On Iran Contra

[Sikander]

IIRC no one was convicted of arming the Contras because it was only illegal for a member of a U.S. Intelligence Agency to do so. Since the NSC isn't an intelligence agency, it was not covered under the Boland amendment. Again IIRC the only convictions in the case were for lying under oath, ie the same thing Clinton did.

The troubling aspect of this case for the American people wasn't giving weapons / money to the Contras, but selling anti-tank missles to Iran in exchange for considerations for the hostages in Lebanon. That broke the U.S. policy of not paying ransoms, which people rightly realize is the only way to keep this sort of thing from being profitable.

As for Nicaragua, we had a very different policy towards them when Carter came into office and they had just booted Somoza with a popular revolution. Carter made very public overtures to the government, but soon enough it became clear even to him that the Ortega brothers were going to do the same thing that the Bolshiveks did in 1917, which was to hold a smaller revolution within the popular government whereby their hardline party would take all the power. They did so, aligned themselves with Cuba, made war on those within Nicaragua who opposed them (including the Mosquito indians and a number of people who were instrumental in forcing out Somosa and ended up with the Contras). They were definitely supplying weapons to the guerillas in El Salvador. So we gave them a dose of their own medicine by arming their malcontents.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sikander


You must be joking! Worse than Watergate?

Not worse in its ultimate effect on the country, no. And obviously not worse for the president involved. But, yeah, I'm serious.

Watergate = burglary + illegal wiretapping + obstruction of justice.

Iran-Contra = violating the law + arming an avowed enemy of the U.S. + supporting terrorists + negotiating with other terrorists by proxy + obstruction of justice + God-only-knows what else (since it never received the kind of intensive, long-term scrutiny Watergate did).

It's not a knock-out, but Iran-Contra wins on points.

[Cort Haus]

I don't know how many of Poly's whippersnappers remember 1980's Nicaragua first-hand, but this old-timer remembers it well, as I was a young leftie and politically active in defence of the Sandinistas at the time.

Despite being a genuinely popular government that overthrew a fascistic dictatorship, the Sandinistas were generally presented in the media as Evil Communists who were going to bring the borders of the USSR into the US backyard. In modern parlance Nicaragua was a 'rogue state' that needed to be brought into line by supporting heroic freedom fighters.

The Sandinistas did make mistakes, and certaily paid heavily for the displacement of Miskito Indians, but they were basically a progressive social-democratic government rather than a Stalinist one. The US-backed Contra war against them was indeed a terroristic one, aimed at wrecking the economy, and part of an overall pattern of violent intervention in central America at the time. Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador all had bloody histories in this period. The difference was that Reagan was backing governments rather than rebels in those other countries.

It's interesting that now, 25 years on, I haven't noticed anyone on this thread really supporting the contras, even though at the time they were considered by most in the west to be plucky freedom fighters bravely resisting terrible oppression from an evil government.

The KLA reminded me of the Contras a lot, and I wonder if, in another 20 years, they will be seen as the violent bunch of terrorist thugs that they are, as it seems the Contras finally have.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Watergate was a biiit more than simply the covering up of a break-in. Sure it centered around that, but the goals of the break-in are very important to why it became such a scandel (ie, using resources of government to spy on opposition parties).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I don't know how many of Poly's whippersnappers remember 1980's Nicaragua first-hand, but this old-timer remembers it well, as I was a young leftie and politically active in defence of the Sandinistas at the time.

Despite being a genuinely popular government that overthrew a fascistic dictatorship, the Sandinistas were generally presented in the media as Evil Communists who were going to bring the borders of the USSR into the US backyard. In modern parlance Nicaragua was a 'rogue state' that needed to be brought into line by supporting heroic freedom fighters.

The Sandinistas did make mistakes, and certaily paid heavily for the displacement of Miskito Indians, but they were basically a progressive social-democratic government rather than a Stalinist one. The US-backed Contra war against them was indeed a terroristic one, aimed at wrecking the economy, and part of an overall pattern of violent intervention in central America at the time. Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador all had bloody histories in this period. The difference was that Reagan was backing governments rather than rebels in those other countries.

It's interesting that now, 25 years on, I haven't noticed anyone on this thread really supporting the contras, even though at the time they were considered by most in the west to be plucky freedom fighters bravely resisting terrible oppression from an evil government.

The KLA reminded me of the Contras a lot, and I wonder if, in another 20 years, they will be seen as the violent bunch of terrorist thugs that they are, as it seems the Contras finally have.

My recollection was just opposite or at least different. Plenty of demonizing the Sandanistas and not so much mention of the Contras. It was however assumed they were unsavory for the most part but that the Sandanistas were far worse being godless commies and all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


After ousting Somoza, Nicaragua was ruled by a junta (that included Ortega) until 1985. Nicarauga then held elections that were generally regarded by the international community as free and open -- though the US encouraged opposition parties to boycott so that they could denounce the elections as a sham.

So, yes, elected.

(Incidentally, when Ortega lost relection in 1990, it was to another member of the junta, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro. But she wasn't Ortega, so we accepted her election).

