soreff (08/12/82)
rabbit!jj seems to think that I support Khaddaffi. I do not support
Khaddaffi, or any of Khaddaffi's statements. I believe Khaddaffi to be
a dangerous head-of-state, who I have no desire to support. I do not,
however, support Reagan's actions against Khaddaffi. The original point
in question was Reagan's sanity vs. that of Hinckley.Rick McGeer made the
claim that Hinckley obtained attention by an attack, and that this
distinguished him from Reagan. I claim, and still claim, that the Libyan
incident, which did kill someone, was effectively a bid for attention via
an attack. The administration was putting out a great deal of belligerent
rhetoric at the time, which it effectively underlined in blood. As the
original question was of Reagan's sanity, the comment about nuclear war
was relevant, as it indicates a worldview at least somewhat abberant.
-Jeffrey Soreffjj (08/13/82)
Sigh... I didn't say that, I left the path open for you to think I did.