Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (126610)	2/12/2001 9:13:55 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

You are quite right, opinions vary. My own take is that the Boland Amendment was unconstitutional, and that the Administration had a moral obligation to the Contras. Further, by eluding the law through the National Security Council, the letter of the law was not broken, although the spirit was, of course. As for the arms trading, I honestly believe that Reagan did not see it as violating policy, since the rationale was to do it through the moderate faction in the government, and thus strengthen its hand. Of course, in the end, it was not appropriate, since it still provided an incentive for hostage taking, but the frustration level at not being able to liberate the Beirut hostages was high, and just the atmosphere in which mistakes like that are easily made........

To: Little Joe who wrote (126610)	2/12/2001 9:18:41 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The Boland Amendment Initially passed on December 8, 1982, this amendment to the War Powers Act of 1973, states that U.S. Agencies are prohibited from providing military equipment, training or support to anyone "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua." The literal purpose was to prevent any CIA funds or support to go to the Sadinista (rebels fighting against the communist Nicaraguan government). Congress felt this was necessary because the Reagan administration had pledged to support the Contras in their battle for freedom for their country. Unfortunately a very left leaning Democratic Congress prohibited the administration from continuing funding to support the Contras at a critical time. As it became evident this was a mistake, Congress repealed the Amendment and re-instituted the funding. ContraEventually the U.S. and Contra pressure resulted in democratic elections in Nicaragua. The actual wording of the Amendment was interpreted to disallow only U.S. Intelligence Agencies, thus allowing members of the staff of the NSC (which is not an Intelligence Agency of the U.S. government) to route funds to the Contras. A angry democratic Congress responded by attempting to prosecute Col. Oliver North, Adm. John Poindexter and others in a set of public hearings. North was convicted on a number of charges but finally exonerated of all but a minor infraction, Adm. John Poindextor (ret'd) was convicted of lieing to Congress. The Boland Amendment became law in a slightly different manner. On 10/20/83, it was passed as an amendment to the House Select Committee on Intelligence Intelligence Appropriations Act for FY 1984. The Bill became HR 2968, which became public law on 11/03/83. See also Presidential Directive of 1976, or Intelligence Authorization Act of 1981, the War Powers Act of 1973, or the The Hughes-Ryan Act. milnet.com

To: Little Joe who wrote (126610)	2/13/2001 12:39:23 AM
From: ecommerceman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Little Joe--Well, maybe there are Republicans out there who condemned Reagan for Iran/Contra (selling arms to the Ayatollah in exchange for hostages always seemed like a very odd thing to me), or for deficit spending, but I'll be damned if I ever met any of them. Most every Republican I know thinks that Reagan was a frickin' saint.... Maybe this is one of those things that just depends on what side of the aisle you sit on, but it always has seemed to me that Republicans are FAR less likely to criticize their leaders (unless they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar, ala Nixon) than Democrats. What do you think? ___________________________________ "no Republican who has ever condemned Reagan for egregiously breaking the law in the Iran/Contra affair, or believe that there was anything wrong with ol' deficit fighter never submitting a balanced budget to Congress." I think this is a bit strong. I know many republicans who did not like Iran Contra or the deficit spending. Many don't think he was very smart. However, they on balance feel that Reagan was a good president. How is this any different than the Dems. Little joe