What can you tell me about Oliver North and the Iran-Contra scandal?

[Steeplerot]

Are you kidding?



As least things are better now thank goodness.

The death squads have chilled some, but then they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar a number of times since the 80s. The coup every month thing could turn into a shitstorm any minute though. The CIA and friends over there representing our "interests" answer to no one as history has shown. Let's just hope they do not find a way to fund more of these rw death squads.

Sooner or later SA will get its shit together collectively and gives the US the finger hopefully.

 

[Craig234]

People knew by the mid 80's, it was obvious as day in his speeches he was suffering a dementia of some sort. People kinda looked the other way when he made out like he didn't remember. I do not know if the I/C thing was "overlooked" or repressed out of respect to the president by the media but it was pathetic. My family whispered about it like I said, from mid 80s on. By I/C it was obvious. He probably owes his lack of impeachment to Alzheimers or sympathy for him in my opinion.

What I mean is, the Alzheimer's was not offered by the Republicans as an excuse at the time.

Iran-Contra wasn't about his amnesia, anyway. It was an intentional, criminal policy by people Reagan enabled.

Calling the Contras 'the moral equivalent of our founding fathers' wasn't disease. It was immoral.

 

[Steeplerot]

It was assumed he "forgot" and could not remember because of some kind of dementia he had been showing symptoms of for awhile, I am not a doctor, but you could see plain as day something was wrong with the old mans presidency when he would drift off and start saying weird shit in the middle of a speech/interview over and over again throughout the 80s.

He got a pass. The assumption around my house at the time was that the media let him off as it may have been possible he was manipulated and was not quite all "there" Reagan whitehouse grabbed this and ran with it.

Granted no one in the media would say it outright as to even insinuate it would be seen as amazingly rude

There were 2 conclusions that no one and the media wanted to face after Iran Contra about Reagan:


1. The obvious problem: That Reagan was too senile to lead the country after the mid 80s.


2. That another Republican failed the public trust -too painful after Nixon's screwing the trust of the people. Republicans needed to "heal". Reps damn sure were not going to take that after they had just built up the foundation of the Reagan myth we live with today.
It would be a mess politically.

Dunno if this is in any history book, just my personal recollection from almost 30 years ago.

When I found out he had advanced Alzheimer's it was a big no duh moment for a lot of folks who lived through his presidency.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Cliff Notes version - America and the Soviet Union were engaged in the cold war by proxy. ...

I knew someone would be unable to resist defending Conservatism's favorite traitors.


edit: I will admit I'm surprised that ol' possum beat out PJIBBERJABBER, spidey and FNE...

 

[Thump553]

People knew by the mid 80's, it was obvious as day in his speeches he was suffering a dementia of some sort. People kinda looked the other way when he made out like he didn't remember. I do not know if the I/C thing was "overlooked" or repressed out of respect to the president by the media but it was pathetic. My family whispered about it like I said, from mid 80s on. By I/C it was obvious. He probably owes his lack of impeachment to Alzheimers or sympathy for him in my opinion.

That was my belief as well-then and now. Reagan was cruising on empty his last few years in office. By rights, he should have been impeached but the Democrats didn't push on it. Instead we had the GOP's vindictive impeachment of Clinton a decade later for lying about a blowjob in a civil deposition taken in their endless investigations of Clinton-talk about petty.

BTW, werepossum's review left out the most substantial fact-BEFORE Iran-Contra occured Congress passed a statute specifically prohibiting the US from funding either side of the San Salvador civil war. Reagan's Administration didn't like the law, ignored it, then lied to Congress about it as part of their imperial presidency.

Also, most people may not remember this but the San Salavador shooting war was triggered off by a right-wing government backed death squad assassinating the country's beloved Catholic bishop.

 

[werepossum]

I knew someone would be unable to resist defending Conservatism's favorite traitors.


edit: I will admit I'm surprised that ol' possum beat out PJIBBERJABBER, spidey and FNE...

My position is the same as Chris Rock's on O.J. - I ain't sayin' he should o' did it - but I understand!

