|
The brains behind October Surprise, Iran-Contra, the S&L lootings, BNL Arms-for-Iraq, BCCI and on and on is named George Poppy Bush. And eveb HE's a frontman for the BFEE, for lack of a better term, for the Secret Government hell-bent on turning earth into a feudal estate populated by 1 percent slaveowners and 99 percent slaves (minus the billions dead in WW4, so, as Poppy says, they shouldn't complain). Here's a nice recap (I'd swear you wrote this, Minstrel Boy!): A Brief Background on Iran-ContraThe actions of leaders long gone are the building blocks for present day society. One of the precepts that the United States stands on is that in theory, the Executive and Legislative Branches are a cohesive unit. The President and Congress, when in disagreement, formed a “modus vivendi” wherefore any issues that were in dispute could be reasonably settled. Congress would be a, “loyal opposition,” if necessary, but the President also realized that it was that body’s job to perform the, “governing the country.” (McFarlane, 1994, p. 357) Two “scandals” almost toppled the aforementioned pillar of United States power. The Middle Eastern country of Iran received, “arms for hostages,” and the money acquired by the United States for such sales went to Nicaraguan “Contras,” or, “rebels.” These two interrelated scandals had a further thing in common. Both went forward with knowledge of Executive Branch officials yet no approval by the Legislative Branch. One of the key “players” in the both “scandals” was the National Security Council’s Oliver North. (Fried, 1997, pp. 63-64) Reaching to the highest levels of government, North told Congress he thought, “he was acting under the authority of the Commander in Chief.”(Fried, p. 69)
The Key Figures Involved
Government officials from the CIA to the National Security Council to the Armed Forces participated in “Iran-Contra.” An issue, relating to the far reaching consequences of this, “scandal,” is not what they did, per se, but the fact that most of them got away with no jail time. Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinburger, the C.I.A.’s Duane Claridge and others were “pardoned” in 1992 by, “lameduck,” President, George Bush. It has been inferred that President Bush waited until after the 1992 election so this action did not hurt his re-election bid. (Fried, p. 72) The National Security Council’s Oliver North and Admiral John Poindexter served no time. The Court of Appeals ruled, “that their trials had been tainted by immunized testimony before Congress.” Their convictions were then "reversed." After all of the “pardons” were handed down and the court decisions were “reversed” the only “key figure” to go to jail was Thomas Clines, who worked for the C.I.A. (Kornbluh and Byrne, 1993, p.327) One figure in the “scandal” was Robert McFarlane. His involvement clearly points to the main issue of the entire “scandal.” The issue is whether or not the ends of an operation justify the means. “McFarlane is a patriot, quite different from the others. He has been extremely helpful and ought not be put in the same category. But he stepped over the line. He got too close to the flame.” These words were spoken by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh about Robert McFarlane. Walsh saw that even the motives of some of those who broke the law were not bad. The law however still had to be followed. The act that placed McFarlane in Walsh’s eye was the fact that McFarlane lied to Congressmen Lee Hamilton and Mike Barnes. He told them that his “N.S.C. staff” did not help the “Contras.”(McFarlane p. 355)
Iran Contra in 1988
The year 1988 did not include many new developments in the “scandal.” That Oliver North was “indicted” for the crime lying to Congress, placed 1988 in the limelight as a major year in the life of the “Iran Contra Scandal.” On March 16th of that year, North was charged with the crime. This brought conservatives together in a movement that peaked when they “petitioned” for Oliver North’s official pardon for his role in the “scandal.” People of such fame as Jerry Falwell rallied behind North and raised huge amounts of money on his behalf. (Fried, p. 145)
Public Opinion of the Iran-Contra Scandal Since 1988
Did the ends justify the means? According to Judge Lawrence Walsh, Independent Counsel, the overall issue in "Iran-Contra" was "respect for the rule of law." (Walsh,1997, p. 517) Polls conducted of the American public found that the majority opinion was that North was not "heroic." (Fried, p. 4) Another poll conducted found Ivan, a 25 year old conservative Republican, who said that Oliver North did an "admirable thing" but, "he took on more than he should have." (Fried, p. 93) As with most governmental affairs, if one gets facts to show one side of an issue, there are facts available to discount them. Others saw North's actions in the "scandal" cast into an "Enlightenment vs. Postmodern" debate with North playing the "Postmodern" actor. He was the weathered war veteran facing those (Congress) who did not understand the situation. North's proponents saw North as wanting to preserve "our American way of life."(Lynch and Bogen, 1996, p. 254) These same proponents saw that "the <'Iran-Contra'> investigation constructed an event." (Lynch and Bogen, p. 7) This event, thought pejorative by Congress, was to them, "compatible with the discourse of liberty." (Lynch and Bogen, p. 268)
CONTINUED...
http://www.ncs.pvt.k12.va.us/ryerbury/aaron/aaron.htm
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
