Kaliico-
Thank you for a reasoned response. However, I believe it contains errors in thought.
<<..it was still officials acting on what they
> thought were the best interest of the US and
> Nicauragua and in accord with the president's
> wishes...
nonsense. it was in violation of a law the boland amendment)
specifically passed by congress to prohibit the ensuing subversive activity, and represents a fine prima facie case for impeachment >>
> US officials may have legitimately believed they
> had to lie to protect national interests and
> live of our allies.
and i counter this with "aldrich ames legitimately believed he had to lie to protect national interests and the lives of our allies, and so does not deserve the life sentence he is currently serving for subverting the laws forbidding espionage." sounds rather foolish when rephrased, eh?
But may I suggest that violating the law, and acting in the interests of the US or those to whom we were allied are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is particularly the case with some of the dumb laws Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has passed. While I have forgotten most of what I knew about the Boland Amendment- although I put it in the category of Congress trying to unwisely micromanage foreign policy- I would cite the Church Amendment as case in point. This amendment makes it illegal for the US gov to attempt to kill a foreign leader. In the wisdom of Congress, it is better to go to war with a rogue state like Iraq, with all the attendant civilian casualties, than it would be to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Talk about nonsense! >>
Your comparison to Alrich Ames is absurd. Ames was not acting in what he considered to be the interests of the US- he was acting for the pecuniary interest of Aldrich Ames. His loyalties extended no further than his own material wealth. Nobody in the Reagan administration got rich out of Iran/Contra.
<<
> Of course, I too would share a sense of outrage
> if CIA operatives engaged in the murder of
> innocents or non-combatants. To the extent it
> happened, the facts should be brought to light-
> one wonders why this administration has not done
> so...
this is a bad joke. cia-paid mercenaries were bayonetting pregnant women, hacking them and their fetuses to death, and hanging them on fence posts alongside dirt roads in the nicaraguan backcountry, and you're "wondering" why "this administration has not" brought these facts to light? >>
I was referring to employees of the US gov, and I was reacting to your reference to an ex-agency employee having nightmares about murder in which he participated. You do bring to light one of the dilemmas of foreign policy: viz., frequently those with whom we are allied may not live up to our moral standards. I would repeat, if US gov employees were involved in activities you have cited, that should be investigated and brought to light. I am not sure Uncle Sam can be held responsible for the activities of every foreign asset with whom we forge a tactical alliance. It is a dilemma for every American involved in foreign policy decisions. I am not sure I see a good solution to it; I do not think you have pointed the way to such a solution. I repeat, the Oretegas and the Sandinistas were a gang of thugs guilty of mass murder.
> In the so-called scandals you refer to during
> the Reagan administration, nobody in the
> administration got rich.
please, read the public record before you make patently false claims
like this: one source is "the great S & L rip-off" by pete brewton, pulitzer prize-winning(?) reporter for the houston post (chronicle? not sure). although the title may be wrong, mr. brewton's research is right on target. he presents hundreds of footnoted references to prove his assertion that the S & L rip-off enabled by reagan's signing a bill authorizing dramatic changes in the u.s. banking structure (upon signing, reagan is heard on the news broadcast of the ceremony remarking, "gentlemen, i think we've hit the jackpot") is the largest net transfer of public wealth to private individuals in world history. >>
Hold the phone, bub. Would you kindly identify who in the Reagan administration got rich? Your little smear on RR suggests maybe he was the one. If that is the case, please provide your documentation: I'm sure it would be of interest beyond this thread. And if you cannot back up your smear, may I respectfully suggest you refrain from such innuendo. I think the record shows that people were able to use an idiotically designed banking system (designed during FDR's administration) coupled with the partial de-regulation of banking during the 1980's [long overdue] to enrich themselves by impoverishing others, legally in many cases. My point about members of the Reagan administration still stands, and you offered nothing of substance to refute it.
So, while I consider your post reasoned, it contains numerous errors- some quite elementary- and I deem it utterly unpersuasive.
Cordially,
Larry
P.S. A major flaw of the Reagan banking de-regulation was that it left the US gov. guaranteeing the savings of those who placed their money in yahoo banks. And of course, the transistion from a government controlled system- such as our banking was- to a free market system is frought with difficulty. |
