On Iran Contra

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's amazing how the political right has been so successful white washing Reagan's crimes in Iran-Contra. The Republicans never had a great leader type of president the way the Democrats could point to FDR or Kennedy so they're trying to rehabilitate Reagan's image so that he can become "the great Republican president". The problem is Reagan really was a bumbling incompetant who made deals with the Iranian mullahs to keep the hostages longers (Reagan wanted the hostages to not be freed because it was a big election issue for him), he helped bloody murderers in Central America transport and sell drugs to the US (Reagan thought that was ok just as long as the murderers, er.. Rebels, kept killing communists when they weren't busy shooting old ladies and hanging journalist), illegally sold weapons to Iran, and generally was a terrible economic manager (massive deficits as far as the eye can see).

You mean this great leader FDR?


PS Its a bit sad that oft cited (and widely repudiated) conspiracy theories such as the October Surprise still find a home in otherwise reasonable individuals.

PPS Don't make me laugh characterizing JFK as a great leader. Only thing that made him great was his assassination instantly deifying him.

[Hueij]

Hm... I thought that Teh Reagan slept through the whole episode?

[Kidlicious]

That's how he did so comparably well.

[Mr. Harley]

Reagan was in early transitioning to midstage Alzheimers. That is easily verifiable by the progression of his disease after leaving the White House. Like Woodrow Wilson (he had a major stroke), his administration ran this affair and most others. As a group they are largely to blame for the excesses, and the successes, especially towards the last several years.

Remember, in the end Nancy was setting up his appointments using astrology. 'Nuff said. BTW - Iran-Contra was specifically ILLEGAL, and substantially more serious than non-felonius perjury (for which Clinton was disbarred, quite reasonably). The Contras played the US for money and arms, ran a pretty brutal - now whisper is quietly - insurgency - while opposing a pseudo-Democracy that was pulling a Chavez on the institutions that prevent a strongman. Lot's of bad players, no good ones, and general stupidity all around.

[Ecthy]

Err.... just on a sidenote: were the hostages not freed 5 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated for his first term?

[DanS]

I don't think that there's much GOP defense of Iran-Contra. A Grade A screwup. The only interesting thing about it was that North fell on his sword to protect the president from the legal consequences. Some admire that action.

[Arrian]

Didn't seem like his sword hurt him all that much.

-Arrian

[DanS]

As it turned out, it didn't. However, beforehand, he probably believed it would.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Err.... just on a sidenote: were the hostages not freed 5 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated for his first term?

I beleive Oerdin was referring to the October Surprise Consipracy.

Again albeit Wikipedia it does at least show the conventional wisdom and not the moonbat conspiracy theories.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Err.... just on a sidenote: were the hostages not freed 5 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated for his first term?

It's a little more than that.

The pantywaists in Congress had tied the military's hands by not letting them spend any more money fighting Commies in Niguaraga. Col North--ignoring the constraints of these spineless wienies--cleverly sold surplus weapons to the Iranians (in exchange for hostages) and then funneled the money to the Contras.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
It's a little more than that.

The pantywaists in Congress had tied the military's hands by not letting them spend any more money fighting Commies in Niguaraga. Col North--ignoring the constraints of these spineless wienies--cleverly sold surplus weapons to the Iranians (in exchange for hostages) and then funneled the money to the Contras.

Etchy was talking about hostages in Iran, not the hostages in Lebanon.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Etchy was talking about hostages in Iran, not the hostages in Lebanon.

But the hostage takers in Lebannon were allied with and somewhat controlled by Iran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
But the hostage takers in Lebannon were allied with and somewhat controlled by Iran.

But Etchy didn't mention the hostages in Lebanon at all! It would be kind of wierd if those hostages were released (as Etchy said) before they were even taken hostage .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, I was specifically looking for conservative arguments in favor of it. Just morbid curiosity, I can't imagine how it could be anything but a disgrace. Now where's Fez/Ned/whoever when you need 'em?

Let's keep the facts in mind. Reagan was involved in the decision to sell arms to Iran. North was the one who decided to use the proceeds to help the contras.

As to the arms sales, I think Reagan was naive to the extent he was expecting this to lead to normalized relations with Iran.

As to sending the money to the Contras, well obviously I agree with fighting communism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Hell, I'll give you the four conservative arguments in favor of it:

1) In fighting communism (which is how conservatives characterized Nicaragua's reasonably-democratically-elected socialist government), the ends justify the means.

2) A strong country requires a strong executive; defying those spineless Democratic wimps in Congress was actually patriotic.

3) Reagan is never wrong.

4) Iran-Contra was actually a test case to see whether the president could use the public's ignorance and apathy, coupled with the media's laziness, to give himself a free hand in foreign affairs. The answer, a resounding "yes," set the stage for the curent administrations's follies.

I think that about covers it.

Whatever.

And you of course know that the USSR under Stalin was a "workers paradise." How do we know that? Well the New York Times told us so and received numerous Pulizter prizes for their stories.

Well, it turns out, those stories were lies for which the Times has appologized.

Ditto any favorable tales leftists tell of communists countries. They are all paradises. Which is why, of course, people flee them to the extent they can because with communist countries, the border guards are their to keep their citizens IN, not others OUT.

Prior to Reagan, many here in the US had given up fighting communism. No country that had become communist had been liberated. Communist revolutions were now underway in Central American and in the Carribean. It was only a matter of time, it was thought, until we were alone in the world, completely surrounded by the red flags of the far left.

But Reagan changed all that by actively funding resistance in Africa and Central America, to the extent he was not blocked by a Democrat Congress, and by direct action in the Carribean on one occasion. Wherever we took action, we succeeded. Communism across the world collapsed so that only a few islands of oppression remain.

The people who once lived under communism and who now live in free democracies do not see Reagan in the same light as the left. They see a man of courage and conviction to changed the world.