How we judge Presidents!

"October Surprise"

Upon the death of the shah in July (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages' release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an "October Surprise"* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages' release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration's defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released. Under Reagan, the Iran-Contra Affair completes this story..."
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2021.html

Believe what you need to believe I guess.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You don't know what you're talking about. Taft tried to roll back almost all of TR's progressive reforms which led to the split in the Republican party and the formation of the Bull Moose party and the formation of the modern conservative Republican party of plutocrats.

You sir are an idealist with a lunatic fringe view of history. I don't know who's opinions on history are nuttier, you'rs or Dixies.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. Taft was perceived as a conservative, most of all by Teddy, and despite all of the truth in the world at his disposal, he never overcame the image. Even today, fools like you still speak incorrectly about him.
 
Dixie said:
Please tell us, when exactly was Reagan or Bush convicted of wrongdoing in Iran-Contra? Unless you are somehow arguing that people are GUILTY of crimes, even when a court hasn't found them guilty and there is no prosecution... is THAT what you are saying here?
Click to expand...

Did you actually read my previous posts? My criticism is that he WASN'T convicted despite all evidence showing that he knew what was going on. He lied when he was being questioned and then after the investigation ended, admitted what he did.

Do you remember Ollie North, Fawn Hall, and all the document shredding? If nothing illegal was happening, there wouldn't have been a need to do that, huh.

The Boland Amendment "outlawed U.S. assistance to the Contras for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, while allowing assistance for other purposes.[3]

Beyond restricting overt U.S. support of the Contras, the most significant effect of the Boland Amendment was the controversial Iran-Contra Affair, during which the Reagan Administration illegally circumvented the Amendment in order to continue supplying arms to the Contras, behind the back of Congress and the American public.

The Tower Commission... "main objectives of the commission were to inquire into "the circumstances surrounding the Iran-Contra matter..."

President Reagan appeared before the Tower Commission on December 2, 1986, to answer questions regarding his involvement in the affair. When asked about his role in authorizing the arms deals, he first stated that he had; later, he appeared to contradict himself by stating that he had no recollection of doing so.[63] In his 1990 autobiography, An American Life, Reagan acknowledges authorizing the shipments to Israel.

The report published by the Tower Commission was delivered to the President on February 26, 1987.

Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation during a nationally televised address from the White House Oval Office on March 4, 1987 and two other speeches.

He then took full responsibility for the acts committed:

"First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior."[68]

Finally, the president stated that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect:

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind."[68]

North and Poindexter were convicted but as befitting his status as the Teflon president, reagan got off scot-free, and Bush41 rode his coattails.

You and the other righties can spin these facts six ways from Sunday, but reagan aided an enemy and the law was broken, period. Don't even try to say that Fonda's stupid, treacherous comments reached the reagan level of deceit and illegality.
 
Yurt said:
it is worse....but that does not mean i said it was OK....are you going to now admit i never said that? collaborating with an enemy during a WAR is vastly different than doing something illegal, such as selling arms to someone we are not at war with. does not make it right, but to compare the two is a false comparison.

i look forward to you admitting i never said it was ok.
Click to expand...

I look forward to you showing where I actually SAID you did something rather than ASKED whether you thought what reagan did was okay.

Read carefully, yurtie, there's a big difference between asking and telling.
 
Crashk said:
Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages' release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration's defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.
Click to expand...

Indeed?
 
A big part of being president is about who you surround yourself with.... What the people around you do is a direct reflection on your presidency. Regardless of if you know what they are doing or not.
 
Jarod said:
A big part of being president is about who you surround yourself with.... What the people around you do is a direct reflection on your presidency. Regardless of if you know what they are doing or not.
Click to expand...

Very true, cabinets have been of great importance to presidents. Washington is said to have had the best cabinet of all, with Hamilton and Jefferson advising him (mostly Hamilton, but I suppose having Jefferson for a moderating voice was a positive thing). While having a weak presidency, himself, John Q. Adams was probably the greatest Sec. of State we've ever seen, and he made Monroe great, such as by authoring the Monroe Doctrine.

Meanwhile, Grant was doomed to failure by having the worst cabinet in history, and Harding's reputation has been severely damaged by having one similar to his. Jackson had a cabinet which was constantly embarrassing him (not that he needed its assistance), and Carter's was constantly infighting (which can be a good thing, but not when one wing of the cabinet takes over running the country every other week). JFK's cabinet also sucked, as Bobby undermined him from the Justice Department, and McNamara brought nothing to the table, harming his presidency and destroying Johnson's completely.
 
Yurt said:
it always amazes me how hackish people can be....at the time they were not our enemies, in fact....they were NOTHING like the taliban tribal group that took over in 1995

your ignorance is once again noted
Click to expand...
Actually they were our proxy allies in the cold war or more accurately we were their proxy allies in their struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually they were our proxy allies in the cold war or more accurately we were their proxy allies in their struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

:palm:

did i say they weren't? do you ever read what people actually say without interpreting it through your far left prism? you have distorted virtually everything i've said when you respond to me.
 
christiefan915 said:
I look forward to you showing where I actually SAID you did something rather than ASKED whether you thought what reagan did was okay.

