merwin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:26 AM
Original message |
Why wasn't Reagan impeached for Iran-Contra? |
|
I'm not an expert on the subject. In fact, I don't know much about it. However, from what I do understand, it was determined that the president bore 'ultimate responsibility'. Source- Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra
|
Melodybe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:30 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Cause the media sucked then too. |
libhill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:30 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Don't know all of the details |
|
But, they used to call him "Teflon Ron" - nothing ever stuck to him.
|
punpirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:31 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Dems were afraid to go after a very popular... |
|
... two-term President; it was as simple as that. They let GHWB ("I was out of the loop") off, and left Reagan alone as long as they could throw the small fry into the pot.
From my reading, the guy most responsible for that was Lee Hamilton, the Indiana Democrat who was the real fixer in the deal.
|
kodi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Lee Hamilton let Reagan and his gang of murderers escape |
|
supposedly it was done for the good of ther nation which had gone thru watergate only a decade before.
Hamilton was wrong.
|
wicket
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
18. Reagan really wasn't as popular as he was made out to be |
punpirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-08-05 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
38. I don't dispute that at all... |
|
... there were plenty of people at the time who thought very little of Reagan (including me).
What I am addressing is the perceptions of the Democrats in Congress over how they managed Iran-Contra. Reagan should have been impeached, but he wasn't. Even after Reagan was out of office, Lawrence Walsh was after him and George H.W. Bush, too--and probably would have jammed them up, had it not been for some top Democrats, including Hamilton.
Cheers.
|
wicket
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-08-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #38 |
|
I was young at the time of Iran Contra, but looking back and reading more on it, the Dems really had nothing to lose by impeaching him. And they should have.
|
Jim Sagle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:33 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Because he was a Republican. |
lenidog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:36 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Yes Reagan accepted ultimate responsibility but he managed to weasel |
|
out of it by saying that he did not know what was going on. Basically he said that he gave the go ahead for the weapons sales to the Iranians so they would use their influence to free the hostages but he said that he never knew about the overcharging of the Iranians and then giving the money to the Contras. Add to that everyone else covered his ass by verifying that story even to the point of going to jail and they destroyed any records to prove otherwise. So in the end basically they knew he was lying but no one could prove it because there was no records and no witnesses. So no impeachment
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
The part that was illegal and therefore impeachable was the diverting the arms sale money to the Contras.
Reagan said he didn't know about that part.
Oliver North said he purposely never told Reagan.
Poindexter said he also kept Reagan in the dark on purpose.
No papers ever surfaced showing Reagan knew, so
No impeachment.
|
Protagoras
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
27. Plausable Deniability heaped on top |
|
of the fact that Reagan was beginning to get that rep as a Sleepy old man who fell asleep in meetings.
Reagan was the realization of Nixon's Imperial Presidency Dream.
|
Spinzonner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:36 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Dumbass in the Oval Office without a Clue |
BlueIris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
17. "Dumbass Without A Clue" is my new term for Regan. |
gumby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:43 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Because the Democrats covered it up. |
|
Edited on Tue Jun-07-05 12:49 AM by gumby
Just like they covered up the Kennedy assassination. Just like they covered up the assassinations of King and Bobby Kennedy. Just like they covered up the October Surprise. Just like they covered up Iran-Contra. Just like they covered up the Savings-and-Loan Scandals. Just like they covered up sooooooo many Republican scandals. Just like they covered up 9/11 Just like they covered up the Iraq War.
The ONLY thing the Democrats couldn't cover-up was Watergate. That is proof positive that Watergate was a right-wing hit. The "liberal media" didn't take out Nixon. It was the Military Industrial Complex Media that took out Nixon.
The Military Industrial Complex media was crowned "liberal" during that episode. The media was never "liberal" and now even struggles to post anything close to actual fact.
edit: to add more "Just like." The list is verrrrry long.
|
zann725
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 01:02 AM
Response to Original message |
9. His answer to every question n the Hearing was "I don't recall." |
|
Aparently it was obvious he may not have had a clue. (Early Alzheimers even then.)
|
merwin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
gumby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. Maybe Ronnie didn't have a clue at that time, |
|
but his political history was well established before his mental demise. He was indeed the 'Strict-Father' who ushered the Neo-Cons into power.
Check the names. It's like a recurring Cowboy/Military Movie bad dream......
|
orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. i heard somewhere, lately, that it was the neocons who |
|
basically ushered ronnie into power. he was their sucka like bushie is now.
|
Enraged_Ape
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
28. Three words: Sergeant Schultz Defense |
slor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 06:14 AM
Response to Original message |
14. Because it was "Morning in America"... |
|
Edited on Tue Jun-07-05 06:25 AM by slor
and the light of the rising sun, blinded the eyes of truth and justice.
|
sendero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 06:17 AM
Response to Original message |
15. A better question might be... |
|
.... how did Bush senior escape responsibility? Because he was right in the middle of it.
|
deutsey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 08:01 AM
Response to Original message |
16. By the mid-'80s the social movements and journalism of the '60s/'70s |
|
were defanged, marginalized, and muzzled. In my opinion (based on things I've read and observed) there was a concerted rightwing reaction that developed in the early '70s that successfully accomplished this by the mid-'80s (and is still doing it).
