  |
Raibeart
Veteran
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 533
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: Re: To my fellow Conservatives... |
 |
|
|
| Mike wrote: | We all know there are many different areas of Conservatism, and I was just wondering what your political ideology is, specifically.
I am 100% Reaganite, I support his "peace through strength" policy, I wish for traditional morals to return to America (although by now I see that is a pipe dream), I feel the government is far too big, and I am very much opposed to Socialism. |
Oh the irony, the sheer irony.
| Quote: | Iran-contra affair, in U.S. history, secret arrangement in the 1980s to provide funds to the Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained by selling arms to Iran. The Iran-contra affair was the product of two separate initiatives during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The first was a commitment to aid the contras who were conducting a guerrilla war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The second was to placate “moderates” within the Iranian government in order to secure the release of American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and to influence Iranian foreign policy in a pro-Western direction.
Despite the strong opposition of the Reagan administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted legislation, known as the Boland amendments, that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras from Dec., 1983, to Sept., 1985. The Reagan administration circumvented these limitations by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras. Under Robert McFarlane (1983–85) and John Poindexter (1985–86) the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North. McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo.
In early Nov., 1986, the scandal broke when reports in Lebanese newspapers forced the Reagan administration to disclose the arms deals. Poindexter resigned before the end of the month; North was fired. Select congressional committees held joint hearings, and in Dec., 1986, Lawrence E. Walsh was named as special prosecutor to investigate the affair. Higher administration officials, particularly Reagan, Vice President Bush, and William J. Casey (former director of the CIA, who died in May, 1987), were implicated in some testimony, but the extent of their involvement remained unclear. North said he believed Reagan was largely aware of the secret arrangement, and the independent prosecutor's report (1994) said that Reagan and Bush had some knowledge of the affair or its coverup. Reagan and Bush both claimed to have been uninformed about the details of the affair, and no evidence was found to link them to any crime. A presidential commission was critical of the NSC, while congressional hearings uncovered a web of official deception, mismanagement, and illegality.
A number of criminal convictions resulted, including those of McFarlane, North, and Poindexter, but North's and Poindexter's were vacated on appeal because of immunity agreements with the Senate concerning their testimony. Former State Dept. and CIA officials pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contra aid from Congress, and Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary under Reagan, was charged (1992) with the same offense. In 1992 then-president Bush pardoned Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair. The Iran-contra affair raised serious questions about the nature and scope of congressional oversight of foreign affairs and the limits of the executive branch.
See B. Woodward, Veil (1987); T. Draper, A Very Thin Line (1991).
|
"traditional morals", what a hoot in relation to ole Ronnie Ray Guns, hahahaha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ah, he repeats Woodward and co. Next we will hear Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Kitty Kelly's viewpoints on Reagan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raibeart
Veteran
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatNeoCon wrote: | | Ah, he repeats Woodward and co. Next we will hear Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Kitty Kelly's viewpoints on Reagan. |
Oh, the above is all lies then re Reagan and the Iran/Contra debacle??? I await your rebuttal on the points raised above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mckmatt
Newbie
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 24
Location: VA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Why talk about Reagan now when it is a little late |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatNeoCon wrote: | | Ah, he repeats Woodward and co. Next we will hear Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Kitty Kelly's viewpoints on Reagan. |
There were many notable critics of the whole affair than any of the people you have listed above, namely Lawrence Walsh, the Republican special prosecutor who was assigned to the case. Here is a link to his final report:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
Reagan most assuredly was aware of the fact that his administration was in clear violation of the Boland Ammendment. Or, he had absolutely no idea whatsoever what was going on in his administration. Which of these two scenarios would be more F***ed up?
What is most distressing is that Ollie North has his own radio show now, and makes regular TV appearances. When instead he should be in his prison cell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Raibeart wrote: | | TheGreatNeoCon wrote: | | Ah, he repeats Woodward and co. Next we will hear Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Kitty Kelly's viewpoints on Reagan. |
Oh, the above is all lies then re Reagan and the Iran/Contra debacle??? I await your rebuttal on the points raised above. |
With all due respect, you missed my point. It was a vile, smart alec way to attack someones beliefs in my view. You don't offer your opinion on the subject, but rather quote verbatem someone elses opinion. Not to mention one extremely opposed to any republican let alone Reagan.(Edit)As far as a rebuttal? I have no interest in showing a rebuttal to Bob Woodward. I could quote for you Barbara Olson, Mark Levin, or Ed Meese on the same subjet if you wish? You see my point on this? Do you really want to sit down and discuss every questionable event in any presidency? We will be here all day and achieve literally nothing and frankly I don't have that kind of time or desire on my hands. I just hope you don't hold an ideological belief based on any candidate or presidency. Just my opinion.
