.
 George Bush and James Baker have denied knowing anything about it at
 the time.  Newly released document confirm that they did know -- and
 didn't act to stop it.

      Bush has repeatedly said that the Administration did not know
 that Saddam Hussein was skimming American money to build Iraqi
 military capabilities:

      On CBS Morning News (7/1/92), Harry Smith asked: "Why did we
 continue to support Saddam Hussein even though we knew he was
 skimming US support to help develop nuclear arms?"  Bush replied: "We
 didn't know that.  I don't know where you got that, Harry.  The State
 Department didn't know it, and what we did is try to bring him into
 the family of nations.  And what you're doing is repeating something
 that these candidates are saying.  We did not go to enhance his
 nuclear, biological or chemical capabilities."

      In July, Bush said: "We didn't know that.  The State Department
 didn't know it. . . . You can talk about what one State Department
 employee, and if we had known it wouldn't have happened."  (NY Times,
 7/9/72)

      BUT.... The State Department document released yesterday -- a
 July 24, 1990 memo signed off on by James Baker -- directly
 contradicts this statement:

 "Iraq is actively engaged in developing chemical and biological
 weapons and ballistic missile systems, and may be seeking to develop
 nuclear weapons as well.  Iraq has been attempting to obtain items to
 support these proliferation activities from U.S. exporters, in some
 cases successfully."

      AND.... Just one week after Baker signed off on the memo, U.S.
 Ambassador April Glaspie was assuring Iraqi officials of State
 Department efforts to continue agriculture credits to Iraq.  Baker
 instructed Glaspie to assure Saddam Hussein that the U.S. would take
 no position on Iraq's buildup against Kuwait.

      QUESTION: WHY DID GEORGE BUSH SAY THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
 DIDN'T KNOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS GETTING HELP FROM U.S. FIRMS IN
 HIS DEADLY WEAPONS BUILDUP?  HOW DOES HE RECONCILE HIS FLAT DENIALS
 WITH THE EMERGING EVIDENCE?

      QUESTION: DID GEORGE BUSH KNOW THAT IRAQ WAS DEVELOPING
 CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS?  IF HE DID, WHEN DID HE
 KNOW IT AND WHY DID HE CONTINUE U.S. AGRICULTURAL LOANS TO IRAQ?  IF
 HE DID, WHY DOES HE CONTINUE TO ISSUE BLANKET DENIALS OF ANY
 KNOWLEDGE?

      QUESTION: WHAT DID JAMES BAKER TELL GEORGE BUSH ABOUT THE IRAQI
 WEAPONS PROGRAM?  HOW EARLY DID BAKER KNOW?

      QUESTION: HOW DOES JAMES BAKER RECONCILE HIS MEMO TO BOB
 MOSBACHER WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO APRIL GLASPIE ASSURING SADDAM THAT
 WE WOULD CONTINUE AGRICULTURAL CREDITS?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9288 alt.politics.elections:15760