🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 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?
|
|-Garrett




Answer 1)  Yea, they are pretty old arn't they?    ;^)




Answer 2)  It is always easier to dig up a dead witness than a live
	   one.  You don't have to worry about whether he will 
	   contradict you when he is interviewed.  It is especially
	   easier to make unsubstantiated claims or start rumors.  



---
--David C. Adams