On Iran Contra

[Imran Siddiqui]

How many issues do people judge an administration on?

So you think the administration flat out breaking a law of Congress is just another 'issue' for the voters to decide?

Unreal. Absolutely unreal.

I'm sorry, but I could never imagine a person who thought than an administration was blatently breaking a law, without moral justification, would say they 'approve' of the job the administration was doing, no matter what is happening on the other issues.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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!

I honestly have never met anyone who thought it was a good thing, though I have met a people who thought it was "no big deal" and/or "blown out of proportion by the liberal media." But that's very different.

Likewise, knowing that 42% who still approved of the job Reagan was doing in Feb '87 doesn't mean that those 42% approved of Iran Contra -- just that Iran Contra was not enough to shake their overall approval of the President. That, too, is something very different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I honestly have never met anyone who thought it was a good thing, though I have met a people who thought it was "no big deal" and/or "blown out of proportion by teh liberal media." But that's very different.

Likewise, knowing that 42% who still approved of the job Reagan was doing in Feb '87 doesn't mean that those 42% approved of Iran Contra -- just that Iran Contra was not enough to shake their overall approval of the President. That, too, is something very different.

Frankly I can't comprehend anyone who would think the Administration blatently violated a law set down by Congress, without proper moral justification, and then say they approve of the administration.

What, you think people who believe Bush has violated the Constitution with warrentless searches, and believe that is morally wrong, would say they approve of the job Bush has done overall? I KNOW of people who used to approve of Bush, but after they felt he violated the Constitution, they could no longer support him, no matter how much they agreed with the rest of the stuff.

Those who support Bush either do NOT think he violated the Constitution or think he had a moral reason for doing so. Or do you know of anyone who approves of the job Bush is doing, but thinks he violated the Constitution and that is morally unjustifiable?

I'm sure if you looked at that 42%, they either a) think the President didn't know anything or b) think he may have blatently violated the law, but that he was morally justified in doing so. I don't think you'll find many (if any) who said he violated the law and was not morally justified in doing so, but they like him anyway.

[Ramo]

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?

Something can be wrong, and not be so "horrible" as to permanently alter one's conception of the person (again, see Clinton's BJ). Particularly if the press helps to whitewash things. You probably won't hear too often on certain news sources that Armitage said there were links between torture and Cheney, or that the attorney general has memos legitimizing these practices. There are questions of magnitude that you're ignoring. You can think that the tactics used in Abu Ghraib (or by the Contras) are wrong, but don't see it as big a deal as, say, abortion.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How many issues do people judge an administration on?

So you think the administration flat out breaking a law of Congress is just another 'issue' for the voters to decide?

Unreal. Absolutely unreal.

Yes. Its just one issue. Were the **** have you been the last few years. Marion Barry got reelected after using crack cocaine. And you think that a popular president breaking a law of little meaning and consequence to most Americans would make him collapse in popularity?

I can see politics is not a field you will be going into.

I'm sorry, but I could never imagine a person who thought than an administration was blatently breaking a law, without moral justification, would say they 'approve' of the job the administration was doing, no matter what is happening on the other issues.

Then you live in a wonderful and yet unreal world, with little connection to the truth.

Maybe as a future lawyer you have the notion that Law is monolithic. It ain't. Politics is about power, not right or wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Something can be wrong, and not be so "horrible" as to permanently alter one's conception of the person (again, see Clinton's BJ). Particularly if the press helps to whitewash things. You probably won't hear too often on certain news sources that Armitage said there were links between torture and Cheney, or that the attorney general has memos legitimizing these practices. There are questions of magnitude that you're ignoring. You can think that the tactics used in Abu Ghraib (or by the Contras) are wrong, but don't see it as big a deal as, say, abortion.

An administration sells arms to a "hostile country" to release hostages in another country and the money gets sent to rebels that Congress has expressly said no money can go through, all covertly... if that isn't "horrible" to alter one's conception of a person (if you don't consider it justifiable), then nothing is.

As I said before, I doubt there are that even a few who think Abu Ghraib was authorized by the higher ups in the Administration including the President, think it is horrible and morally unjustifiable, but still say they approve of the President. They either will say it was a few bad guys (this is by far the biggest explination among Bush supporters.. and I'd say that 30% of the 32% believe that) or that it doesn't matter what happened to them because they were terrorists (ie, it was morally justifiable).

[Ramo]

BTW, since when has disapproving of Iran-Contra become equivalent to saying that Iran-Contra is both illegal and immoral? I do think it is both illegal and immoral to an great degree, but this criteria is not relevant to the argument.

[Ramo]

An administration sells arms to a "hostile country" to release hostages in another country and the money gets sent to rebels that Congress has expressly said no money can go through, all covertly... if that isn't "horrible" to alter one's conception of a person (if you don't consider it justifiable), then nothing is.

There are shades of gray, you know. Something can be in between absolutely justified and absolutely unjustified.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
BTW, since when has disapproving of Iran-Contra become equivalent to saying that Iran-Contra is both illegal and immoral? I do think it is both illegal and immoral to an great degree, but this criteria is not relevant to the argument.

I think you've missed the argument then. Read the OP again. Naturally someone who approves of Iran-Contra would either consider it to be something that the President didn't approve or it was morally justified (where the argument between Rufus and I started.. ie, why was it considered to be by some to be morally justified).

In addition WHY would someone disapprove of Iran-Contra? I think a vast majority would say it was either illegal or immoral. I think only a small minority would claim something else.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
There are shades of gray, you know. Something can be in between absolutely justified and absolutely unjustified.

So, it can be somewhat justified... and why would it be somewhat justified? My argument is that those people believed it was because of the threat of Communism was great enough in that time.

[Ramo]

Legality is a sticky issue that complicates things. And has nuances that the public may ore may not understand. Irrelevant to the argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Legality is a sticky issue that complicates things. And has nuances that the public may ore may not understand. Irrelevant to the argument.

No, not in the slightest. I seriously doubt the public did not know that Iran-Contra was against the law. However, significant sectors of country had moral justifications for it.

[Ramo]

So, it can be somewhat justified

No, the point is that it can be moderately unjustified. Clinton gets a BJ which has no good sides, but is so irrelevant that I don't change my opinion of him because of it. Joe Conservative didn't like supporting the Contras or selling weapons to Iran, but likes Reagan a lot for his policies on abortion or taxes.

If Reagan got a nearly 20% drop in approval because of Iran-Contra, the public simply didn't approve of it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No, not in the slightest. I seriously doubt the public did not know that Iran-Contra was against the law. However, significant sectors of country had moral justifications for it.

The OP was asking for justifications of the policy itself. NOt general public opinion of the Reagan administration once the scandal came out.

So what is your point? That people in the public thought it was justified in fighting communism? Yeepee. We got that from Zkribbler in page 1.

I think Elok is asking for some more serious explination.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I think it's possible to find something a politician does utterly reprehensible, and still approve of the job that politician is doing. It's how I felt about Paul Wellstone's vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, for example.

I also think that there are a fair number of Americans who believe in standing by the the President even if you disagree with what he does, just because he's your country's leader. My dad was one of those.

In the end, we don't know what the 42% means. I stand by my statement that I've never heard anyone defend Iran-Contra as "good" (as opposed to "justified" or "not so bad"). But having spent most of my adult life in the Academy, and the rest of it in the State Department, that's not surprising.