|
seabeyond
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 08:07 AM
Response to Original message |
19. because he slept thru all the meetings and didnt know what |
|
his people were doing, didnt you know
this is our greatest leader. can stay awake in his meeting in the middle of a day right
|
CitrusLib
(748 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
22. Was that where plausible deniability came in? |
RedG1
(389 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 08:08 AM
Response to Original message |
|
LMAO
(sowwy.....couldn't resisr)
|
demwing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 08:21 AM
Response to Original message |
21. Perhaps it was because Congress knew |
|
that Reagan was in early Alzheimer's, figured that a hearing would reveal such, and were convinced that we would all panic like a pack of monkeys frightened by a hungry tiger.
|
newportdadde
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 09:27 AM
Response to Original message |
23. I don't recall... I don't recall.... I don't recall... |
|
Believe he said I don't recall/remember something like a few hundred times during his interview/hearing..... but I don't recall for sure ;)
|
demokatgurrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 11:16 AM
Response to Original message |
24. Because the only impeachable offenses apparently |
Sir Jeffrey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 11:35 AM
Response to Original message |
25. A lot of people in his administration claimed he was out of the loop... |
|
And Ollie North took most of the blame as a "good soldier" always does for his commander in chief. Then the folks who would be facing jail time were pardoned before HW left office, if I recall correctly.
|
paineinthearse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message |
26. You're giving way too complicated answers. Simply put, impeachment |
|
...starts in the House and the rethugs controlled it.
Same situation we have today.
We MUST take back the House in '06.
|
merwin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
29. That seems like a logical answer. |
Imajika
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
|
The Republicans did not gain control of the House of Representatives till 1994. The Democrats controlled the House for 40-50 prior to that time. During Iran/Contra, I believe the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.
Imajika
|
merwin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
31. The final report that said Reagan was guilty came after 1994. |
Imajika
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
33. Yes, but Reagan was out of office... |
|
...for 6 years by that time.
How can it have been Republican control of the House that prevented his impeachment?
The Democrats held the House during Iran/Contra, not the Republicans.
The problem was that Ollie North somehow captivated the American public when he was brought before congress. Apparently the crisp military uniform excited Americans more than getting to the truth. Polls showed that Americans sympathized with North, and the Democrats lost any stomach for impeaching Reagan soon thereafter.
Imajika
|
paineinthearse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
37. My error. Thought Gingrich was in charge. |
|
So who were the House leader and chair of the HJC back then?
|
noonwitch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message |
32. A lot of the american public didn't really understand the issues involved |
|
And still don't. They thought it was just partisan bickering over which branch had which powers.
It was about so much more-bypassing congress to fund a war, thus getting around the War Powers Act. Selling weapons to terrorists (Iran) and using the funds to arm the Contras in Nicauragua, who were fighting a democratically-elected communist government. Fighting the Sandinistas also meant the contras had to get money from other sources, not just the US government, so they also sold cocaine. The Reagan administration instructed the DEA to look the other way when the contras brought cocaine into the USA. At the same time, Reagan had declared a war on drugs and was ensuring that american citizens were getting long sentences for the same crimes. Conservatives will deny the drug allegations, but all were proven in the San Jose Mercury Times.
Conservatives will also claim that Bill Clinton was involved because some of the cocaine came into this country through an airport in Mena, AK. Anything bad that happened in AK had to involve Clinton, in their minds.
|
dajoki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:28 PM
Response to Original message |
34. that's a good question |
|
i think it's because of what we recently went through with nixon.(impeachment fatigue). same reason why shrub is still around.
|
Lone_Wolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message |
35. Reagan was an airhead... |
|
He had no idea what his administration's policies were. His "staff" ran the show while Reagan was the public face. Just like his pre-acting days of being a spokesman for GE, he just said his lines and collected his paycheck. It is quite remarkable when you think about it, we were without a functioning President for eight years when Reagan was in office...
Like *, Reagan was very famous for saying some really stupid things when he wasn't being prompted.
|
htuttle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-05 12:51 PM
Response to Original message |
36. Because all the powers-that-be knew he was completely nutz by then |
|
If they had subjected him to having to provide more testimony, it would have been obvious that he didn't even know what day of the week it was anymore by that point. GHWBush had already been running the show for several years (probably ever since the assassination attempt is my guess).
|
NAO
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-08-05 11:53 AM
Response to Original message |
40. Reagan: "Peaches? Yes, I'd love some peaches. When I was a boy..." |
|
Reagan pulled that "I'm a poor, senile old man who does not know what is going on" crap to avoid impeachment. I think he should have been forced to EITHER step down due to mental incompetence OR forced to accept accountability for Iran-Contra and been impeached.
The depth of Reagan's treason - going around behind Congress, against their express ruling AND trading with an official enemy of the United States who was ALSO an officially named "State who sponsors terrorism" - is despicable.
Reagan was the most despicable POTUS ever. The fact that more people hate * only shows that Reagan was able to fool more of the people more of the time.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:36 PM
Response to Original message |