I even in this same paragraph praised and complimented you.

I never have hope you will become a conservative but of all the people here I have had hope that you will become a moderate liberal.

One can use name calling and not fall into the hate category but when the name calling is constant, fills a post and the tone of said post is one of utter contempt then there is not really many other adjectives to use to describe such actions but “HATE”

The original bill was signed with no problems. It had so many loop holes as to allow the president the flexibility to continue giving aid to the contras. Subsequent bills kept taking away those options with more and more resistance from congress. Until finally the president and Mr. North did what they did.

The President signed the original Boland bill with out any hesitation because of all the wink wink loopholes.

Just as this president was willing to sign the wink wink Immigration reform knowing that it actually gave this country MORE immigrants to deal with……..Not less.

While in this case yes. However I posted yesterday just two examples from two different webblogs which showed the hate is there. Because you do not see it you think its a figment of my imagination. Simply start visiting sites where posts like mine here have gotten me death threats. Literally people threatening to look me up and Kill me for my beliefs.

slight hint of “compassionate conservatism” lurking deep within the man who can’t help but grin everytime he speaks of another American Citizen being put to death by the State.

“whole lot of things”? I can’t wait. A homophobe with a body count and a proven lack of good judgement with “a whole lot” of other “things” to be chased out of the closet, destined for a news outlet near you soon? What’s next? Toe-tapping with Larry Craig? Juicy emails to and from Mark Foley?

These are more mild examples. The HATE ON BOTH SIDES IS rampant out there. That I choose to take the conservatives side here is because most of the commenters and posters are are left to far left.

Because the first bill passed was full of holes and quite honestly allowed for the president to continue giving aid thru the use of other means.

This oozes with contempt.
=============================
Now I get how you come to your claims about hatred and attacks on Christians. You see them in the blank spaces between words, where nothing is said and nothing is done.

If the blank spaces speak to you, that’s fine. Just don’t attribute what you see there to other people.

FYI, I rather liked Reagean for some qualities.
(He had a great sense of humor, for one thing.)

I’ve neither loved nor hated any president in office during my life time. I’ve liked some more than others, and I’ve disliked some more than others.
I see all presidents as people with a mixed bag of human traits and I vote according to the how those traits stack up against one another.

I didn’t buy into the JFK Camelot myth any more than I bought into the Reagan myth.
If I have contempt for anything, it’s for the need of people to have mythical idols to worship. but I don’t have contempt for the people who feel the need.

The internet is bringing every minute detail of all this to light instantly which is why GWB and friends are in such hot water and Ronald Reagan was not.

AGAIN..I am NOT defending Reagan or North on this just pointing out historical perspective which is what I do.

All people are forever caught up in history. A few, understand this. Most do not. The internet is a life changing Historical moment in time that will forever change the way business as usual is conducted in this entire world. You are fortunate enough to be living thru a second or third Great Awakening and most are clueless as to the event, the happening and the moment.

None more so then our politicians. The great thing about the internet will be the accountability it brings to government. In the end however there will be a backlash as it brings accountability to everyone.

Yet here was a president attempting to conduct foreign policy and once again the Boland Amendment was a continuation of the powers that congress continued to rip from the presidency after Nixon which continued in to the first few years of Reagans presidency.

Lost in all this is the fact that the Boland Amendment was rescinded and funding continued for the Contras. In 1990 the Sandinistas were voted out and thrown out of their country and a semblence of Democracy was restored to central America. Yet given a congress that was so preoccupied and terrified by their own president the country for awhile was incapable of fighting even a skirmish in Central America without resorting to trickery and underhand actions.

The internet is going to paralyze our nation and our congress. That is until those same people screaming (Left and Right) find themselves on the end of the massive invasion of privacy the internet is ultimately going to bring into their lives. Once the invasion begins there will be no stopping it. Then whose going to be assigned to watch the citizens?

Ask Fundamental Muslim nations. No one. They all live in a certain fear of doing anything because someone will find out.

Big difference is he didn’t do it – your GOP icon did! are laws somehow less important when Conservatives break them? All we heard was rule of law , rule of law during Clinton’s impeachment for perjury.

And remember, Reagan negotiated behind-the-scenes with Iran while Carter was still president, arranging their release to occur during his own inauguration to create glory for himself and maximum embarrassment for Carter.

I once again must point out that I am not defending Reagan or North only bringing into focus the historical events surrounding Shauns post.

if Carter had done it they would have considered it the highest act of treason.

Yes they would have. But do not forget that Jimmy Carter was willing to do just that to gain the release of the hostages held by Iran.

(also if a CIA agent had been outed in the Carter years there would have been Hell to pay for it.

Adm. Turner did just that with Carters Blessings. Turner eliminated over 800 operational positions in what was called the ‘halloween massacre’. Dozens of Agents lost their contacts, positions and years of careful cultivation of human intell.

So, OK – a tiny S.A. country is ruled by a despicable communist dictator.

