On Iran Contra

[Ramo]

Because of events other than funding terrorists in Nicaragua... Rightly or wrongly (obviously I lean towards the latter), Ray Gun was accredited with certain important things during this period.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because of events other than funding terrorists in Nicaragua... Rightly or wrongly (obviously I lean towards the latter), Ray Gun was accredited with certain important things during this period.

If people did not think such actions may have been justified by desperate times/situations, I find it hard to believe they would approve of the job he was doing.

The people who approve of Bush's performance believe that we are in deperate times and situations and thus Bush's actions are justified. Those who do not think his quasi-illegal (if not full out illegal) actions have been justified, but may like his tax cuts, are not going to be saying they approve of the job he's doing from what I've seen.

[Ramo]

Why not? People generally didn't approve of Abu Ghraib (hence a steep drop in Bush's approval initially), but apparantly thought that gays getting married was far more disturbing.

[Ramo]

Whether or not something is a desperate time/measure and if it is justified is determined, ultimately, by public opinion.

Not really. The general consensus doesn't magically determine an individual's moral beliefs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why not? People generally didn't approve of Abu Ghraib (hence a steep drop in Bush's approval initially), but apparantly thought that gays getting married was far more disturbing.

A) I think those who approve of the job Bush is doing and those that approved back then think Bush did not have anything to do with that.

B) I think there are far more people out there than you think who have no problems with what happened at Abu Ghraib (a bunch who are in that 32%).

If people actually think their President did something illegal without moral justification, they don't say they approve of the President's job (though they may vote for them if the opponent is considered to be just as bad or worse).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Not really. The general consensus doesn't magically determine an individual's moral beliefs.

It determines a society's moral beliefs.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


If people did not think such actions may have been justified by desperate times/situations, I find it hard to believe they would approve of the job he was doing.

When Iran-Contra broke, as Ramo points out, Reagan's approval rating plummeted from 67% to 46%. That was December 1986. In continued to fall for the next couple of months; it was at 42% at the end of February. Then Reagan gave the "mistakes were made" speech, and it shot up a few points, and continued to climb.

Now, does that indicate that people approved of Iran-Contra? Hell no. Just the opposite; it indicates that while people were aware of Iran-Contra, they disapproved of it and of the Administration. Bit it also indicates that once a lazy press and a craven Congress decided that Reagan's non-apology was enough, people were happy to move on, too.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And the people who approved of the job Reagan was doing as shown in the polls of the time.

And what the **** do polls matter?

Here is a short theory. Perhaps to the average individual, who would be incapable of placing either Iran or Nicaragua on a map, and had the most minimal, if ANY, knowledge about Iran's system,. its war with Iraq, the sandinistas, or the contras, this scandal, specially one from which Reagan could distance himself, would make up only a small portion of how they viewed his job performance, meaning that such a poll, is well, utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

I think the fact that the president was breaking laws passed a few years before by Congress is a far more salient issue than opinion polls. Maybe you don't. Can;t let truth stand in the way of truthiness.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And the people who approved of the job Reagan was doing as shown in the polls of the time.

DP.

And to continue:

Even the jackasses who carried this out could not possibly have thought these "desperate times" when it came to Nicaragua. These jackasses simply had a policy goal that they wanted to push even through illegal actions. A fetish with NIcaragua based on some half-assed domino theory that should have been shown as false a decade before.

In short, it was an operation carried out by idiots. Sadly all the idiots did not get the justice they all so richly deserved.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
When Iran-Contra broke, as Ramo points out, Reagan's approval rating plummeted from 67% to 46%. That was December 1986. In continued to fall for the next couple of months; it was at 42% at the end of February. Then Reagan gave the "mistakes were made" speech, and it shot up a few points, and continued to climb.

Now, does that indicate that people approved of Iran-Contra? Hell no. Just the opposite; it indicates that while people were aware of Iran-Contra, they disapproved of it and of the Administration. Bit it also indicates that once a lazy press and a craven Congress decided that Reagan's non-apology was enough, people were happy to move on, too.

It indicates that some people who approved of Reagan beforehand disapproved, but quickly decided it wasn't that big of a deal and moved on.

Now if it was unjustifiable, I fail to see people just moving on. People probably didn't like that he went around Congress, but weren't terribly upset about it since they decided it didn't matter so much to stay mad at the guy.

And at least 42% never waivered. I'm sure a good deal of them approved of the actions due to the times they were living in. It isn't like his approval dropped to 20% or anything.

And the OP indicates that you are incorrect. There ARE people out there who consider it to be a good thing. Elok has spoken to one! I'm sure the justification by that person was exactly what I put forward, a desperate time in the War against Communism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
I think the fact that the president was breaking laws passed a few years before by Congress is a far more salient issue than opinion polls.

What does that have to do with how people justified the issue? Isn't that the question that the OP asks?

In fact, my argument is the opinions polls DO matter because people knew the administration was breaking a law, but many people still backed the administration. Many people believed it was justified.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Now if it was unjustifiable, I fail to see people just moving on. People probably didn't like that he went around Congress, but weren't terribly upset about it since they decided it didn't matter so much to stay mad at the guy.

I guess you have a much higher opinion of the public's attention span than I do.

[Ramo]

A) I think those who approve of the job Bush is doing and those that approved back then think Bush did not have anything to do with that.

B) I think there are far more people out there than you think who have no problems with what happened at Abu Ghraib (a bunch who are in that 32%).

There was a measurable drop in Bush's approval after Abu Ghraib. You're saying that this was caused by mysterious other factors?

If people actually think their President did something illegal without moral justification, they don't say they approve of the President's job (though they may vote for them if the opponent is considered to be just as bad or worse).

That's absurd. One can think that the magnitude of said act was so insignificant (i.e. Clinton's BJ and possible perjury related to it) that it doesn't reverse one's approval for a leader.

While Iran-Contra was no Watergate in terms of destroying public support for the President, it certainly wasn't something people approved of. But Ronnie got away with it because, as Rufus said, the press and Congress were too lazy to persue it.

It determines a society's moral beliefs.

Thanks for that tautology. What the majority of people believe is indeed what the majority of people believe. Not sure what your point is though...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I guess you have a much higher opinion of the public's attention span than I do.

Elok's OP already pointed out at least one person who believed it to be justified, by, IMO, the argument that it was a desperate time. There are plenty who back Iran Contra, and I'm sure their argument is similar.

An approval rating gives us some backdrop as to potentially how many share that opinion.

There was a measurable drop in Bush's approval after Abu Ghraib. You're saying that this was caused by mysterious other factors?

So those people who thought Bush was responsible for Abu Ghraib, and thought that was a horrible thing, decided to say they approved his actions in later polls? What, they decided it wasn't a big deal afterwards?

So you think that this number is at or more than 50%?

Of the 32%? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

While Iran-Contra was no Watergate, it certainly wasn't something people approved of.

But OBVIOUSLY some did. Aside from Elok's OP, have you never met anyone who said it was a good thing? Hell, I'm sure Ned has said it once or twice!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What does that have to do with how people justified the issue? Isn't that the question that the OP asks?

The average moron on the street taking a poll does not lead to justification of anything.

In fact, my argument is the opinions polls DO matter because people knew the administration was breaking a law, but many people still backed the administration. Many people believed it was justified.

That is a very stupid attempt at creating a line of causation.

How many issues do people judge an administration on? Lets see: Every single domestic issue, plus every single foreign issue.

So acording to you, a poll than encopasses people's opinions of ALL THOSE ISSUES COMBINED proves that people accepted Iran-Contra as justifiable.

You honestly fail to see the error in that statement?