From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:56:42 PST

In <1993Jan11.061853.16398@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, Tom Perigrin writes:

>In article <93008.28393.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM

>>>> 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?

I don't mean to say that two wrongs is a right.  I'll admit that I was a bit
vague in that respect.  I'm not saying that the pardons were correct because
the Democrats get away with it, too.  I'm merely suggesting that some of those
who are up in arms about the pardons wouldn't give a damn if their favorite
Democratic politicians do the same things.  I'm not saying that's you in par-
ticular, and I apologize if you got that impression.  It's just that it was
your note which gave me a chance to respond.

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

Who is investigating Rostenkowski?  That's an honest question and isn't meant
to be a leading one.  I honestly don't know.

>>>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.  Yo
>>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.

I didn't hear the part about Quayle.  He was probably trying to cover his own
political ass in an attempt to position himself for '96 and beyond--as if he
really has a chance.  Yeah, right, Dan.

>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.

I read too many of Pope Charles's notes.  Apparently, the divisiveness of
those rubbed off on me.  Sorry.

>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.

Yes.  There is hate on both sides, though I think that some of the people here
(especially those who resort *only* to ad hominem attack) think that it's only
within the domain of the right.  It's everywhere.

>>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.

Fair enough.  I really did mean "you" in the generic sense, though I didn't
label it as such.  Again, apologies to you (though not to the people for whom
I *really* intended it for).  In this case, feel free to replace "you" with
"Many Democrats who denounce the pardons."  Mea culpa.

>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.

I think you'll find that I have no love for Nixonian tactics myself.

Once again, I want to clarify that I don't have a problem with culpable members
of the Reagan and Bush Administrations being investigated and punished.  My
position was one of denouncing my perception of how the many of the anti-
Reagan/Bush people (I'm one in many ways, too) complained about the pardons
while calling Republican investigations "smear tactics."

>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.

>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.

Fair enough.  Pope Charles, are you listening?


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51