🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13384.2a906e3f@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:

   In article <ART.92Aug17100856@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   > In article <1992Aug15.094733.597@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
   > 
   >    In article <1992Aug15.014816.26727@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
   > [...]
   > 
   > 	   But I think this misses the main point.  Why has the press had
   >    free reign to bludgeon Gary Hart, Clinton and others with stories of
   >    their picadillos but seems to just now be coming out of its strait
   >    jacket with respect to GHWB?
   > 
   > Because these is objective proof that Hart and Clinton were fooling
   > around.  There is no such evidence in Bush's case.  The putative
   > statements of a dead man don't count for much.
   > 

   Isn't it interesing how some people associated with controversy about
   Reagan or Bush are conveniently dead?

Silly me, I should have spotted this CIA plot along time ago.  Just like
the way they gave brain cancer to William Casey.  You know, Wild Bill
Donovan, wartime leader of the OSS (the CIA's predcessor) also died of
brain cancer.  If that doesn't prove a conspiracy I can't imagine what
would.