You neglect other facts. Ortega had company, because Central America was made the object of Soviet aggression (so was the Caribbean, where Democrats like Ron Dellums really did a fine job on behalf of the Democrats’ reputation). I was living in Los Angeles at that time, and the Nicaraguan refugees I talked to were open about the presence, for example, of Soviet proxy forces in that country, including “los bucarenses” (from Bucharest, i.e., Romanian forces, was one group this couple had identified). These and others were on the side that the Democratic Congress preferred rather than the USA’s.

But hatred of Reagan, as with hatred for Bush, leads to avoidance of so many facts that discredit those hateful, often sick people, and instead to attacks on our efforts to control and contain adversarial aggression and theats, and defense of the truly aggressive and malevolent (because they oppose the US when a non-liberal is in the White House).

President Hussein calls for peace. Jan. 9: Iran mounts drive against Basra, reaching outskirts. April 23: Iran increases attacks on neutral shipping. Kuwait appeals to big powers to protect free navigation in the gulf. May 17: Iraqi missile attack on the Navy frigate Stark kills 37 Americans. July 20: U.N. Security Council adopts resolution calling for end to war. July 24: Mine damages supertanker Bridgeton in first U.S. Navy convoy for Kuwaiti ships. Oct. 16: Iranian missile hits the Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City. Oct. 19: U.S. forces attack two Iranian oil platforms.

Im not sure what point you are making about being in the Navy and patrolling this area. Thank you for your service but it was still necessary for the USA to protect shipping in the gulf. The fact that by the end of the war the f-14’s were mainly cannibalized means simply that the USA gave very little aid and comfort to Iran.

Now, excusing all of this as “the expedient thing” for Ronnie to do is your right. To accept a Marine Corps Colonel’s treason as perfectly OK is your right.

I did not defend anyone. I simply said it was the expedient thing to do to try and get the hostages released and to find funding to fight communism in South America.

Jimmy Carter tried to do the Expedient thing by approaching Iran and offering help in exchange for the hostages. I make no condemnations of such action. It would have required Jimmy Carter’s Ollie North to get this done and an American would have stepped up and done it. He very likely could have been a Marine Colonel.

Since you’re fond of Wikipedia.

Second, the United States explored whether the Iran-Iraq war would offer leverage with which to resolve the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In this regard, the Carter administration explored the use of both “carrots,” by suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iran upon release of the hostages, and “sticks,” by discouraging Israeli military assistance to Iran and suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iraq if the Iranians did not release the hostages. (Ultimately, however, Brzezinski does not suggest that the Carter Administration provided military assistance to either side).[2]

I personally prefer Zbigniew Brzezinski’s own account of this but then I would have to get it off my shelf and type it in manually and that would just be hard work.

From Shauns post.

For those of you too young or too distracted to remember, the Ollie North-Iran Contra affair is worth reprising in light of the CIA terrorist interrogation tapes scandal.

I attempted to present to those who really might not understand this era a simple context for which Ollie North was captured in US history.

Now somehow the war was launched with “Carter’s blessing.” Hoowee! Now there’s a good one! Can you back that (extreme) statement up?

According to then-National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, during the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the United States initially took a largely neutral position on the Iran-Iraq war, with some minor exceptions.

Those exceptions were that the Soviet Union massed troops along the border with Iran and Carter threatened to defend Iran if they invaded. The second exception was that Carter Administration approached Iran about help in lieu of garnering the hostages release. Smacks of Treason doesnt it? AFter all he would have offered to give aid and comfort to the enemy for the hostages release.

And of course, let’s not forget the chemical attacks by Saddam came in 1988 – after Ronnie and Rummie supplied the ingredients in 82-83.

In February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons. Despite repeated Iraqi denials, between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons

Never ceases to amaze me how the left twisted every detail trying to paint Rummy as this evil war meister.

Im not even sure where to start with your essay on the history of things during this time frame. Your account sorta strikes me as Mel Brooks the history of the world part one.

No where did I defend Ollie or Reagan. I simply tried to lay out simply for those who might not understand the context in which Shauns post was written.

I am still wondering what happens now in regards to the CIA tape destruction. Is there hope that some immunity might bring out testimony as to how high up the orders were issued?

Now somehow the war was launched with “Carter’s blessing.” Hoowee! Now there’s a good one! Can you back that (extreme) statement up?

I guess the 1974 Iraqi attack (during Nixon, btw) had nothing at all to do with anything. Neither did thousands of years of hatred and land grabs of the various governments and states of the region have anything to do with anything.

And of course, let’s not forget the chemical attacks by Saddam came in 1988 – after Ronnie and Rummie supplied the ingredients in 82-83. Yet again, some Democrats’ fault, surely. I love how your oh so moderate “history lesson” kind’a glosses over all this.

So, OK – a tiny S.A. country is ruled by a despicable communist dictator. Well, that’s bad! Of course it wasn’t new, since he had overthrown another nasty dictator of that contry to get there. Somoza. As president, Somoza “dealt ruthlessly with opposition. By the late 1970s, his regime was denounced by human-rights organizations and by the U.S. government, and support for violent insurrection spread.” Somoza fled Nicaragua on the eve of the Sandinista victory, and was assassinated in Paraguay. Don’t get me wrong, dictators are dictators, and sure, there are times when we need to deal with them – rationally, Constitutionally, and with the support of the US public and Congress.

