Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Neither of these hold a candle to Iran-Contra.
Reagan sold arms to Iran, who was under an embargo, and funded the Contras, a group of known terrorists, at the same time.
terrorists?
Yessir.
The Contras targeted and attacked civilian targets as a matter of course as part of a campaign of psychological warfare, including attacking hospitals and murdering children.
That makes them terrorists.
Is there something about the definition of the word "terrorist" that I'm missing?
I think it's a very interesting question. Most were very willing to crucify the President over Watergate. So what about 'Fast & Furious?' What do you think?
I see no scandal; I see yet another branch of the legislature more concerned with showboating than their JOBS. I note it has been Republican branches intent on finding 'contempt' & 'impeachment' despite reality, and the serious problems facing the nation. Useless critters are they.
To answer your first question, not yes but Hell yes!
Since the arms were brokered through Israel, they, not Reagan broke the arms embargo law and the money from the sale and used to support the Contras was not US taxpayers money as prohibited by Boland.
Try again.
CaféAuLait;5484887 said:Watergate was worse, though not as bad as the Bush admin lying to the american people with the fabricated "they have WMD's and we know where they are" BS to go to war with Iraq.
So all the DEMOCRATS that said there were WMDs in Iraq and or were making them were LYING too? Note they said such BEFORE Bush was ever elected, in fact in some cases YEARS before.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
All quotes prior to UN inspection, try again.
Now Obama has to hand over all his cabinet E mails to satisfy the scoundrel Issa and the propagandists. PFFFFT!! And no evidence of wrongdoing by the administration has been shown- the ex-chief of the ATF even said he never told them of this, and HE didn't know! Humbug! Just fear mongering BS...
I have already covered that several times in posts on this thread...
humor me then please.
I don't recall how the gop is being hypocritical here, by virtue of your posts.Is obama being hypocritical? Holder?
Because you are going after somebody who allegedly has committed perjury and should be strung up over a border agent being killed.
Marry that with Bush saying "I didn't know" with regard to lack of WMDs in Iraq and the free pass he was given - no investigation, no nothing - then I find it hyper hypocritical that some on the right are calling for Holder's head - the main plank being the death of a border agent - when there are 4500+ US service men and women dead over something that never existed. Not even going to mention the deaths of civilians and the wounded...
Knowing you, you will try and argue the minutiae of both cases, but on the whole, the big picture - to me - is the same: Bush - free pass; Obama: impeach/imprision/whatever
Seriously Trajan, how many threads on this board have neocon loons asked for Obama to be impeached, flung out of office, whatever...
There are just so many it is ridiculous. I thought the hate for Clinton was pathological...these past four years is a whole new level. And it is a type of person/poster too - uneducated, not too bright, think they know the law (not saying you are this type BTW - this is Stephanie, BIg Red, Mr T, - frickin loons)....
Providing weapons to the Mexican drug cartel in hopes that the resultant crimes would result in subversion of the constitution, resulting in the murder of a border patrol agent and hundreds of Mexican citizens.
Sure, it doesn't rise to the level of eaves dropping on your political opponent, but still......
...Obama and Holder have blood on thier hands.
No, they did not systemically do so, stop reading garbage.
and you should ask the UN, they still cannot define it....
A fact finding mission of 1985 sponsored by the International Human Rights Law Group and the Washington Office on Latin America, and carried out independently of any Nicaraguan government interference or direction - found that the contras with some frequency deliberately targeted Nicaraguan citizens in acts of terroristic violence.
An influential report on Contra atrocities was issued by lawyer Reed Brody shortly before the 1985 U.S. Congressional vote on Contra aid. It disclosed a "distinct pattern" of abuses by the contras, including: "attacks on purely civilian targets resulting in the killing of unarmed men, woman, children and the elderly; premeditated acts of brutality including rapes, beatings, mutilations and torture; and individual and mass kidnappings of civilians for the purpose of forced recruitment into the Contra forces and the creation of a hostage refugee population in Honduras; assaults on economic and social targets such as farms, cooperatives and on vehicles carrying volunteer coffee harvesters; intimidation of civilians who participate or cooperate in government or community programs such as distribution of subsidized food products, education and local self-defense militias; and kidnapping, intimidation, and even murder of religious leaders who support the government, including priests and clergy- trained lay pastors."
Similarly, Human Rights Watch pointed out that "the Contras systematically engage in violent abuses... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war" in a 1989 report.
Maybe now some Obamabots will see that 'Hope & Change' is Bullshit.
Get a grip you dopes.
Cops unfortunately get murdered every day..
I have seen no evidense that anyone in the ATF acted in bad faith.
Screwed up? Maybe. Commited a crime? Hardly.
Actually the one guy that should be in jail is the asshole that ratted out the ongoing sting and investigation.
Tipping off the criminals that thier weapons were being tracked was the only criminal element to the governments case against the ATF.
terrorists?
So the Contras weren't terrorists to the Nicaraguan people? They were freedom fighters right? As was OBL who wanted infidels out of Saudi Arabia? Who wanted the corrupt House of Saud put to the sword? Right?
Your deflections are wandering.
Since you brought it up, people went to jail in Iran/Contra. Why should this be any different?
terrorists?
Yessir.
The Contras targeted and attacked civilian targets as a matter of course as part of a campaign of psychological warfare, including attacking hospitals and murdering children.
That makes them terrorists.
Is there something about the definition of the word "terrorist" that I'm missing?
no, they did not systemically do so, stop reading garbage.
and you should ask the UN, they still cannot define it....
Get a grip you dopes.
Cops unfortunately get murdered every day..
I have seen no evidense that anyone in the ATF acted in bad faith.
Screwed up? Maybe. Commited a crime? Hardly.
Actually the one guy that should be in jail is the asshole that ratted out the ongoing sting and investigation.
Tipping off the criminals that thier weapons were being tracked was the only criminal element to the governments case against the ATF.
Get a grip you dopes.
Cops unfortunately get murdered every day..
I have seen no evidense that anyone in the ATF acted in bad faith.
Screwed up? Maybe. Commited a crime? Hardly.
Actually the one guy that should be in jail is the asshole that ratted out the ongoing sting and investigation.
Tipping off the criminals that thier weapons were being tracked was the only criminal element to the governments case against the ATF.
I am sorry, have you seen the Holder evidence?
You are guessing at this point.
Franco, do you REALLY think that eaves dropping on a political opponent is worse than supplying weapons to the Mexican drug cartel in hopes of subverting the constitution, resulting in the murder of a Federal Agent?
Are you really this much of a mindless, fucking hack?
And, um, who started that operation? Hint, it wasn't Holder. He put a stop to it. That aside, I actually think the premise behind the idea was not a bad one. If the Federal Agent had not been killed it might be interesting to see where it had gone.
That aside again, the chances of the person who killed the agent being armed at the time with a weapon from another source is very, very high...
Get a grip you dopes.
Cops unfortunately get murdered every day..
I have seen no evidense that anyone in the ATF acted in bad faith.
Screwed up? Maybe. Commited a crime? Hardly.
Actually the one guy that should be in jail is the asshole that ratted out the ongoing sting and investigation.
Tipping off the criminals that thier weapons were being tracked was the only criminal element to the governments case against the ATF.
So why is your Dear Leader claiming Executive Privilege? If him & Holder did nothing wrong, why not just release all the information tomorrow?
