Getting a blow job in the oval office...

[8537]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

How convenient. If you're in the business of murdering people who disagree with you in order to stoke fear in their fellow population, you're a terrorist. There's no freedom fightingg about it.

Besides, there was never any evidence uncovered that ANYONE other than North and Pointdexter knew about the "Contra" end of that deal, and Lawrence Walsh spent six years and 43 million trying to prove just that.

Wait - you're saying that North and Poindexter did this on their own? You don't honestly believe that, do you?

So let's look at it in context. Iran and Iraq had been at war since 1980. Most of the world was selling to both sides, including the Russians and the French. We weren't that much because we think of arms sales as an extention of our foreign policy rather than as just straight up commerce.

We actually had a vested interest in Iraq not winning that war. Our policy was to play Iran and Iraq off against each other.

Right. our "policy" was to arm both sides. Except, one side was an established supporter of terrorism while the other was an alleged ally. We had a vested interest in both sides killing thousands of people on the other side.

 

[Divine Wind]

not so big a deal now is it?

It never was a big deal.

It was the lying about it that offended.

But these days lies are the norm and truth is persecuted.

Equality of outcome and all that liberal jazz.

Agreed. Like Nixon before him, it wasn't the unethical conduct he performed, it was the lying and the cover up which was criminal. It was the perjury which caused President Clinton to be disbarred. He not only lied about his involvement, but sullied the name of Paula Jones when she accused him of sexual harassment.

Paula Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Paula Jones case precipitated Bill Clinton's impeachment. Charges of perjury and obstruction of justice charges were brought based on statements he made during the depositions for the Paula Jones lawsuit. The specific statements were about the nature of his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, with whom he denied having a sexual relationship.

 

[daveman]

not so big a deal now is it?

It wasn’t to the Senate at the time, either.

Yeah, it was the advent of the Age of the Moronic Partisan Republican – the president signs welfare reform into law and balances the Federal budget and he ends up impeached for being a democrat.

So you admit Democrats lie.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Sorry- Pubs will never change- huge deficits-do and say anything to get elected and rip off the non-rich- for 140 years...and this is Father Coughlin X 10 for demagogging....THEY SUQ!!!!

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Nixon tried to subvert an election, and probably did. NOT a BJ- Nixon ruined respect for gov't, like RR and W...total disasters....Obamahhhhh...it's taking time for civility, service, and truth to come back into style...fact! if it does...bring back the Fairness Doctrine for God's sake, before it's too late. Rush, Fox, Savage etc. = Father Coughlin X 20.

 

[DavidS]

Difference between an honorable man and a scumbag -

Nixon. Caught "tape recording." Resigned like a man. The Honorable and right thing to do.

Clinton. Caught lying. Adultering. Not doing the job he was elected to do. Preferred oral over OBL.
Impeached, disbarred - still on a book tour. Scumbag.

It is people like you who will, in the end, be responsible for tearing this country apart.

14 years later and you still call him a scumbag.

 

[Warrior102]

Difference between an honorable man and a scumbag -

Nixon. Caught "tape recording." Resigned like a man. The Honorable and right thing to do.

Clinton. Caught lying. Adultering. Not doing the job he was elected to do. Preferred oral over OBL.
Impeached, disbarred - still on a book tour. Scumbag.

It is people like you who will, in the end, be responsible for tearing this country apart.

14 years later and you still call him a scumbag.

Oh dear God.

 

[Sallow]

not so big a deal now is it?

It never was a big deal.

It was the lying about it that offended.

But these days lies are the norm and truth is persecuted.

Equality of outcome and all that liberal jazz.

Agreed. Like Nixon before him, it wasn't the unethical conduct he performed, it was the lying and the cover up which was criminal. It was the perjury which caused President Clinton to be disbarred. He not only lied about his involvement, but sullied the name of Paula Jones when she accused him of sexual harassment.

Paula Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Paula Jones case precipitated Bill Clinton's impeachment. Charges of perjury and obstruction of justice charges were brought based on statements he made during the depositions for the Paula Jones lawsuit. The specific statements were about the nature of his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, with whom he denied having a sexual relationship.

Just like Nixon before him? Are you nuts?

Nixon was a sociopath and probably a psychopath as well. He ordered the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Nobody knew about it. And this is after he promised to end the war. He expanded it. Nixon was probably responsible for a million or so additional deaths in the region. He also ordered the illegal break in to a political opponent's office. That's huge.

There's absolutely no equivalence here.

 

[Sallow]

Bullshit. He did it to win an election and HAD NO LEGAL STANDING TO DO SO. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to negotiate with enemies of the United States. Legalities ASIDE? What the **** does that mean? We are either a nation of laws or we aren't.

.

