Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

On Iran Contra

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • By Iran-Contra being popular, I mean most people thinking that it was just/good/beneficial/pick your synonym. Answer the question and stop yer lawyering.
    "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
    -Bokonon

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ramo
      By Iran-Contra being popular, I mean most people thinking that it was just/good/beneficial/pick your synonym. Answer the question and stop yer lawyering.
      I think at the time it came out, a lot of people believed it was justified and I think the gradual come back of Reagan's poll numbers had, in some part, people justifying the actions after the initial shock and then moving on.

      As for most people thinking it was justified? I dunno. It depends on how many thought Reagan didn't have any idea of it (a number which I'm sure shot up after his speech).
      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

      Comment


      • You can dislike something, but see the justification for it. You know, a grudging acceptance of something? I think a more modern example is the PATRIOT ACT. A lot of people were pissed over it initially after the shock of 9/11 (and the passage of the bill right after) wore off, but over time some people began to see the justification for it and grudgingly accepted that it was a necessary evil... which is why it was minorly modified but not scuttled wholesale when it was due to expire.
        Umm... just the opposite happened. Certain parts of the Patriot Act (which are still in the renewed Bill) became less popular over time (and Congressional opposition became more stringent). Eventually late last year, Sanders was able to get in an Amendment, and was narrowly scuttled on another, the Senate unanimously passed a reasonable Bill, then Feingold successfully launched a filibuster of the Conference Bill (which resembled Sensenbrenner's Bill much more than Specter's)

        I think Senate Democrats not-so-grudgingly accepted their consultants advice that supporting Feingold's second filibuster against the nominally amended Conference Bill would be a disaster to the Party's electoral prospects. That standing for the reasonable compromise that the Senate unanimously voted for would somehow be suicidal.
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
          Even as a Reagan supporter, that's crazy **** you posted there, Ned. US given up fighting communism?! WTF? Carter, right before Reagan, began to fund Afghanistan's rebellion against the USSR among other Latin American adventures. Nixon and Ford were not shy about fighting communism. Neither was LBJ (remember Vietnam?) or JFK (Cuba/Vietnam). When did we stop fighting communism?
          Imran, what I said was that "many" had given up on fighting communism. Clearly one of the lessons that the Democratic Party had learned from Vietnam was that fighting communism was not what they wanted to do. True Carter had begun the resistance in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion, but that had less to do in fighting communism him then fighting imperialism. The Democratic Party in particular was against our fighting communism in Africa and in Central America. They would rather had these countries or continents go communist rather then have America get involved in another "Vietnam."
          http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Zkribbler


            ...and a guy who willingly and knowingly set out to violate the laws of the United States....laws which he'd sworn an oath to God to protect and defend.
            What laws by you talking about?
            http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Oerdin

              If he hadn't been shot then likely we would never have gotten so deeply involved in Vietnam (JFK and his main advisors didn't want the US to get in any deeper while Johnson's camp wanted to go whole hog) and the race issue would have likely been dealt with sooner without the race riots. In short he was on his way to being one of the best Presidents ever.
              This is true. McNamara had planned to pull out at least some of America's advisors in 1964. A first thing Johnson did when he assumed the presidency was to reverse this position.

              It is interesting to note that in the recent movie "Path to War," it is McNamara who is urging Johnson to expand our role in Vietnam rather than the other way around.
              http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


                The outrages of Iran-Contra certainly also qualify as desperate measures, but where the hell was the "desperate time"? Ooo, a banana republic elected a socialist government...scary stuff, kids! Puh-leeze. It's not a valid comparison.
                Elected?

                "In 1979 the Sandinistas - named after an assassinated former leader of Nicaragua - ousted long-time dictator Anastasio Somoza.

                The Sandinistas have been at odds with the US ever since, especially since the superpower began assisting the party's main opponents, the Contras.

                The Contras, based in neighbouring Honduras, are engaged in a guerrilla war aimed at ousting the Sandinista Front. "

                BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service, archive, history, media
                http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                Comment


                • 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!
                  To be clear Imran, what I said it was that I think that Reagan was foolish in selling arms to Iran.

                  I also said I approved Oliver North's using the money to help fund the Contras. However, Reagan had nothing to do with this. He had no knowledge of what North was doing with the money.

                  There is an assumption here by many posters that Reagan was deliberately funding the Contras in violation of law. That is not true.
                  http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


                    And I also hung out with College Republicans -- my gf was one -- during the Reagan administration. I never heard them talk about Iran-Contra as a good thing, though they too called it justified. Maybe characterizing it as good is something done by those too young to remember it.
                    Rufus, et al., there are two aspects to Iran Contra - the arms sales and the funding of the contras. When you talk of "immorality," I assume that you are talking about "funding the Contras." What you fail to perceive is that many people may have approved of that while disapproving of selling arms to Iran, a country who just years before had humiliated the US in a most despicable way.