Last edited by TheGreatNeoCon on Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | TheGreatNeoCon wrote: | | Ah, he repeats Woodward and co. Next we will hear Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Kitty Kelly's viewpoints on Reagan. |
There were many notable critics of the whole affair than any of the people you have listed above, namely Lawrence Walsh, the Republican special prosecutor who was assigned to the case. Here is a link to his final report:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
Reagan most assuredly was aware of the fact that his administration was in clear violation of the Boland Ammendment. Or, he had absolutely no idea whatsoever what was going on in his administration. Which of these two scenarios would be more F***ed up?
What is most distressing is that Ollie North has his own radio show now, and makes regular TV appearances. When instead he should be in his prison cell. |
I guess my argument wasn't so much the subject being discussed as much as how it was presented to someone that said they liked Reagan. Frankly I find it ridiculous to constantly harp after a President for questionable events during the Presidency. Should questions be brought up? Of course. Theres a specific standard set by both sides of the argument that seems unbreakable and it does become a major double standard in my opinion. I have my own views of Reagan(and no they aren't all good) and frankly some people love him so much it almost makes me ill, but I'm not about to attack someone's values because they like the man...even that much. I've read some preposterous praises, in my view, for Clinton. I think it would be innapropiate had I quoted a page out of Barbara Olsons book(s).
As for your question of which is more "F'ed" up. I don't believe either scenerio would be and I have my reasons. I do find it "F'ed" up that a known communist was heading a commitee discussing fighting none other than...communism. As for Ollie North? He probably should be in a prison cell, but considering the amount of A-holes they let go I couldn't care less at this point. As far as a republican questioning Reagans tactics? How is that really relevent? Any republican that probably agrees with Reagan on this subject is labeled as some kind of brownnoser or crook, anyways.
PS. I do appreciate you having your own views on the subject and sharing them with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I guess my argument wasn't so much the subject being discussed as much as how it was presented to someone that said they liked Reagan. Frankly I find it ridiculous to constantly harp after a President for questionable events during the Presidency. Should questions be brought up? Of course. Theres a specific standard set by both sides of the argument that seems unbreakable and it does become a major double standard in my opinion. I have my own views of Reagan(and no they aren't all good) and frankly some people love him so much it almost makes me ill, but I'm not about to attack someone's values because they like the man...even that much. I've read some preposterous praises, in my view, for Clinton. I think it would be innapropiate had I quoted a page out of Barbara Olsons book(s).
As for your question of which is more "F'ed" up. I don't believe either scenerio would be and I have my reasons. I do find it "F'ed" up that a known communist was heading a commitee discussing fighting none other than...communism. As for Ollie North? He probably should be in a prison cell, but considering the amount of A-holes they let go I couldn't care less at this point. As far as a republican questioning Reagans tactics? How is that really relevent? Any republican that probably agrees with Reagan on this subject is labeled as some kind of brownnoser or crook, anyways.
I would not be so fervent on the topic if it weren't for the cocaine implications. Read the CIA I.G.'s final report!
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/report/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | I guess my argument wasn't so much the subject being discussed as much as how it was presented to someone that said they liked Reagan. Frankly I find it ridiculous to constantly harp after a President for questionable events during the Presidency. Should questions be brought up? Of course. Theres a specific standard set by both sides of the argument that seems unbreakable and it does become a major double standard in my opinion. I have my own views of Reagan(and no they aren't all good) and frankly some people love him so much it almost makes me ill, but I'm not about to attack someone's values because they like the man...even that much. I've read some preposterous praises, in my view, for Clinton. I think it would be innapropiate had I quoted a page out of Barbara Olsons book(s).
