The Iran Contra scandal was a plan in which the United States government sold arms to Iran and in exchange US hostages would be released. Proceeds from these arms sales were then used to covertly fund the Contra resistance in Nicaragua.
Should Ronald Reagan have been impeached? First of all, he sold arms to Iran without Congressional approval. Reagan claimed to know nothing about the diversion of funds to the Contras. However, this is very unlikely. I believe Reagan approved this plan.
Should Oliver North and John Poindexter be in jail? Both North and Poindexter lied to Congress and destroyed documents relating to this scandal.
Did George H. W. Bush know? Throughout his presidency and vice presidency, Bush claimed to “not have been in the loop.” I find this impossible to believe as Bush is a serious foreign policy wonk.
Was Iran Contra more serious than the current case against the Bush admininstration?
Your questions could largely be resolved if the release of the Reagan papers, due about three years ago, had been allowed to proceed. The current administration discovered dire security risks associated with such a release of historical documents.
You are free to draw your won conclusions. I certainly have.
I should have mentioned that I believe Reagan should have been impeached. However, it probably wouldn’t have been the best political move. Reagan was still popular and obtaining a conviction would have been unpopular as well as putting George H W Bush in the presidency earlier. The Democrats probably didn’t want to run against an incumbent Bush who they believed was otherwise beatable in 1988.
It would have been nice to simultaneously impeach Reagan and Bush: Then Tip O’Neil would have been President.
Tip O’Neill was retiring right around that time, I believe.
Thing is, even if he hadn’t known or approved, it was bad for him-if he knew, or was involved, he committed treason. If he didn’t know about it, then he was frighteningly out of touch with his own cabinet members.
I’d almost feel bad seeing Reagan get impeached at that point, though, because it’s pretty clear the guy was losing his mental faculties late into his second term, and I think the blame lies primarily with those around him. Poppy maybe should have been roasted on a proverbial spit, and perhaps a good portion of the rest of them.
Perhaps when Dubya’s out we’ll get the Straight Dope on the matter.
I’m not defending anyone. But would you have preferred a SEAL team, quite pissed off, on the Gulf shores, with Airforce sorties flying bombing runs over Tehran? Those boys were coming home, and it was going to be the easy way, or the real easy way. I’m glad thing happened as they did. I thought things with Iran were shaping up, until the whole “axis of evil” speech was made. Pissed me right off.
The hostages which were released due to the sale of arms to Iran were in Lebanon (and Syria?). The Iranian government had strong influence with the organizations holding them.
The famous hostages from the US Embassy in Tehran came home within days of Reagan’s inauguration.
There are rumors, and a few collaborating facts, that the Reagan campaign was in contact with Iran and made promises if the Iranians kept the hostages until after the election. But the facts I have seen don’t yet meet the burden of proof in my mind.
So, a military venture to rescue hostages would have been into Lebanon and Syria, not into Iran.
As others have said, this won’t get moved into General Questions until the documents are released.
If by “within days” you mean “within MINUTES”, this is correct. Good stuff about the ''October surprise" here:
“…And why were planes loaded with American military equipment flying from Israel to Iran just after Reagan’s inauguration in early 1981 – a time when no American hostages were being held in Iran or Lebanon? Is it possible that the Reagan administration was arming Iran in return for a perfectly timed release of the hostages – only minutes after Reagan’s inauguration?”