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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (9470)	12/16/1998 9:59:00 PM
From: Kaliico	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13994

Larry T. Sherwood... Please don't see this as a personal attack but let me clarify a few pionts for you. You wrote: > To my way of thinking, backing the Contras- and > the manner in which the Reagan Administration > dealt with it- did not represent official > corruption... well now, that's an interesting standard. what if we selected the standard of the u.s. congress? let's use... oh, what the heck: let's use a law passed by the u.s. congress that specifically forbade the provision of assistance to the cia-backed terrorist army, the contras (largely comprised of former members of the brutal national guard of overthrown nicaraguan dictator and -- need i even remind us all? -- former u.s. ally somoza (overthrown by the sandinista revolution after decades of brutal terror supported in full by the u.s.). then let's look at the reagan admin's efforts to break that law at a level unprecedented in our history, including the creation of a shadow government agency led by convicted felon and former candidate for u.s. senator oliver north. that shadow government has been thoroughly documented in two books: "cocaine politics", by jonathan marshall, i believe, and "dark alliance" by pulitzer prize-winner gary webb. note that gary webb's book relies heavily on the court transcripts of testimony provided by prosecution witnesses in federal drug trials wherein they acknowledged smuggling tons of cocaine into this country with the full knowledge of their cia and other government handlers. repeat: those people were testifying for the government. but don't take my word for it, nor even gary webb's word: read the sourced court documents yourself. they're all footnoted in his book. > ...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. the congress at the time refused to consider any action to attempt to impeach reagan at the time, cowards that they are. several individuals were accused, indicted, and convicted for their role in the illegal war on nicaragua. several of them as well were pardoned for their crimes by former cia director george bush. note, too, that it was bush who was brought in during the carter administration (if memory serves) to stabilize the agency when they were about to revolt after serious cuts in staffing by then-president carter. > 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? the only difference is that the crimes committed by "US officials" who "believed they had to lie" were on a scale virtually unprecedented in u.s. history, and compared to which ames' crimes are trivial in significance. > 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? here's something to quiet that inquiring mind: because terrifying the peasants in powerless, third world democracies is the job of the u.s. military: i.e., it ain't news, pal; it's just another day in the cia. > 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. trillions of dollars -- yes, trillions, with a "t" -- moved from the public sector to the private sector as a result of this law, and the actions of men like michael milken. Regards, MJY