As for your other assertion: I consider the following to be equally immoral: (1) arming a theocracy that held our citizens hostage; 2) supporting authoritarian terrorists; and (3) using high office to explicitly and knowingly defying the laws of the United States. And, incidently, the Reagan administration considered negotiating with terrorists immoral, but was selling arms to Iran in order to get their assistance in negotiating with Lebanese terrorists. So that's 4 immoralities for the price of 1.

Oops! Forgot to add the immorality of an holding all-night shredding party to cover up the other immoralities. Make that 5 for the price of 1.

As your points:

1) I agree;
2) I agree to an extent -- terrorism, the deliberate targeting of civilians, is not justifiable;
3) I agree -- but Reagan clearly was not guilty of this as he never authorized that any money be paid out of the U.S. Treasury the Contras; and
4) I agree that it is hypocritical to negotiate with terrorists when you say you will not negotiate with terrorists.

You also seem to assume that Reagan has something to do with Oliver North shredding documents. He did not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I don't know how many of Poly's whippersnappers remember 1980's Nicaragua first-hand, but this old-timer remembers it well, as I was a young leftie and politically active in defence of the Sandinistas at the time.

Despite being a genuinely popular government that overthrew a fascistic dictatorship, the Sandinistas were generally presented in the media as Evil Communists who were going to bring the borders of the USSR into the US backyard. In modern parlance Nicaragua was a 'rogue state' that needed to be brought into line by supporting heroic freedom fighters.

The Sandinistas did make mistakes, and certaily paid heavily for the displacement of Miskito Indians, but they were basically a progressive social-democratic government rather than a Stalinist one. The US-backed Contra war against them was indeed a terroristic one, aimed at wrecking the economy, and part of an overall pattern of violent intervention in central America at the time. Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador all had bloody histories in this period. The difference was that Reagan was backing governments rather than rebels in those other countries.

It's interesting that now, 25 years on, I haven't noticed anyone on this thread really supporting the contras, even though at the time they were considered by most in the west to be plucky freedom fighters bravely resisting terrible oppression from an evil government.

The KLA reminded me of the Contras a lot, and I wonder if, in another 20 years, they will be seen as the violent bunch of terrorist thugs that they are, as it seems the Contras finally have.

You have to look at Nicaragua in the context of the times. The Cold War was still ongoing and the attempted world conquest by communism remained unabated. We had also seen a popular revolution in Cuba turn into a Soviet outpost 90 miles from the US border. When the Sandinistas began to take control of the government, expel moderates and cozy up to Castro, our concerns about another communists outpost in the Americas was not unjustified.

[Arrian]

That **** only goes so far. Yes, the Cold War was going on, and viewed in that context... Iran-Contra was still really, really, really bad.

Furthermore, it seems to me that many left-of-center (to varying degrees) governments around the world "cozied up" to the USSR, Cuba, etc, precisely because we treated them as if they were lepers. Did they cozy up b/c they really wanted to be cogs in the World Revolution, or because they knew they would get nothing but grief from the Land of the Free, so hey, why not go fishin' and see if they could get some handouts from the other side?

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
That **** only goes so far. Yes, the Cold War was going on, and viewed in that context... Iran-Contra was still really, really, really bad.

Furthermore, it seems to me that many left-of-center (to varying degrees) governments around the world "cozied up" to the USSR, Cuba, etc, precisely because we treated them as if they were lepers. Did they cozy up b/c they really wanted to be cogs in the World Revolution, or because they knew they would get nothing but grief from the Land of the Free, so hey, why not go fishin' and see if they could get some handouts from the other side?

-Arrian

Regardless of their "reasoning" for approaching Moscow, when they did so, our attitudes hardened.

Contrast then and now. The commie in Venezuala is being left alone to do his thing. Why? Because the Soviets are no more.

[Arrian]

The commie in Venezuala is being left alone to do his thing. Why? Because the Soviets are no more.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not he was really "left alone" yes, our reaction to Chavez is tempered by the fact that there is no more USSR/world communism. Therefore only the most looney old cold warrior could really see him as a threat to the USA.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, it seems then that we agree on this.

[Arrian]

For the most part, it would seem so. I wouldn't characterize Chavez as a commie (but rather a populist socialist, and a bit of a nutbag, really), I'm not so sure we "left him alone" and I get the impression that you have no problem with our funding of the Contras, whereas I do.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Why do you think funding the Contras was wrong?

[Arrian]

I'm not very fond of the "well, he's a bastard, but he's OUR bastard" mentality.

How do you feel about our funding of jihadis in Afganistan to fight the Soviets? The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? But what if it turns out he's your enemy too? Then what?

-Arrian

[Ned]

It wasn't the Afghans who turn against us, it was Osama bin Laden and Saddam. The Taliban only became our enemies when Clinton attacked OBL in Afghanistan. It seems that that attack was ill timed. The Saudis had just secured the Taliban's cooperation with respect to OBL. After the attack by Mr. Bill, the Taliban changed sides.