                    But, IIRC, the Iranians did "facilitate" the release of US hostages held in Lebanon. When these prisoners landed at the White House for a public briefing, the Iran-Contra scandal broke, as it was revealed, I don't know how, that Iran has helped in the hostage release.

                    But, IIRC, the initial outrage involved the sale of arms to an enemy of the US.
                    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ned


                      Elected?

                      "In 1979 the Sandinistas - named after an assassinated former leader of Nicaragua - ousted long-time dictator Anastasio Somoza.

                      The Sandinistas have been at odds with the US ever since, especially since the superpower began assisting the party's main opponents, the Contras.

                      The Contras, based in neighbouring Honduras, are engaged in a guerrilla war aimed at ousting the Sandinista Front. "

                      http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2538379.stm
                      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.
                      "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

                      Comment


                      • The fight against international comunism.
                        Just a memory, now.
                        More than once I spoke with some Americans about:
                        Always go on, but care with two things: never become the best comunism propagandists and do not give birth to a even ruthelesser enemy.
                        Mr. Reagan payed a lot of atention to the first not so to the second.
                        Best regards,

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Oerdin


                          Carter just had an interview last month in which has said he continue to believe Reagan did indeed arange the October Surprise to assure his election and that selling arms to Iran was Reagan's pay back to the mullahs. It isn't crazy and in all likelihood is exactly what happened.

                          Further more JFK's handling of the Cuban missile crisis was top notch. Under just about any other leader (certainly under someone like Nixon) it would have sparked WW3 but JFK found a face saving way to get the missiles out of Cuba, make the Soviets feel safer (by getting our missiles out of Turkey), and restarted the process of the two sides talking to each other. If he hadn't been shot then likely we would never have gotten so deeply involved in Vietnam (JFK and his main advisors didn't want the US to get in any deeper while Johnson's camp wanted to go whole hog) and the race issue would have likely been dealt with sooner without the race riots. In short he was on his way to being one of the best Presidents ever.
                          Wow, batsh!t crazy. I assume that you got this crap whole cloth from somewhere rather than remembering things this way.
                          He's got the Midas touch.
                          But he touched it too much!
                          Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
                            Yup, the White House armed an avowedly anti-American nutjob theocracy in order to also arm facist terrorists, all in knowing defiance of a federal law that specifically barred it from doing so. By the time it was all over, the National Security Advisor had attempted suicide; Reagan, deciding that the buck never, ever stops with him, famously declared that "mistakes were made"; and Ollie North was a celebrity.

                            Trust an old man: nothing good came of it. It was, in all respects, a worse scandal than Watergate.
                            You must be joking! Worse than Watergate?
                            He's got the Midas touch.
                            But he touched it too much!
                            Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                            Comment


                            • Yes, I'd say so. Assuming, of course, that I-C went up as high as some think it did (all the way to teh Reagan).

                              -Arrian
                              grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                              The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Zkribbler


                                ...and a guy who willingly and knowingly set out to violate the laws of the United States....laws which he'd sworn an oath to God to protect and defend.
                                You mean like this great Democrat Leader did in this instance and then later on when he put Japanese Americans in in prison camps in WW2?

                                FDR's Domestic Surveillance
                                By Adam White & Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
                                Published 5/9/2006 12:08:25 AM

                                IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute's validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.

                                In short, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charted a bold course in defending the nation's security in 1940, when he did all of these things.

                                It is worth remembering FDR's example as the debate over the NSA's warrantless surveillance continues to heat up. After a few months' lull, it seems that the issue is again creeping into the headlines. On April 27, for example, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter convened a press conference demanding that President Bush disclose the details of the NSA's surveillance program, and threatening to suspend the program's funding.

                                As with so many issues central to the global war on terror in which the need for security must be balanced against individual liberties, there is no fool-proof answer to the questions raised by the NSA's surveillance program. Yet broad sections of the left have personalized this debate around President Bush. Their hatred and distrust of Bush drives them to see the administration's actions in the worst light possible. To that extent, it's important to understand how President Roosevelt -- a paragon of the left -- dealt with similar problems.


                                PRESIDENT BUSH FACES CHALLENGES on two fronts. First, it's been argued that there is no authority for the NSA surveillance, either statutory or constitutional. Second, congressional critics demand that the administration disclose the details of the surveillance program. The Roosevelt administration faced similar challenges in the days leading up to World War II. Documents that we obtained from Justice Robert Jackson's archives at the Library of Congress, some of which have never before been discussed in the press, show that President Roosevelt did not doubt his authority to conduct such surveillance in the interest of national security.

                                In 1937 and 1939, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions in the matter of Nardone v. United States. The Court held that the Communications Act of 1934 barred federal surveillance of telephone lines, and that evidence obtained from such surveillance couldn't be introduced at trial.

