On Iran Contra

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

nm

[Arrian]

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.

Can you actually back any of that up? Sounds like a typical "blame Clinton" approach. If anything, blame Carter and Reagan.

-Arrian

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Berzerker


We were a moral country until Clinton got a BJ? Morality is not in the nature of government, I believe Tom Paine called it a necessary evil. But why is a BJ immoral? It dont sound like he had to use his authority to coerce it out of her, so I fail to see the problem. Clinton got in trouble because he then lied about it on the stand when he was sued by Paula Jones who accused him of sexual harassment. Obviously any pattern of Clinton having sex with employees would help her case.

As for Reagan, he called the Contras "freedom fighters" and compared them with the Founding Fathers but called the Contras "thugs" in private, so even he knew they were terrorists...and they were terrorists... They avoided open conflict with the Sandinista army and focused on raiding villages, murdering social workers, teachers, doctors, nurses and the sort, to inhibit new gov't policies.

Joseph, do you have the name of this pilot? When I first learned the hostages were let go with Reagan's entry into office, I thought the Iranians were scared of Reagan. But that didn't really make much sense, I suspect Carter was more on Saddam's side and might have even asked Saddam to attack Iran and we'd support him. So there was an opening to deal with the Iranians, tell them the Reagan administration would sell them weapons and wouldn't help Saddam (too much ). I dont know if its true but I heard Nixon was negotiating with Vietnam even while LBJ was in office.

No I don't. However it was a big story for a while, and of course Bush 1 said he never made the trip, but then why did the Air Force run this person out. He also did some jail time. This all happen while Bush was V.P.
I remember a few weeks prior to election Bush was missing for 2 or 3 days and when he reappeared, they said he was sick or something and the pilot said that is time when he few him to Paris in the 2 seat SR-71. Of couse the Air Force said SR-71s location is classified and would not discuss it.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What pisses me off about the deification of Kennedy is that it totally turns LBJ into a monster. I don't agree with LBJ. I thought escalation of Vietnam and the Great Society were mistakes, but he made an absolutely heroic choice in pushing through the Civil Rights Act using a significant amount of capital. After he signed it, he said "We just lost the South", and at the time he thought he'd be running for reelection and knew he wouldn't be able to count on the Democrat base (ie, the South).

By saying Kennedy would have ended Vietnam, LBJ looks like a total villian for expanding it, when I think Kennedy would have had no choice but to do the same (Nixon, an avowed anti-Communist, couldn't avoid it when I think he didn't give a damn about Vietnam). By saying Kennedy would have solved the 'race issue' without the race riots, LBJ's heroic action gets greatly diminished.

I realize LBJ is supposed to be somewhat of a villian for Vietnam, but come on.

Since I was around when Kenndy was killed, I have heard story from some of his advisors that said Kenndy was not going to send troops to Nam. He was schedule to talk to the nation Nov 23. His people said the first thing LBJ did was to tear up Kenndy speech and the rest is history.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And when exactly did the advisors say he was not going to do such a thing? Could it be a few years later, perhaps?

The timing of when the 'speech' was supposed to be given is also cute... sorry, I just don't believe a word of it. Especially given McNamara's presence.

And besides, Kennedy already DID send troops to 'Nam. Perhaps you meant he wasn't going to send any more troops?

An interesting link (the entire article is interesting, but this last part is a concise example):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/goldzwig.htm

his last public remarks at the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, the President intoned moralistically about how the Vietnam conflict bad to be viewed within the context of the larger battle between communism and freedom.(63) His prepared remarks for the Dallas Trade Mart reveal that he had planned to discuss the practical complexities of military and economic policies in Vietnam and also to warn that a reduction in U.S. assistance would "only encourage Communist penetration." At one point in the undelivered text, Kennedy insisted, "we dare not weary of the task."(64)

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No one is saying that a majority of people liked it, but that a lot of people (on the right, naturally) considered it to be morally justified due to the threat of Communism.

You are correct we did.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Arrian


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

We could make him a threat is a few days if needed.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And when exactly did the advisors say he was not going to do such a thing? Could it be a few years later, perhaps?

The timing of when the 'speech' was supposed to be given is also cute... sorry, I just don't believe a word of it. Especially given McNamara's presence.

And besides, Kennedy already DID send troops to 'Nam. Perhaps you meant he wasn't going to send any more troops?