Gee, I'm not sure if you are profoundly ignorant or just confusing similar issues or are just paranoid.

To recap. Accusations were made a decade after the fact that Reagan and Bush had conspired with Iran to keep the hostages after the election. It was sheer, unadulterated bullshit, but the Democrats insisted on a special prosecutor, who quickly determined it was bullshit.

This was quite different from the "Iran-Contra" deal, which happened AFTER the 1984 election, where Reagan traded arms for hostages in Lebanon.

As president, he had every right and power to negotiate with other sovereign powers. So this isn't even an issue. The ban on arms sales to Iran (and keep in mind, we didn't sell them the weapons, the Israelis did) was an executive ban, which the president had a legal right to overturn, if needed.

To recap..the special procecutor had to stop because they found so much crap that it threatened the very foundation of government. The hostages were released 20 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated leaving little doubt that a deal had been struck. Reagan lied about it..hence the investigations.

He was caught.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]‪Telling Lies‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

He had no "right" to make special deals with anyone. Or fund terrorists secretly.

 

[Sallow]

So you had a sitatution where there were hostages in Lebanon, two of them, a CIA station chief named Buckley and a US Marine Colonel named Higgins, were executed by their captors. They had about six others. Impractical to launch a rescue mission, but the Iranians say, "Hey, give us some missiles, we'll get them out."

What exactly was a CIA chief doing in an embassy?

Shades of what happened to Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and operation Ajax?

 

[Ravi]

not so big a deal now is it? Compared to all this mess and the Bush years, yeah, I think I will take the President who lied about a BJ over the BS that congress, the senate, the president and the ineptitude of all these politicians.

Clinton is the only one worth a crap in I don't know how long.

Yep. Clinton used his power to get sex. Dubya used his to invade countries and kill people that didn't need invading or killing and ran up huge debts doing so.

Which is worse in terms of the American economy?

 

[JoeB131]

So you had a sitatution where there were hostages in Lebanon, two of them, a CIA station chief named Buckley and a US Marine Colonel named Higgins, were executed by their captors. They had about six others. Impractical to launch a rescue mission, but the Iranians say, "Hey, give us some missiles, we'll get them out."

What exactly was a CIA chief doing in an embassy?

Shades of what happened to Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and operation Ajax?

Every American Embassy has a CIA officer on staff, including the one we had in Beruit in the 1980's, and that's where Buckley was.

William Francis Buckley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he was kidnapped by Hezbollah in 1983 and murdered in 1985, which is why President Reagan redoubled his efforts to get other hostages out.

Incidently, just to show you're not the only one confusing events, I cited the murder of Colonel Higgins as another incident that caused Reagan to act. In fact, Col. Higgins was kidnapped and killed after these events. (But at least I'm honest enough to admit an error.)

 

[Sallow]

So you had a sitatution where there were hostages in Lebanon, two of them, a CIA station chief named Buckley and a US Marine Colonel named Higgins, were executed by their captors. They had about six others. Impractical to launch a rescue mission, but the Iranians say, "Hey, give us some missiles, we'll get them out."

What exactly was a CIA chief doing in an embassy?

Shades of what happened to Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and operation Ajax?

Every American Embassy has a CIA officer on staff, including the one we had in Beruit in the 1980's, and that's where Buckley was.

William Francis Buckley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he was kidnapped by Hezbollah in 1983 and murdered in 1985, which is why President Reagan redoubled his efforts to get other hostages out.

Incidently, just to show you're not the only one confusing events, I cited the murder of Colonel Higgins as another incident that caused Reagan to act. In fact, Col. Higgins was kidnapped and killed after these events. (But at least I'm honest enough to admit an error.)

And that's kosher?

There is now an international treaty that says spooks are welcome in every country?

Really?

I didn't know about that..got a link?

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit. He did it to win an election and HAD NO LEGAL STANDING TO DO SO. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to negotiate with enemies of the United States. Legalities ASIDE? What the **** does that mean? We are either a nation of laws or we aren't.

.

Gee, I'm not sure if you are profoundly ignorant or just confusing similar issues or are just paranoid.

To recap. Accusations were made a decade after the fact that Reagan and Bush had conspired with Iran to keep the hostages after the election. It was sheer, unadulterated bullshit, but the Democrats insisted on a special prosecutor, who quickly determined it was bullshit.

This was quite different from the "Iran-Contra" deal, which happened AFTER the 1984 election, where Reagan traded arms for hostages in Lebanon.

As president, he had every right and power to negotiate with other sovereign powers. So this isn't even an issue. The ban on arms sales to Iran (and keep in mind, we didn't sell them the weapons, the Israelis did) was an executive ban, which the president had a legal right to overturn, if needed.

