To: D.B. Cooper who wrote (62206 ) 12/2/2000 11:20:32 PM From: blake_paterson Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625 otot Scumbria and DHaaland: Thanks for posting the excerpts, although not required. I asked the question because I am incredulous that Scumb hides behind this series of controversial events while trying to defend slick willy. He is ignorant of the circumstances and spouts spin words like "Iran-Contra" in vain attempts to defend the immorality of the current administration and its heir apparent. I refer to the affair as 'controversial events' because of the incredible misrepresentations by the media as to what was going on in Nicaragua along the Rio Coco. Why do I have this opinion? I was there; witnessed it first hand. 1980 and 1983. Taking care of the Miskito Indians and their combatants in wood shack clinics along the Rio Coco. Cared for hundreds of Indians who had been moved to relocation camps with only the clothes on their backs at the point of an AK47. The wives and daughters were raped and the men who resisted had their heads blown off like pumpkins in a back yard target practice session. Entire villages, missionary outposts and hospitals burned to the ground. Thousands died in the "relocation" camps. All in the name of Sandinismo, Internacionalismo, Marxismo, and Leninismo. Anybody who resisted the propaganda and horror, in either words, actions or body language was immediately and publicly labeled a contra-revolucionario. And hence the famous name: Contra. Bad things happened to you and your family, usually in the middle of the night, when you were labeled a contra-revolucionario. I saw it happen. Bilwaskarma, Bocay, Waspam, etc. The Cubans and Nicaraguans nearly wiped out the Indians as a result of fanaticism, revolutionary exuberance, and military and political incompetence. I only wish we had funneled more money to the contras. Did North lie? Possibly. Was it unethical to sell arms and siphon the cash to the Contras? Absolutely, if it actually happened. But worth the fight. A lot different than a President lying under oath during a civil rights suit in order to save his own willie, and thereafter flaunting the lie. One would have to be brain dead to not recognize that. Or an arm chair liberal drowning in ignorance. BP