An interesting link (the entire article is interesting, but this last part is a concise example):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/goldzwig.htm

his last public remarks at the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, the President intoned moralistically about how the Vietnam conflict bad to be viewed within the context of the larger battle between communism and freedom.(63) His prepared remarks for the Dallas Trade Mart reveal that he had planned to discuss the practical complexities of military and economic policies in Vietnam and also to warn that a reduction in U.S. assistance would "only encourage Communist penetration." At one point in the undelivered text, Kennedy insisted, "we dare not weary of the task."(64)

Ike was the first President to sent troops in. Kenndy added to the advisor but by 63 was concern more with Diem running the country. He wanted Diem out, but not killed.
His advisors later said Kenndy was not going to send in combat troops. He would kept the advisors there and then give them money and weapons to fight their own war.

I was station at US Naval Training Center San Diego from May 21, 1962 to May 1, 1963 and we had a large number of S V N military personel there attending our schools.

[Dinner]

What I really love is the people who support/supported impeaching Clinton for getting a blowjob think it is just fine and dandy that Reagan commited a series of major felonies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

His advisors later said Kenndy was not going to send in combat troops. He would kept the advisors there and then give them money and weapons to fight their own war.

Not true. Kennedy sent 16,000 troops in Vietnam (admittedly small scale deployment) during his administration.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam...281961-1963.29 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara]

That'd be an awful lot of just 'special advisors'.

And Kennedy's last public remarks before being shot saying that we have to stay the course and leaving would "only encourage Communist penetration" does not indicate someone who was going to leave.

I think the advisors are relying on hindsight and want to join in the deification of their former master.

On the issue, I point to my above link again and add this part:

Individuals as disparate as Walt Rostow, who headed Kennedy's State Department Policy Planning Council, and Richard J. Walton, a scholar of politics and Kennedy revisionist, have claimed that Kennedy would have escalated in Vietnam as Johnson did. Others--such as Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, Roger Hilsman, and presidential aides Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers--maintain that the President would have avoided further involvement. Much of the controversy has rested upon the conflict between Kennedy's public words in support of American involvement and his private words of doubt. . . . We argue that public words can take on a life of their own and make policy reversals extremely difficult to undertake.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Can you actually back any of that up? Sounds like a typical "blame Clinton" approach. If anything, blame Carter and Reagan.

-Arrian

It's true. It was testimony before Congress during the inquiry about 9/11.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
What I really love is the people who support/supported impeaching Clinton for getting a blowjob think it is just fine and dandy that Reagan commited a series of major felonies.

Bull.

Reagan committed no felonies. This is just the lunatic left changing conspiracy theories into confirmed facts.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


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.

Well I see your reasoning, but I differ on several points. Firstly, nothing illegal occurred insofar as the resources sent to the Contras as I understand it because of the Mack Truck sized loophole in the Boland amendment (which was purposefully left in according to The Siren's Song).

Arming the avowed enemy was more of a public relations misstep than a transformative bit of military aid in time of war. Considering the fact that we were aiding whomever was losing the Iran-Iraq war as a general policy and the Iranians were losing the war at that point it could even be seen within the context of that policy.

You are absolutely correct that we should have never negotiated with the terrorist kidnappers directly or by proxy, that was a terrible misstep both in PR and in the long run for the nation.

The only convictions in this matter were for obstruction of justice. There is no doubt that as far as the law was concerned the coverup was far worse than the crime. I disagree about the lack of investigation though, this case was only exceeded in length, expense and scale by Ken Starr's gargantuan efforts against Clinton, with about the same disappointing results. In fact it probably contributed to the zeal that many republicans felt to go after Clinton.

Finally, Watergate to me was a more important case largely because it struck at the heart of our Republic by making the government an agent of one man's political ambitions while trampling on the rights of numerous individuals on the way and ultimately on the rights of the electorate as a whole to have fair elections. While in hindsight it appears that it was spurred much more from Nixon's paranoia that he'd be implicated in some sort of payoff scandal than an attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an election, at the time it looked a lot more sinister.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
What I really love is the people who support/supported impeaching Clinton for getting a blowjob think it is just fine and dandy that Reagan commited a series of major felonies.

Clinton got impeached for perjury, not getting a BJ. Same as Ollie North, though North was actually convicted.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sikander


Clinton got impeached for perjury, not getting a BJ. Same as Ollie North, though North was actually convicted.

But that conviction was reversed and there was no retrial from my understanding. Oliver North is not a convicted felon.