I Miss Republicans

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Except Congress and Carter had already signed sanctions laws against Iran outlawing the sale of Arms. There were export controls in place and Reagan arranged to illegally sell arms to a country which has all official government sessions start and end with the chant "death to America".

On the Contras let us leave out the politics for one moment and forget the death squads. Even if we ignore politics is it right for people in the employment of the US government to fly cocaine into the US to raise money for the Contras? They were flying US owned planes and the pilots were paid by our government. That's government run drug smuggling which Reagan, North, and Bush Sr all kknew about. North was the one who set it up because he wanted to help the Contras raise money.

That's just plain criminal.

Reagan can directly sell arms as president and not violate any law barring private sales of weapons to Iran. Foreign policy is his perogative. Congress has limited authority here. It is limited to confirming ambassadors and ratifying treaties.

As to the Contras, I had not heard of drug planes doing this or that. I actually watched the hearings. They were exclusively about the Iran arms sales monies to my recollection. If your have a link to reliable info on drug sales, planes and Ollie North, I'd read it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I do not believe I've used the word "traitorous" ...

You did not answer my question. Is it, according to you, acceptable that a US president sells weapons to a regime that calls for the destruction of America?

Yes, if that actually leads to peace. IIRC, at the time of the sales, Iran was taking quite a beating from Saddam. The weapons were needed by the Iranian for use against Saddam, not against the US. They were intended to stave off an Iranian defeat and buy US good will.

[Dinner]

Ned, I'm trying to follow you. You're saying Congress can't make a law which bounds the President about what to do with federal property (I.E. arms and munitions)? Carter signed the sanctions on Iran at the start of the Iranian revolution so it was passed by Congress and signed by the President. Doesn't that make the sanctions legal laws?

[Agathon]

Iran contra was at least as bad as Watergate, it's just that the American press and people seem to have lost their appetite for accountability by the 80s.

[Ned]

Oerdin, it binds everyone but the president. For example, it is illegal for a citizen of a member of Congress or the Judiciary to negotiate on behalf of the United States. It is not illegal for the president to do so -- even -- and this is important -- if Congress says that he may not. Any such law would be unconstitutional as Congress has only LIMITED powers in this area. I have earlier delineated them. None of the powers permits Congress to bind the president's power in this area in any way.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon
Iran contra was at least as bad as Watergate, it's just that the American press and people seem to have lost their appetite for accountability by the 80s.

Agathon, why of course, to a card carrying member, Iran Contra was a LOT worse than Watergate.

[Dinner]

Ok, I can buy an argument about a President having the power to negotiate but what about the sale of federal property? Clearly, the Congress gets a say in that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ok, I can buy an argument about a President having the power to negotiate but what about the sale of federal property? Clearly, the Congress gets a say in that.

There I'm not sure. But, this clearly was not a major transaction and had to do only with diplomacy. At the time, there appeared to be no statutes on the topic as North found himself with the money and no direction as to what he was supposed to do with it.

[Agathon]

Agathon, why of course, to a card carrying member, Iran Contra was a LOT worse than Watergate.

How many death squads came out of Watergate?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Reagan can directly sell arms as president and not violate any law barring private sales of weapons to Iran.

Wrong, those weapons are the property of the United States, and as such, only Congress can authorize their sale.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ok, I can buy an argument about a President having the power to negotiate but what about the sale of federal property? Clearly, the Congress gets a say in that.

The President has the power to negotiate, but he cannot dispose of the Property of the United States without authorization to do so. In this case, such authorization not only didn't exist, it was specifically forbidden. It's only because America didn't have the stomach to remove another sitting President that we didn't go through whith what we should have done, impeachment.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes, if that actually leads to peace.

How easy things get when one answers simple questions!

IIRC, at the time of the sales, Iran was taking quite a beating from Saddam. The weapons were needed by the Iranian for use against Saddam, not against the US. They were intended to stave off an Iranian defeat and buy US good will.

During most of the war, Iran had the upper hand. I do unfortunately not recall exactly when the weapons sales took place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The real scandals always come from the Republicans. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Bush's torture plans. How significant is a blow job compared to that?

What about the (false) justification behind the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution by President Johnson?

[Ramo]

I have to wonder about the "reality-based" Republicans - McCain, Hagel, Snowe, Chaffee, etc. with the Gonzales nomination.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What about the (false) justification behind the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution by President Johnson?

I think Bush on WMDs about cancels that out.