🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct15.024658.5426@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) writes:
>
>No thanks to the liberal media, you are confusing the comments
>that the President was aware of "Iran arms-for-hostages", which
>he has called a mistake, with "Iran-Contra".
>
Bushes statements on the arms-for-hostage arrangement over the years have
been inconsistent, at best.

This week, when asked if he knew the arms were being traded for hostages,
he said "Yes, and I've said so all along, given speeches on it".

But in Dec 1986, Bush said Reagan was "absolutely convinced that he didn't
swap arms for hostages" and then in Feb 1987, Bush said he didn't realize
the transactions could be considered arms-for-hostages.

Bush testified, under oath, before the Walsh investigation, but that
testimony is now part of Reagan's presidential library and has not been
made public.

Bush gave testimony before the Tower investigation, not under oath.  In
the 1988 campaign, Bush promised he would make that testimony public, but
he hasn't yet.

This week, Bush said he wasn't at an important meeting on the
arms-for-hostage deal, where Weingerger and Schultz, opposing the plan,
according to Bush "...almost got into a shouting match, I'm told."

But in 1988, Bush said "records indicate I probably attended [that]
meeting, but I do not recall any strenuous objections" to the arms sales
to Iran.


Why can't George Bush just tell the truth?

C'mon Mr. President, just come clean!