That was my belief as well-then and now. Reagan was cruising on empty his last few years in office. By rights, he should have been impeached but the Democrats didn't push on it. Instead we had the GOP's vindictive impeachment of Clinton a decade later for lying about a blowjob in a civil deposition taken in their endless investigations of Clinton-talk about petty.

BTW, werepossum's review left out the most substantial fact-BEFORE Iran-Contra occured Congress passed a statute specifically prohibiting the US from funding either side of the San Salvador civil war. Reagan's Administration didn't like the law, ignored it, then lied to Congress about it as part of their imperial presidency.

Also, most people may not remember this but the San Salavador shooting war was triggered off by a right-wing government backed death squad assassinating the country's beloved Catholic bishop.

What, this part was too complicated?

Congress, being even then mostly Democrats and therefore leftists except when campaigning, decided that the Sandanistas were pretty good dudes and were only terrorizing the people for their own greater good, whereas the Contras were presumably terrorizing the people for their own amusement or, worse, for America's benefit. So Congress passed an Act that banned all support for the Contras and similar groups. (You might recognize that little trick from Vietnam, nothing the left likes more than making sure there's no way Communism can lose.)

I would never argue that the right wing government were the good guys. I would not argue that the Contras were the good guys either. I would only argue that the Sandanistas were no better - and Communist to boot. And with the Soviets supplying the Sandies, cutting off all supplies to the Contras hands the Soviets a client state (which luckily they could not use before imploding.) Again, we did the same thing in Vietnam.

 

[GroundedSailor]

I knew someone would be unable to resist defending Conservatism's favorite traitors.


edit: I will admit I'm surprised that ol' possum beat out PJIBBERJABBER, spidey and FNE...

My position is the same as Chris Rock's on O.J. - I ain't sayin' he should o' did it - but I understand!



What, this part was too complicated?

I would never argue that the right wing government were the good guys. I would not argue that the Contras were the good guys either. I would only argue that the Sandanistas were no better - and Communist to boot. And with the Soviets supplying the Sandies, cutting off all supplies to the Contras hands the Soviets a client state (which luckily they could not use before imploding.) Again, we did the same thing in Vietnam.

Nothing really, except that, if someone had no knowledge of the situation as it was then, reading what you wrote would give the impression that congress was all out supporting communism and Contras were bad but less bad than the Sandanistas.

..

 

[werepossum]

Nothing really, except that, if someone had no knowledge of the situation as it was then, reading what you wrote would give the impression that congress was all out supporting communism and Contras were bad but less bad than the Sandanistas.

..

Coming a decade after the same thing in Nam it sure looked like all out support of communism to me. As to who was worse, pick your poison I suppose, as who was worse depended on whose accounts you believed. Certainly neither side was worth supporting on its own merits, but - the Soviets weren't supporting the Sandies because of either's love for freedom and human rights. If it's a choice between evil right wingers and evil Marxists, I personally choose right wingers unless there's a very clear difference. At the least, right wingers tend not to try exporting "rightwingism" to neighboring countries whereas Marxists tend to believe in spreading Marxism, or at least did at the time.

 

[dainthomas]

He broke the law and crapped on the Constitution, which makes him a hero of the right apparently.

 

[Craig234]

My position is the same as Chris Rock's on O.J. - I ain't sayin' he should o' did it - but I understand!



What, this part was too complicated?

I would never argue that the right wing government were the good guys. I would not argue that the Contras were the good guys either. I would only argue that the Sandanistas were no better - and Communist to boot. And with the Soviets supplying the Sandies, cutting off all supplies to the Contras hands the Soviets a client state (which luckily they could not use before imploding.) Again, we did the same thing in Vietnam.

And those are lies based on your ignorance. You know, I would never say OJ was the good guy, but Nicole and Ron were no better.

The Contras were terrorists, formed of people like the former forces of the dictator Somoza, and the Sandinistas were leftist. The same thing to you.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I remained on the loop on that one, Reagan was forced to appear on national television and admit he in was involved, they blamed William Casey who died of a brain tumor, and George H. Bush claimed he was not in the loop. As for Oliver North who lied his ass off, he got a free security fence out of the deal. But was at least forced to resign from the military. But never went to jail. As for Casper Weinburger and Oliver Poindexter, Reagan fired them to save his own ass, and they later surfaced during the GWB administration still up to their same old shit.

