From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 07:53:13 PST

In <1993Jan8.063519.19284@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, Tom Peregrin writes:

>In article <1Vc1wB2w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) wri
>>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>>I really love it when I see a liberal gnashing his teeth about someone
>>"getting off on a technicality!". Warms my heart, it does.

>Did you resort to "arguementum ad hominem" because you couldn't debate the
>point or because you enjoy insults more than debate?

>>> 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?

>>
>>He's discovered a nearly endless source of cash, if nothing else.


>PSee above... your comments do not  address the point.

>>Hey, if lying were a crime, can you name one, *one* politician who
>>wouldn't be guilty of at least 100 counts? "Lying to congress" falls in
>>the same category of "robbing a mugger".
>>
>>I'm not saying lying is right - the average politician - left or right -
>>is a contemptible jackal with the morals of a cockroach - but. Lying to
>>congress? I can't even say it with a straight face....

>Okay, let me ask you to your twisted face:  do you think that we should
>ignore all laws about perjury, lying to congress, and such?  If
>so, there goes any pretense of this being a country of law.   Besides
>note that the law is "lying to congress", not "lying to congresscritters".
>Shouldn't we have some respect for the institution, if not the individuals.
>For example, I have respect for the office of the vice president, even
>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.  Since they are not being given a thorough
invstigation (Congress could have appointed a special prosecutor there, too),
I can only include that the entire affair is a political witch hunt and not
a "quest for justice."  Sorry, I can't agree with you.  Let's see some of our
(Democratic) Congresscritters indicted for their actions, and I might be
inclined to support Walsh's investigations--if they didn't take 6 years and
$50M.  As it is, the entire investigation is pure politicking by the Democrats
in Congress.  That's what pisses me off about the entire affair--the hypo-
crisy with which the holier-than-thou Democrats operate.  Ever since Watergate,
the Democrats have thrived on looking for Republican scandal.  And since they
control Congress, they can appoint a special prosecutor each and every time
they think they have found it.  What of the investigation into the so-called
"October Surprise" even though House Speaker Foley admitted having "no evi-
dence?"  There was *plenty* of evidence in the House Bank and Post Office
scandals.  Why weren't most Democrats for full disclosure or a thorough inves-
tigation?  Case closed.

>>I have more admiration for a man who is willing to be scorned by the
>>whiners of an entire country in order to right something that he
>>actually believes in, than I have for someone who votes for things that
>>he knows are wrong simply for political gain.


>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.

>Humor aside,  the main 'arguement' you advanced was "they are doing it too",
>which doesn't make it right for the White House to engage in the that
>behaviour which you so rightly condemn in the congress.   You used the term
>"robbing a mugger".   Even if the victim (?) is a mugger, that doesn't
>excuse the robbery.  It is still a crime, and most lower court judges would
>LAUGH at a defense plea "But your honor, the defendant was doing it as
>a civil service!".

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.


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