To: Dayuhan who wrote (13188 ) 10/6/1998 7:58:00 PM From: JF Quinnelly Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71178
No, the relative merits don't elude me. Iran/Contra arose out of Reagan's attempts to free Americans held by Iran, and to fund the Contras to prevent the establishment of a Soviet beachhead in Central America during the Cold War. Clinton was involved in a more fitting Presidential act, an Oval Office blowjob. The very report you cite makes it clear that it was certain individuals affiliated with the Contra supply who were smuggling drugs, and not the Contras as a movement. Moreover, the report makes it clear that the Colombian cartels were taking advantage of the situation to use the Contra resupply as a cover, and that they also had contacts with the Sandanistas and the communist insurgents in El Salvador. Much as Reagan haters want to pin drug smuggling on old Ronnie and his murderous Contras, it turns out that the drug smugglers were taking advantage of the situation for themselves. In LA we were treated to months of this stuff when some reporter at the San Jose Mercury promoted the idea that the CIA had backed drug smuggling for the Contras. Congresswoman Maxine Waters launched a Congressional inquiry. The LA Times launched an investigation. The LA Times, that bastion of right-wing fanaticism, exposed the story for the fraud that it is. As for Oliver North's involvement, anyone who reads the Kerry report for themselves will see that North wanted to use money that had been obtained by the DEA in a sting on the Medillin cartel; he wasn't promoting drug sales to fund the Contras, despite the spin of the Reagan haters. As for Clinton, I hope we defend the integrity of the courts. A great achievement of Western Civilization is the establishment of the rule of law. It was a great achievement to get rid of the arbitrary rule of kings, and to hold no one above the law. Bill Clinton lied under oath in the attempt to deny Paula Jones her chance for a fair trial. It's not surprising to me that a case involving sexual harassment, such as the one filed by Jones, involves testimony about sexual behavior. Apparently this comes as an outrage to Clinton's loyalists, who think he should be able to testify as he chooses, and if he finds sexual testimony too personal he should be able to lie under oath.