As for your question of which is more "F'ed" up. I don't believe either scenerio would be and I have my reasons. I do find it "F'ed" up that a known communist was heading a commitee discussing fighting none other than...communism. As for Ollie North? He probably should be in a prison cell, but considering the amount of A-holes they let go I couldn't care less at this point. As far as a republican questioning Reagans tactics? How is that really relevent? Any republican that probably agrees with Reagan on this subject is labeled as some kind of brownnoser or crook, anyways.
I would not be so fervent on the topic if it weren't for the cocaine implications. Read the CIA I.G.'s final report! |
Oh, I know about the cocain implications. I've had some heated debates with some friends of opposing views. But the debates are all in good fun(although the topic is serious, of course). Frankly it would not suprise me if nearly every elected official we have is in the drug trafficing business(wonder why we can't protect our borders?). I'm speculating, of course and can't prove anything so I don't hold a firm opinion one way or another. Just a thought. I do appreciate your conversation, though. Very insightful with many valid points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatNeoCon wrote: | | Xerxes wrote: | I guess my argument wasn't so much the subject being discussed as much as how it was presented to someone that said they liked Reagan. Frankly I find it ridiculous to constantly harp after a President for questionable events during the Presidency. Should questions be brought up? Of course. Theres a specific standard set by both sides of the argument that seems unbreakable and it does become a major double standard in my opinion. I have my own views of Reagan(and no they aren't all good) and frankly some people love him so much it almost makes me ill, but I'm not about to attack someone's values because they like the man...even that much. I've read some preposterous praises, in my view, for Clinton. I think it would be innapropiate had I quoted a page out of Barbara Olsons book(s).
As for your question of which is more "F'ed" up. I don't believe either scenerio would be and I have my reasons. I do find it "F'ed" up that a known communist was heading a commitee discussing fighting none other than...communism. As for Ollie North? He probably should be in a prison cell, but considering the amount of A-holes they let go I couldn't care less at this point. As far as a republican questioning Reagans tactics? How is that really relevent? Any republican that probably agrees with Reagan on this subject is labeled as some kind of brownnoser or crook, anyways.
I would not be so fervent on the topic if it weren't for the cocaine implications. Read the CIA I.G.'s final report! |
Oh, I know about the cocain implications. I've had some heated debates with some friends of opposing views. But the debates are all in good fun(although the topic is serious, of course). Frankly it would not suprise me if nearly every elected official we have is in the drug trafficing business(wonder why we can't protect our borders?). I'm speculating, of course and can't prove anything so I don't hold a firm opinion one way or another. Just a thought. I do appreciate your conversation, though. Very insightful with many valid points. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raibeart
Veteran
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatNeoCon wrote: | | Raibeart wrote: | | TheGreatNeoCon wrote: | | Ah, he repeats Woodward and co. Next we will hear Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Kitty Kelly's viewpoints on Reagan. |
Oh, the above is all lies then re Reagan and the Iran/Contra debacle??? I await your rebuttal on the points raised above. |
With all due respect, you missed my point. It was a vile, smart alec way to attack someones beliefs in my view. You don't offer your opinion on the subject, but rather quote verbatem someone elses opinion. Not to mention one extremely opposed to any republican let alone Reagan.(Edit)As far as a rebuttal? I have no interest in showing a rebuttal to Bob Woodward. I could quote for you Barbara Olson, Mark Levin, or Ed Meese on the same subjet if you wish? You see my point on this? Do you really want to sit down and discuss every questionable event in any presidency? We will be here all day and achieve literally nothing and frankly I don't have that kind of time or desire on my hands. I just hope you don't hold an ideological belief based on any candidate or presidency. Just my opinion. |
I was merely using this source (there are countless others) to illustrate the sheer hypocricy of the "morality" of the Reagan administration on the Iran/Contra/Cocaine debacle. The sheer weight of evidence illustrates that Reagan knew what was going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hey, lay off of Reagan! He was "The Great Orator" and singlehandedly saved the world from Communism. He was also a great actor of the highest caliber.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Saved the world from *what*?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raibeart
Veteran
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | Hey, lay off of Reagan! He was "The Great Orator" and singlehandedly saved the world from Communism. He was also a great actor of the highest caliber. |
'course he was.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Didn't work  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
