From: mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Brown crushes Clinton; Bush camp in disarray
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:47:12 GMT
Followup-To: misc.headlines
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <adams.702851262@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson [me]) wrote:

>>In article <167C0A776.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>The difference is I think Bush is essentially a moral person.  Brown is
>>>not.

>>I would vote for one of my own turds before I would vote for George Bush.
>>Bush is a moral person??????? Here are some questions for you:
>>1) Ollie North's diary says that he met with Bush on the Iran/Contra plan
>>   well before Bush says he found out what Ollie was doing; who do you
>>   believe?

>Gee, it seems to me that it was the Democrats that attempted to destroy Ollie's
>character and trustworthiness...so are you trying to rehabilitate them?

Not at all. Ollie is a liar--that was his profession--but I believe his diary
in this instance because his motivation to make the entry was less self-serving
than Bush's motivation to lie about when he knew what. In this case Bush's
lying supercedes Ollie's lying. (I am also considering all of the other
evidence concerning Felix Rodriguez, Elliot Abrams, etc., what they knew
when, and their relationship with Bush.)


>>2) Bush's father ran Nixon's campaign for president in 1960, and the Bushes
>>and Nixons have had close personal ties since the 1940's; what does this say
>>to Bush's ability to judge character?

>Guilt by association.  Teddy Kennedy is a Democrat.  He killed Mary-Jo
>Kopeckne.  Can you explain the entire membership of the Democratic Party's
>ability to judge character?

Empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests the Bushes and Nixons are tight.
Many Democrats find it unfortunate that Ted is the last of The Legacy, to
say the least. Bad analogy. 

There is an FBI memo from 1963 that talks about some debriefing of Cubans
in Miami after JFK was shot, and a report made to "Mr. George Bush of the
CIA." Two oil barges used in the Bay of Pigs were named the Zapata (George's
oil co. name) and the Barbara. Circumstantial evidence, yes. But given the
close ties of the Nixon/Bushes, the fact that the Bay of Pigs was Nixon's
project, and the bizarre contention that Bush became Ford's CIA Director
with no previous intelligence experience...well, let's just say this stuff
needs a GOOD airing.

Bush is an ends-justifies-the-means kinda guy, just like Dicky. Morals slip
with these guys.

>>3) Can you explain to me the morality of the War On Drugs?

>No.  Can you show me a Democrat who wants to cancel it?

I would say (without looking at their record in detail) that Brown is not
a big fan of the loss of individual rights caused by the WOD, Clinton is more
centered on this issue, but that Bush wins the prize for WOD immorality.

Democrats in Congress are chasing each other tails on this issue because
the party has lost its moral underpinnings. Brown, more than Clinton, seeks
to re-attach the building to the foundation. (Disclaimer: I think Brown
would make a crappy president, but I am going to vote for him to hopefully
force a brokered convention. Maybe Gore will come out of hiding.)

>>4) Can you explain to me the morality of killing 200,000 people in Kuwait 
>>   and Iraq?

>Can you explain the proper response when a heavily armed nation takes out a
>much smaller one and annexes it by force?

I won't bring up Panama because you asked me not to, but I'll be very blunt.
I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT KUWAIT. It wasn't worth the ecocide. They
were behaving like rich, spoiled brats, and got a good spanking. I am
against violence to solve disputes, and believe that Iraq should have been
punished with sanctions only. The a-bomb issue is a red-herring. Lots of
dangerous countries have it, and the Nuclear Club is getting larger daily.

Backpack a-bombs are coming to a city near you, and immoral acts like the
killing of 200,000 people (and the subsequent creation of tens of thousands
of martyrs who will wear those backpacks) are a Bush hallmark. 

The proper response, as requested above, is to prevent the annexation in
the first place. But that's the hard road, and requires that Republicrats
go gentle into that good night.
								MPA
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3309 soc.misc:461 talk.politics.mideast:10611 talk.politics.misc:17807