Congress realized Reagan and his crew were attempting to secretly fund extreme right wing death squads, called the Contras, who were fighting the evil commies. As I recall, the US public wasn’t real fond of that group either, since they had credibly been linked to atrocities of their own. Well now, since the Constuitution says only Congress has the power of the purse, they attempted to cut off funding these groups with the Boland Amendment. Us being a nation of laws, and Ronnie being yet another “law and order Republican,” and Congress’ intent being clear, St. Ronnie followed the law and worked with the American people and Congress to figure out a better way, right? Don’t be ridiculous.

From Wikipedia, ’cause it’s easy and pretty accurate: “Members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the weapons to continue funding anti-Sandinista rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua. Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials. The affair is still shrouded in secrecy. After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. A week later, however, on November 13, Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.

Now remember Iran was at the time second only to the Warsaw Pact as national enemy numero uno. Their air force could not fly without parts for their F-14 fighters that we had sold to the Shah’s govt. Their capital naval vessels which we had also sold to them could not get underway without spare parts. These are the same aircraft and vessels that presented the single largest danger to US naval vessels guarding the tankers traversing the Straits of Hormuz against Iranian attack. I remember it well. I was on one of those ships.

Now, excusing all of this as “the expedient thing” for Ronnie to do is your right. To accept a Marine Corps Colonel’s treason as perfectly OK is your right.

Just don’t offer me your “history lesson” as fact, and don’t try to claim that such a skewed version of history is in any way representative of the center, or moderate.

The Dems made him a hero and established a successful military-conservative celebrity career for North. Talk about “blow-back”!

This oozes with contempt.

Bill Clinton and his teflon hide managed to stay in office because of an internet boom that created jobs at dazzling rates…..

This too oozes with contempt, even thought I did not say as much. What is implied is as important as what is said.

The man scheduled to testify against Hillary Clinton committed suicide days before giving what was suspected to be damning evidence against Hillary……yeah right he committed suicide.

Implied…….vs what was said?

What North did was illegal, involving deals with Iran!

My response to all this was:

No one was honest, no one was right

That’s the history in a nutshell.

This indeed has become a pandemic of idiocy by the left AND RIGHT who only want to cliffs notes history, context and events into neat little NUTSHELLS so that they dont have to really think about true meanings that dont jive with their convoluted concepts of events. Definition of convoluted………# Intricate; complicated:

Point out to me where I did name-calling.
Not buying into the REagan myth is not he same as denigrating him or calling anyone names.
Stick to reality.

What North did was illegal, involving deals with Iran!
Then he went on to be a hero to the Right.
That’s the history in a nutshell.

Darn it Doma you at times purvey a moderate stance but then revert back to your name calling far left ways. I never have hope you will become a conservative but of all the people here I have had hope that you will become a moderate liberal.

For those of you too young to remember let me refresh.

Iran and Iraq war began in 1980 and were gassing each other on the battle field. Using WMD’s. The world was petrified at this. Short of invading Iraq or Iran their was little we could do. The USA was guilty of giving Saddam Hussein weapons because if you remember in 1979 Iran fell to extremist Muslims and the country became a breeding ground for terrorism.

Saddam a Sunni Muslim had a mass hatred for his Shia brethern…….Iran and the war was on with Jimmy Carters blessing……..Yet another war started by a democrat that fell into the lap of a Republican…..WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq ring a bell? But none the less this war was not the USA’s war. But it was in fact a very troubling war because we even had to send ships to protect the flow of oil because Iran was attacking and sinking Oil tankers.

At the same time the middle east was in a new phase of terrorism. No more hijackings…instead they started kidnapping people literally for ransom. In the meantime far across the world a small country in Central America was suffering thru a terrible period in its history whereby Communism was attempting to take hold. A clear violation to all tenets of the Monroe Doctrine and the tenets that the Organization of American States was founded.

Something had to be done. In effect a congress greedy with an upcoming election and anxious to prevent the Republicans from keeping the White house kept the president at bay. Preventing him from funding the Contras or those rebelling against the Sandinistas communists in Central America. They also refused to give into any agreement that would allow the transfer of weapons to Iran who had just been guilty of 444 days of holding America Hostage.

So Ronnie did the expedient thing. He tried to garner release of captives from Muslim terrorists by funneling weapons to Iran paid for with cash that could then go to fund the anti communists in Central America.

So blame who you want. But it was a very serious time in the world and Ronnie was simply trying to get things done the way governments had always done things……under the table. Unfortunately it was during Ronald Reagans time as president that the FAR LEFT and the FAR RIGHT were born and the screaming began.

Thus ends your history lesson. Now the silly charges by the far left will begin as they cannot stand Ronald Reagan and anything to bad mouth is name will give them pleasure.

No one was honest, no one was right. It was how things had always been done in government until the far left was born to deal with the far right. Then all hell broke loose and its not been the same since. To understand this you would have to have another lesson in the founding of the neoconservative movement and the defection of Democrats into the Conservative fold to create a strange bedfellow called Neoconservativism.

A movement that wants to PROJECT power……NOT use it. Are you listening my fellow modern day NEOCONS??

As I remember, accountability was dead even then.