Read carefully, yurtie, there's a big difference between asking and telling.
Click to expand...

no surprise you can't admit you're wrong, so you're going to hide behind your faux question marks....

Are you stark raving bonkers? It's not okay to "talk" to the enemy but it's okay to sell weapons to the enemy? Sorry yurt, I know you weren't political when all that was happening but reagan and bush broke the law, period. Look up the Boland amendment.
Click to expand...

all you have to do is read the sentence AFTER your first two statements (faux question marks) to know that you were really making a statement. but i will remember this because you do this to me all the time and accuse me of making statements when i ask a question. there is nothing to be sorry for IF you're just asking a question....but you already ASSUMED my position.
 
King of Kings said:
This is simply not true. Taft was perceived as a conservative, most of all by Teddy, and despite all of the truth in the world at his disposal, he never overcame the image. Even today, fools like you still speak incorrectly about him.
Click to expand...

Then please explain to me why Taft tried to undue most of TR's progressive reforms?
 
christiefan915 said:
Did you actually read my previous posts? My criticism is that he WASN'T convicted despite all evidence showing that he knew what was going on. He lied when he was being questioned and then after the investigation ended, admitted what he did.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did read what you posted... here, let's review that again...

christiefan: "we shouldn't BREAK THE LAW as reagan/bush did with Iran-Contra."

Then I asked you to show us where Reagan and Bush were convicted of wrongdoing, and you failed to do so.

North and Poindexter were convicted but as befitting his status as the Teflon president, reagan got off scot-free, and Bush41 rode his coattails.

You and the other righties can spin these facts six ways from Sunday, but reagan aided an enemy and the law was broken, period. Don't even try to say that Fonda's stupid, treacherous comments reached the reagan level of deceit and illegality.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter who else might have been convicted, your claim was against Reagan and Bush. Charlie Manson was convicted, that doesn't mean Ronald Reagan was guilty! You see, we have a legal system in America, and the notion that people are innocent until PROVEN guilty. In other words, people can't just be PROCLAIMED guilty because you are a pinhead who doesn't understand the law. People can't just be CONDEMNED as guilty because they have a different political philosophy than you.... that's how things go down in Iran and North Korea, but not here.

I never said anything about Jane Fonda, as far as I know, she wasn't ever charged with a crime either. Was what she did, despicable and harmful to America? That is a matter of opinion, just as people have different opinions on Reagan and Bush, and Iran-Contra. But none of them were ever convicted of a crime in a court of law.

North and Poindexter were convicted but....
Click to expand...

BUT... Oliver North's conviction was overturned on appeal. So are you saying our appeals process should be disregarded? That even when someone has a conviction overturned on appeal, they are STILL guilty, because YOU proclaimed them guilty? Again, this is something that routinely happens under rogue dictators and authoritarian regimes, not in the courts of the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
Reagan knew Iran-Contra was wrong. It's as much a part of his legacy as anything else he did during his Presidency.
 
Jarod said:
A big part of being president is about who you surround yourself with.... What the people around you do is a direct reflection on your presidency. Regardless of if you know what they are doing or not.
Click to expand...

then can we just go ahead and call Obama an illegal gun runner now?
 
Onceler said:
Reagan knew Iran-Contra was wrong. It's as much a part of his legacy as anything else he did during his Presidency.
Click to expand...

You've not proven that, and no one else proved that at the time... and they certainly TRIED to prove it. As I said, we have a legal system, it was applied to the Iran-Contra Affair, and neither Reagan or Bush were ever charged or convicted of a crime. They are only guilty in the minds of pinheads who want to IGNORE the rule of law.
 
Dixie said:
You've not proven that, and no one else proved that at the time... and they certainly TRIED to prove it. As I said, we have a legal system, it was applied to the Iran-Contra Affair, and neither Reagan or Bush were ever charged or convicted of a crime. They are only guilty in the minds of pinheads who want to IGNORE the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Reagan admitted that arms were traded for hostages, and that he was ultimately accountable for that (which is good on him, btw). It also doesn't help that his admin destroyed loads of documents related to the issue.

You don't have to be convicted to be guilty.
 
Onceler said:
Reagan admitted that arms were traded for hostages, and that he was ultimately accountable for that (which is good on him, btw). It also doesn't help that his admin destroyed loads of documents related to the issue.

You don't have to be convicted to be guilty.
Click to expand...

was clinton guilty of perjury
 
Onceler said:
Reagan admitted that arms were traded for hostages, and that he was ultimately accountable for that (which is good on him, btw). It also doesn't help that his admin destroyed loads of documents related to the issue.

You don't have to be convicted to be guilty.
Click to expand...

funny. we used to have a justice system in this country that had, as it's precept, 'innocent until proven guilty'. I guess some people would rather have people prove their innocence now.
so onceler, why don't you just go ahead and turn yourself in to the police today with a full confession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top