The Iran Contra shenagins could and IMHO should have led to a Reagan impeachment, but the Congress simply did not have the will.

Just my off the top of my head recollections, as the imperial presidency won again while our constitutional form of government lost.

:thumbsup:
Accurate, a short version would be Olie took the rap to prevent Reagans impeachment and has been rewarded hansomly for it.

 

[Craig234]

You have to notice the lack of pretty much anyone on the right clearly condemning the wrongs by the Reagan administration here.

Why can't they condemn the murderous policies of training a force of torturers for Latin American regimes to use to keep the public from rising up against oppression, of training 'death squads' for the same purpose? Why can't they simply strongly condemn the anti-democratic and illegal actions from Ford secretly approving Indonesia's using US arms Congress had passed a law saying were for defense only to be used to invade its neighbor and kill hundreds of thousands, to Reagan's illegal funding of Contras?

It should seem clear the people on the right who fail to condemn these things are not only lacking in the integrity of our legal system and our democracy to 'protect the constitution', but in the basic human decency against terrible murderous crimes. These are not the sort of people who make America a great country - they are they types who would push America into becoming an evil tyrant, all they care about is the power like the evil regimes they claim to hate.

They are silent on the wrongs, because the wrongs were done in the name of 'our interests', a reason that supercedes any constitutional law or even murder.

When George W. Bush put the worst criminals, like those who had overseen the death squad policies of Latin American 'allies', back in power, they had nothing to say.

Their condoning of these these things shows they are bankrupt morally.

It's no wonder a Liddy or a North are able to get successful shows for these fans.

It's like having the people in Japan who ran the support for the atrocities in China in WWII have shows for the fans in Japan, fans who have nothing bad to say about it.

Why can't they just condemn the wrongs? Because they are supporters of the evil.

We have these nice 'debates' here, but when one side are supporters of such torture and murder, what's the point pretending it's any civilized disagreement?

They might not post much actively supporting the wrongs - but not condemning them, voting for the same people who are responsible, is the same thing.

Their not actively posting in favor of it is the dishonesty of avoiding how they'd be exposed as indefensible, not their condemning evil.

Where are our right-wing posters condemning the torture and murder and oppression in Latin America among other evils by the Reagan Administration?

Their silence is a mark of shame that hangs over them until they condemn the evil.

They'll condemn others for far lesser wrongs while silent on their own side's worse.

If just three of our dozens of right-wing posters posted simply, not hemming and hawing and excusing, condemnations of the evil, it's be a big change here. But they don't.

 

[ProfJohn]

There is no way the Democrats would have even tried to impeach Reagan for Iran-Contra.

Reagan was insanely popular by this time in his term and the Dems would have been killed for trying to remove him.

Also there is the fact that they never found any evidence that linked Reagan directly to the events.

AND the fact that the law the Boland amendment left loop holes for North and Poindexter to jump through, and the let's not forget that the amendment was not a criminal law so you could ignore the law without consequences.

How could you impeach Reagan when he didn't break any laws?

 

[manimal]

While loose I do see some parallels to the Iran Contra scandal and the WMD campaign waged as foreplay to the Iraq War. In both cases clear injustice was allowed to happen because it suited someones agenda. In both cases media was turned into propaganda. In both cases grey areas were used to justify something that clearly did not jibe with the stated values of the United States.

In some ways the road we are on now was started by the lack of accountability at the top and the convinient scapegoating of pawns by the real culprits. Reagan should have been held accountable for his many failings not enshrined into the conservative hall of fame by his lackeys. Sadly I did fall for the facade at the time during his first four years but quickly realized the people around him had very different agendas. Deregulation had a lasting impact on the economy and his supposed foreign policy accomplishments were made trough others hard work.

Like Reagan bush will get away with his crimes and the next villains will be emboldened as well....