Oh, and qts, how did you feel about the kerfluffle made about Clinton’s blowjob? Should that have been quickly and quietly shut down, too, or did the Republicans pursue the proper character-showing path?
That was in many ways a mountain made out of a molehill :D. Clinton should have resigned On the other hand, he does have theexcuse that he’s married to Hillary…
Wow. A leap and a dodge. Impressive.
Could you comment on the impression I get that you think it would have been far more of a show of character for Kerry to allow the Iran-Contra thing to slip past under the radar, and why that shows more character than bringing illegal dealings by the executive branch of the federal government to the attention of the appropriate authorities as well as the electorate?
When did “look the other way” become a sign of character?
I agree…This whole democracy shit is way-overrated! If the executive branch wants to set up its own little government in secret to flaut our nation’s laws, more power to them! Now, that’s character! (And, certainly, we don’t need the public to know what happened…It’s all too complicated and over-their-head anyway. We don’t want to worry their pretty little heads over these sorts of things. Better they know the details about important issues that might influence their vote, like the President’s fidelity to his wife.) :rolleyes:
You might want to look at this Great Debates thread. (Although given some of your responses here, I am really not all that optimistic of getting a much more engaging response from you than we got from the OP.)
I think we all know the answer to that question – when George W. Bush was “elected” president.
Not any moreso than anyone with a 20+ year record as a legislator.
No, he absolutely did not. His conscience told him that opposing and ending the war was the best way to bring the boys home, how is that evil?
The Swift Boat Veterans are lying filth and their claims have not held up to the mildest of perusal. So why do you repeat their claims?
So in order to fight Communism, it’s okay for the president of the United States to violate the law? What sort of bullshit position is that?
Fight Communism, go America… but fucking do it within the law, or you deserve to be run out on a rail.
I’m not sure that you know much about Iran-Contra, since it seems inconceivable that one could support something that vile.
A summary - Reagan’s administration sold weapons to Iran, at that time one of the US’s greatest enemies (it was actually holding US hostages at the time!). The arms sales were illegal under US law and in violation of UN sanctions.
It used the proceeds from this to destabilize the democratically elected left-wing government of Nicaragua by funding and arming civilian-killing terrorists linked to the fallen Somoza dictatorship. This funding and arming was also illegal under US law. The CIA also turned a blind eye to the Contras’ sales of cocaine, including its importation into the United States. This was also illegal under any number of laws.
Selling weapons to fundamentalist nutjobs, funding and arming terrorists and allowing drugs to be sold all over the world, including in America. How the everloving fuck can you support this?
I guess you support violating international and US laws then, because, as Atticus Finch put it so much better than I could, that’s exactly what Iran-Contra was.
Read the book, * Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992* by William M. Leogrande.
(You know, that was a good book, I think I’ll put in a request from the library and read it again!)
Kerry being the initial whistleblower immediately changes me from, “Anyone but Bush” to “GO KERRY!!!”
A slight nitpick if I may: If you are speaking of the 52 hostages held for 444 days during the astoundingly inept Carter administration, they were all released and flown out of Iran on the day that Reagan became President.
As to the rest if your post, I imagine a lot of it is speculation or contains key omissions (for example, was the “democratically elected left-wing” government you spoke of truly elected voluntarily and without duress by the Nicaraguan population, or was it elected in the same way that Saddam Hussein won his elections? I don’t know for sure, but it appears to me this may be one bone of contention among those who wanted to unseat said left-wing government) but I’m no longer familiar enough with the issue to comment properly.
No, I’m not speaking of those particular hostages. I’m speaking of those held in Lebanon by groups that took Iranian money and orders, such as al Quds / Hizbullah. The aim of the arms sales to Iran was supposedly to free these hostages.
If you claim my summary is speculation or omits important information, feel free to point out specific flaws. The 1985 election, won by the Sandinistas, for example, was said to be imperfect but still “fair” by a group of international observers including a Brit, Lord Chitnis. The US government objected to it, however, but we know their political stance on this issue. Please note that the Sandinistas are still the second most popular political party in Nicaragua and are still led by Ortega.
Thank you. I had forgotten about them. (Like I said, I’ve forgotten much about that episode. 
No, nothing in particular. I’m just aware that things are rarely that cut and dried regarding elections in that part of the world.
Nothing against you personally, but I’m not that great a believer in the opinions of “international observers” these days. They have their agendas too, as we’ve seen regarding Iraq.
Noted. Thanks.
That’s not what I said. The affair should not have become public. Kerry should have put his country before his own personal advancement, but still closed it down. A quiet word with the President … Sometimes governments need to act illegally.
Actually the insults are in a way warranted, as Bush has done a lot of things to provoke such a reaction. That also makes the “he’s not Bush” stance viable - normally it wouldn’t be, you’re right. It’s sad that this, Kerry not being Bush, has become an important issue, but it’s Bush’s own fault for creating that situation. I probably don’t have to list Bush’s transgressions again, they are all over the board and well known by now.
Certainly, I and a lot of other people commend Bush for dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 in a resolute way and getting rid of a dictator is a plus too. But I couldn’t ever vote on good conscience for a man, who’d most likely be in jail if he were Joe Average instead of the president of the USA. Violating the constitution and starting wars of aggression is an instant disqualification to me, no matter how good your track record is.
Funny thing, I just listed that as a reason for instant disqualification, but if that’s your opinion, then it’s no wonder you’re fond of Bush. I tend to disagree though, once governments start acting illegally, it’s time for the population to legally overthrow them.
If you read the Iran-Contra link it explains the lead-in to BCCI:
Do you really still believe it was “more an attempt to discredit than do good”?
Train-wreck? What train-wreck? That train still runs through this current admin:
Abrams and his gang got away with it, and use that as a rationale for “a fabulous achievement”.
Funny you mention this, because this appeared in The Guardian rather than the US media:
Bolding mine.
Never. Ever. Not in any country in which I would want to live.
In this country, the people have a right to know when our government is selling weapons to our enemies and helping to put cocaine on our streets. But since you say things like this…
… it’s clear you either don’t understand democracy (which requires that government be under the Rule of Law), or you just don’t give a shit.
In this country, nobody is above the law. Are U.K. citizens allowed to perform illegal actions if they are members of the government?
I was amazed before Sept 11 that people somehow defended the Reagan admin selling arms to terrorists. It’s beyond belief that people continue to defend it now.
I have to hand it to truly genius GOP spin doctors. I cannot even imagine what would have happened to a dem president who was caught arming terrorists. Hell, they can’t even get away with lying about a blowjob without getting impeached.