home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!NETXWEST.COM!JFISHER
- X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
- Message-ID: <9212302032.AA00775@wizard.netx.com>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:32:36 PST
- Sender: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET>
- From: Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
- Subject: Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
- Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
- Lines: 30
-
- > >> One additional point: over the weekend Weinberger said that when he said
- > >> that the deal was illegal, he didn't know that the President had
- > >> secretly issued a "Finding" basically allowing such a transaction.
- > >
- > >My point is that that President Reagan said specifically that
- > >given a choice between doing something illegal and not doing anything
- > >about the hostages, he would choose the illegality.
- >
- > So? Is "willing to break the law" a crime?
- No, it's not.
- But doesn't it bother you that the president of the United States is
- willing to break the law?
- And then willing to break the law to pursue a misguided and IMO erroneous
- policy?
- >
- > >Further, according to Weinberger's note, at that particular meeting,
- > >Reagan agreed that what he was doing was illegal.
- >
- > Yet, the finding made it legal.
- I thought that the finding was made after the fact.
- >
- > Or, is Reagan guilty because he could have broken the law?
- Obviously Reagan isn't guilty of anything because he isn't even on trial.
- I think that he is guilty of incredibly bad judgement and history
- ought to remember him as such.
- >
- > -andy
- > --
- >
- Jonathan
-