To recap..the special procecutor had to stop because they found so much crap that it threatened the very foundation of government. The hostages were released 20 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated leaving little doubt that a deal had been struck. Reagan lied about it..hence the investigations.

He was caught.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]‪Telling Lies‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

He had no "right" to make special deals with anyone. Or fund terrorists secretly.

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if you were around in 1980.

I remember those events vividly. It was the reason I first became a Republican. Jimmy No-Nuts Carter milked the Iran Hostage Crisis to beat Ted Kennedy, but then looked wimpy and weak trying to get the hostages out. He tried a rescue mission that failed. At that point, the Iranian government moved the hostages around the country, putting the lie to the claim this was just some angry students who were protesting.

He fumbled and fooled around for nearly a year, and the Iranians finally figured out that they were being used to promote his political standing, and they probably decided to screw him just to screw him. (Keep in mind, he froze their assets and made it difficult for them to do business, and a lot of Iranians thought the US was the one that provoked Saddam into attacking them.)

So here they were, they could screw this little ***** who had been messing with them. Wouldn't need any nebulous promise that the other guy might sell me weapons in six years to want to screw him back.

They held the hostages until the last minute because at that point, they just wanted to stick it to Carter, and they didn't want to open a whole new set of negotiations with Reagan, who might actually have been the crazy war-monger everyone said he was.

Great joke people told in 1980. "What's black and crisp and glows in the Dark? Iran when Reagan's President."

Second point- you claim that the IC stopped because it might "undermine the foundations". Really? That's never stopped them before. He stopped because there was nothing to it, as even the MSM eventually admitted. Loon conspiracy theories does not equal a scandal.

Also, I ask again, how could Jimmy Carter been so ******* incompetent that Reagan and Bush could make this secret deal, and he could know nothing about it at the time?

Of course, Jimmy did blame Iran for his loss, not the double digit inflation, near double digit unemployment he caused to fight it, sky-high interest rates, gas lines, people burning our flag in contempt, run away crime, and all the other problems during his term.

 

[JoeB131]

And that's kosher?

There is now an international treaty that says spooks are welcome in every country?

Really?

I didn't know about that..got a link?

You don't know about a lot of stuff, and frankly, I don't have time to link corrections to your profound ignorance. Personally, though, I think your problem is paranoia, and we have medicines for that now. Avail yourself of some.

 

[Iridescence]

not so big a deal now is it? Compared to all this mess and the Bush years, yeah, I think I will take the President who lied about a BJ over the BS that congress, the senate, the president and the ineptitude of all these politicians.

Clinton is the only one worth a crap in I don't know how long.

If only he could run again... I wonder if people would put him back in considering less was spent his entire presidency than since...

Several years ago when Hilary first came into the limelight as his wife she made me cringe a little with her apparent abrasiveness but after having come to know her and her stances a tad better (as I don't faithfully follow politics) I admire her on so many levels. She is a force. *heart*

 

[Sallow]

Gee, I'm not sure if you are profoundly ignorant or just confusing similar issues or are just paranoid.

To recap. Accusations were made a decade after the fact that Reagan and Bush had conspired with Iran to keep the hostages after the election. It was sheer, unadulterated bullshit, but the Democrats insisted on a special prosecutor, who quickly determined it was bullshit.

This was quite different from the "Iran-Contra" deal, which happened AFTER the 1984 election, where Reagan traded arms for hostages in Lebanon.

As president, he had every right and power to negotiate with other sovereign powers. So this isn't even an issue. The ban on arms sales to Iran (and keep in mind, we didn't sell them the weapons, the Israelis did) was an executive ban, which the president had a legal right to overturn, if needed.

To recap..the special procecutor had to stop because they found so much crap that it threatened the very foundation of government. The hostages were released 20 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated leaving little doubt that a deal had been struck. Reagan lied about it..hence the investigations.

He was caught.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]‪Telling Lies‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

He had no "right" to make special deals with anyone. Or fund terrorists secretly.

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if you were around in 1980.

I remember those events vividly. It was the reason I first became a Republican. Jimmy No-Nuts Carter milked the Iran Hostage Crisis to beat Ted Kennedy, but then looked wimpy and weak trying to get the hostages out. He tried a rescue mission that failed. At that point, the Iranian government moved the hostages around the country, putting the lie to the claim this was just some angry students who were protesting.

He fumbled and fooled around for nearly a year, and the Iranians finally figured out that they were being used to promote his political standing, and they probably decided to screw him just to screw him. (Keep in mind, he froze their assets and made it difficult for them to do business, and a lot of Iranians thought the US was the one that provoked Saddam into attacking them.)

So here they were, they could screw this little ***** who had been messing with them. Wouldn't need any nebulous promise that the other guy might sell me weapons in six years to want to screw him back.

