Posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:51 PM PST by Judge Parker
You and me both. It's tempting to want to leave it lay for fear of giving Terry McAuliff's attack dogs the scent of blood, and somebody's exposed butt. I want the administration to be able to concentrate on killing Bin Laden. OTOH, a little voice inside my head tells me that when I don't want to know the truth just because he's still alive, then he's winning.
LOL!
He wrote me saying how much he cared... Where DID I put that letter???
Apparently I'm on a list here to flag on some of those occasions when Bush does something inappropriate or questionable. (which are two words that I would use to describe this move)
As anyone who can read, and is blessed with a functioning memory, can tell you my attitude toward Bush is, has been and will likely continue to be, a mixed one. His chief 'selling points' to me during the election were:
1) He was one of only two, (2), [ that whole number >1 but <3] people who had a Popsicle’s chance in Hell of being elected President of the United States in the year of our Lord 2000.
And,
2) He was better than the other candidate who had a Popsicle’s chance in Hell of being elected.
Now, only a moron would sincerely argue the (grim) reality of point one. And point two is completely subjective, which is to say, a matter of opinion, and completely irresolvable as an objective matter, so there's a good chance that further discussion will be a waste of time.
But what the Hell... I'm up, I've got my coffee, it's a few hours yet before I have to get going... I'll give it a shot.
I often go with a gambling metaphor, despite the fact that I'm as pure as the driven snow, and would never dream of playing a game of chance...
But aviation has been so much a part of recent events... I'm going to use an aviation metaphor instead. Like all metaphors, it conveys a general sense of the larger idea only.
Sometimes you can't keep the plane from crashing, but you can provide control inputs intended to have it crash over there instead of right here.
Sometimes you do that because you believe that a crash in that clearing might be more survivable than a crash in these trees, sometimes you do that because it's just the natural, instinctive thing to do, to put off the crash as long as you can.
Voting for algore would have been nosing over and firewalling the throttle. (and maybe even laughing maniacally as the forest canopy rushed up to embrace you)
Voting for any of the 'unelectables' (some of whom would make measurably better Presidents than Bush, IMO) would be like releasing the controls and wandering back to the galley for a cup of coffee.
Voting for Bush was a gesture to buy a little time, to make that clearing over there, to crash when conditions might be more favorable (than I gauge them to be today) for the survival of the Republic.
Now, to those who would nose over intentionally and vote for algore (for any reason) I would simply say, "Go to Hell" or maybe, "F--- You". (depending on what kind of day I'm having)
For those who would vote for an unelectable candidate on noble principle, I would suggest purchasing the soundtrack to 'Man of LaMancha'. (trust me, you'll love it)
And for those who (like me) voted for Bush I would hope for some coordination in these moments, so that we might wince and exclaim: "Doh!" in unison.
Yes I have and I'm not a happy camper. The situation was different then. The democrats had all the power and wanted to dump Reagan early. They had people in the white house and circumvented the administrations attempts to accomplish anything that might get good press.
On the drug issue many of the congressional leadership were on the Noriega payroll. The drug money that came out of the contra operation was interdicted from drug runners in Honduras and Nicaragua. It was not earned by selling drugs on the street and it was done by the CIA. Some of the money was reportedly used for bribes and weopons purchases for a armed faction in Iran that was willing to go against the Ayatolla and retrieve our people who had been there for about a year at that point. Some mole in the white house blew the operation. The story became public and the friends that we had in Iran were killed. The admin. could not explain how the money was raised since it was done in violation of a law passed intentionally by congress to tie Reagans hands.
Reagan used the deniability routine since it was a CIA covert op and claimed he did not know about it. I believe he actually knew very little. He was not a hands on manager and relied on his people to tend to the details. He probably only knew that a op was underway. This is backed up by the fact that Nancy Reagan and others refuse to even talk to North to this day and blame him for the resulting investigation. The decision to go against congress however, was made by Reagan I believe.
There is not much more to know about it. The people who served in the operation were not military, they were mostly volunteers or mercenary types. Regular American citizens who took a leave of absense from work for a month or so and served. The goal was to destroy the huge drug operations in central america and hopfully remove Noriega from power.The hostage thing came up out of the blue and it was thought that it might work. It might have except for the leak. If it had, everyone would have been a hero. It ended up being a huge bugaboo.
BTW, Noriega was a similar situation to Saddam in Iraq. The U.S. set him up originally and he became a royal pain in the butt. Similar accusations of government complicity in both situations. They ended up to be huge mistakes made by U.S. policy makers. It's enough to make you sick. I wish that both matters would be sent to the ashcan of history.
Shwew ... can't have you as gullible as the rest, now, can we?
Pretty chilling how absolutely confident they are the likes of Sinkspur, et al. are ready, willing and somehow able to defend acts like these.
In case you have forgotten, the White House and the Presidency are supposed to belong to the People of the United States, and are not for their private use and amusement and coverup.
Protecting National Security is not an excuse to release what could be evidence of malfeasance or misdeeds in Office, no matter who the President is.
I think this is the first time I have to disagree with you ;-)
1. We have new Police Powers that allow them to enter American Homes and Business secretly, and look at any of Our documents.
2. We have new Executive orders from Bush, that guard the secrecy of Presidential Documents.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see what is happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.