                                In response, Attorney General (and future Supreme Court justice) Robert Jackson ended the FBI's longstanding surveillance of suspected saboteurs and spies. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover protested this decision. In an April 13, 1940 memorandum to Jackson, Hoover outlined a number of pending investigations that were hampered by Jackson's decision. Hoover concluded, "Frankly, the Bureau cannot cope with this problem without the use of wire taps and I feel obligated to bring this situation to your attention at the present time rather than to wait until a national catastrophe focuses the spotlight of public indignation upon the Department because of its failure to prevent a serious occurrence."

                                President Roosevelt sided with Hoover, not Jackson. In a signed May 21, 1940 memorandum to his attorney general, FDR wrote:

                                I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court decision relating to wire-tapping in investigations. The Court is undoubtedly sound both in regard to the use of evidence secured over tapped wires in the prosecution of citizens in criminal cases; and is also right in its opinion that under ordinary circumstances wire-tapping by Government agents should not be carried on for the excellent reason that it is almost bound to lead to abuse of civil rights.

                                However, I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation.

                                It is, of course, well known that certain other nations have been engaged in the organization of propaganda of so-called "fifth columns" in other countries and in preparation for sabotage, as well as in actual sabotage.

                                It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations and "fifth column" activities are completed.

                                You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens.


                                FDR's assertion that the Supreme Court didn't read the Communications Act to bar surveillance for national defense wasn't based on the statute's text. The Communications Act provided that "no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person." The only source for FDR's national-security exception was the same as the one now presented as a defense of the NSA surveillance program: the president's inherent constitutional authority, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to conduct surveillance as an incident to the military's defense of our nation.

                                Despite FDR's readiness to use his inherent authority, he and Jackson pushed Congress to give the administration statutory authority. As Jackson recounted in his memoir, the administration sought authorization for surveillance for not only "espionage [and] sabotage," but also "extortion and kidnapping cases." The House was willing only to authorize FBI wiretapping "in the interest of national defense." As today, any such legislation was opposed by the ACLU, as well as (in Jackson's words) "others of liberal persuasion."

                                FDR and Jackson also opposed those who sought to require that surveillance be approved not only by the attorney general but also by the courts, through warrant requirements. As Jackson wrote in a March 19, 1941 letter to Rep. Hatton Summers, "I do not favor the search warrant procedure.... Such procedure means loss of precious time, probably publicity, and filing of charges against persons as a basis for wire tapping before investigation is complete which might easily result in great injury to such persons."

                                In the end, FDR and the Congress weren't able to agree on a legislative compromise. Nonetheless, President Roosevelt continued to authorize national-security surveillance. All of this predated America's entry into the Second World War.


                                AFTER CHOOSING TO AUTHORIZE SURVEILLANCE, President Roosevelt faced angry legislators (similar to Senator Specter and others today) who called for disclosure of the surveillance program's details in order to inform the legislative debate. FDR decided that Congress was not entitled to, and could not be trusted with, such information. He thus refused to comply.

                                Attorney General Jackson spelled this out in an April 30, 1941 letter to Rep. Carl Vinson, Chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs. Jackson reviewed the history of presidential refusals to disclose national security information, beginning with President Washington's 1796 refusal to disclose the details of treaty negotiations. Jackson warned that to provide such information to Congress would enable congressional personnel to leak details to the public, thereby tipping off targets and embarrassing informants. He said that disclosure would "prejudice the national defense and be of aid and comfort to the very subversive elements against which you wish to protect the country." And despite the fact that Congress was attempting to pass legislation pertaining to that very program, Jackson concluded that information regarding the surveillance "can be of little, if any, value in connection with the framing of legislation or the performance of any other constitutional duty of the Congress."

                                Jackson recognized that the president and Congress face different responsibilities, making agreement between the two branches difficult on such weighty, heated, time-sensitive issues. The Constitution gives the president the responsibility to act quickly and decisively to defend the national security. Congress, freed from such responsibility, could indulge other preoccupations. At one point, Jackson wrote Rep. John Coffee that "I am confident that if you and any of the other liberals in Congress sat in my seat and were held to some degree of responsibility for the perpetration of acts of sabotage and espionage in this country you would feel differently about the wire tapping bill."


                                AND SO IT GOES TODAY. In the coming weeks, Senator Specter and others may threaten to withhold funds from the NSA or block nominations (such as General Hayden's nomination to head the CIA). The prerogatives of spending cuts and nominations blocks are within the power of the Congress, just as defense of the national security is committed to the president. President Bush can only hope that cooler heads prevail among House and Senate majorities. But in pursuing his own course of action, President Bush should keep in mind -- and cite as justification -- the example of the opposition party's greatest hero, President Roosevelt.
                                "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                                “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X