They held the hostages until the last minute because at that point, they just wanted to stick it to Carter, and they didn't want to open a whole new set of negotiations with Reagan, who might actually have been the crazy war-monger everyone said he was.

Great joke people told in 1980. "What's black and crisp and glows in the Dark? Iran when Reagan's President."

Second point- you claim that the IC stopped because it might "undermine the foundations". Really? That's never stopped them before. He stopped because there was nothing to it, as even the MSM eventually admitted. Loon conspiracy theories does not equal a scandal.

Also, I ask again, how could Jimmy Carter been so ******* incompetent that Reagan and Bush could make this secret deal, and he could know nothing about it at the time?

Of course, Jimmy did blame Iran for his loss, not the double digit inflation, near double digit unemployment he caused to fight it, sky-high interest rates, gas lines, people burning our flag in contempt, run away crime, and all the other problems during his term.

Oh there was ALOT to it. Even without the treason..Reagan violated the Constitution and the Law. The logical conclusion to the Iran Contra investigation was impeachment and removal from office. But Democrats being Democrats in the face of a popular President and with the Nixon debacle at their heels opted to make the President go on National tv and declare that he lied.

Which he did. And not very convincingly. He said he didn't "remember".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R67CH-qhXJs]‪President Ronald Reagan - Address on Iran-Contra‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[code1211]

Clinton was impeached for bullshit.

Reagan committed treason, violated the constitution and broke the law. No republican wanted him impeached.

Bush violated the constitution and broke the law. No republican wanted him impeached.

Republicans were rabid for impeachment..they got it..and couldn't remove him from office. Just like the last democrat they impeached. And over bullshit.

You really want to go there.

Reagan traded obsolete weapons to a regime in order to secure their help with securing the release of hostages from a third party after two of the hostages were brutally murdered. Legalities aside, he did what he did for the right reasons, trying to safeguard American lives.

That's an odd spin on what really happened: He sold arms to a terrorist-supporting nation and used those funds to illegally fund a terrorist group.

As I recall, yu're both right as far as you both go.

This is a good demonstration of how complex these decisions usually are.

In light of the intevening events, though, Reagan did what he did to accomplish what he did at a very low cost in treasure or blood.

If other Presidents had gotten these kind of results with these kind of costs, we'd be better off right now. And, oh, by the way, the entire world was terrified that the USA would stop liking them.

Today? Not so much.

 

[Sallow]

And that's kosher?

There is now an international treaty that says spooks are welcome in every country?

Really?

I didn't know about that..got a link?

You don't know about a lot of stuff, and frankly, I don't have time to link corrections to your profound ignorance. Personally, though, I think your problem is paranoia, and we have medicines for that now. Avail yourself of some.

Of course you don't have a link. Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Spies are universally subject to execution if caught in another country. That's why when GW Bush outed a CIA agent, effectively ending her career and exposing her to danger, he should have been impeached.

Which is also why you have to now resort to personal insults.

Arguing with adults is hard, ain't it?

 

[JoeB131]

Oh there was ALOT to it. Even without the treason..Reagan violated the Constitution and the Law. The logical conclusion to the Iran Contra investigation was impeachment and removal from office. But Democrats being Democrats in the face of a popular President and with the Nixon debacle at their heels opted to make the President go on National tv and declare that he lied.

Which he did. And not very convincingly. He said he didn't "remember".

Well, there were a whole lot of problems with that statement.

Keep in mind, Lawrence Walsh never brought charges against Reagan or Bush personally. He prosecuted North and Poindexter, not for trading arms for hostages (which, by the way, wasn't illegal) or even diverting funds to the contras (which might have been, but there was no evidence Reagan knew about that) but for lying to Congress. And although he won convictions for that, they were thrown out by higher courts because the two men had received immunity and he introduced inadmissable testimony to prove his case.

You See, Congress had given them immunity hoping they would break bad on Reagan. Instead, they admitted the possibly illegal Contra part of the deal was entirely their idea, and they kept Reagan out of it to protect him from liability.

Eventually, Walsh ended up prosecuting Cap Weinberger for lying because he said he hadn't kept a diary, but in fact he had taken meeting notes. (Weinberger, for those playing along at home, had opposed the arms transfer deal.)

I'm not sure why the "Nixon Debacle" would have discouraged them. They got a sitting president to resign, one who had been elected by 60% of the electorate. The padded their congressional majorities in 1974 and took the white house in 1976. Nixon was a big win for them. They'd have been happy to repeat it if they could.

The reason they couldn't was, at the end of the day, he wasn't acting out of selfish reasons. He was acting out of the best interest of the country, and to save American lives.

He wasn't acting out of personal gain like Clinton was. That's what made what Clinton did impeachable.