Talk:Iran-Contra affair

This entry seems too biased against Reagan. It should be edited.--Octaviohpaz 12:49, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The documents used to source the cocaine assertion don't really seem to do so. Should this be left in? --Dave3172 12:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be taken out then.--Octaviohpaz 13:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have reverted protions of this text. Page 11 pdf of the Christic Institute FBI/FOIA, for example, says this,

The information denied you from the following page was withheld by the Office of Independent Counsel /Iran Contra, Document no. 13

This is contradictory to the claim stated,

The Reagan Administration sought to hide evidence of its collusion in this illegal circumvention of a Congressional ban on arms support for Iran and the Contras by shredding tons of documents in violation of direct subpoena of these documents. Many details of the affair are still classified and the level to which money from cocaine sales in the US were used to fund this illegal war are shrouded in secrecy, though that this occurred is well documented by the FBI. RobS 23:59, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I took out some cocaine stuff, as well as the statement that the deal was "illegal". What law was broken? All this stuff was thoroughly investigated, and any claims of illegality should be documented. RSchlafly 01:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Added details of the various laws broken, mainly the export of arms act, with subsidiary obstructions of justice.

I think what has happened is a lot of stuff has been added to the original "Iran/Contra" story; the Contra's weren't the only group resisiting the Sandanistas, so any dope smuggling operation that either wasn't paying taxes to the Sandanista's, or was being hunted & pursued by the "official government" got twisted in the US media as being an Ollie North & Reagan cohort. Not very surprising at all. RobS 09:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

What details of laws being broken? Who went to jail for what crimes? Please document the illegality immediately, or I will remove the accusations. RSchlafly 11:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

This is moreless the Noriega connection they are referrring to. Noriega provided some assistance to various anti-Sandanista's, and of course there is some overlap between Noriega and elements in his regime with dope running. This scandalmongering was resurrected in 2004 because John Kerry chaired a subcommittee that investigated it in 1988 and found no connection between Ollie North's operation & dope running, but they tried to rewrite interpretations of the evidence just a few years ago. So yes, I think these claims can be safely removed from this page. RobS 11:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor and I have been having a nice little debate over at the Nicaragua article. There are some good sources on the illegality of the actions there. Wikinterpreter

Wikiinterpreter, after that entry, "democratically elected Sandinistas" [1], conventiently neglecting the lapse of five years between the Sandanistas violent removal of Somoza and the election it finally held, actions like that do absolutley zero to build credibility with other editors. Sorry, but you must now provide sources for any claim whatsoever on this subject; we simply don't have the time to chase after blatantly false distortions. RobS 11:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

This debate should really happen in the other link, but if you want to pursue it here, then fine:

'conventiently neglecting the lapse of five years between the Sandanistas violent removal of Somoza and the election it finally held'

The Sandinistas held an election five years after fighting against Somoza started -

'http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4293535-103677,00.html' - some evidence.

The UN, among others, backed them up, saying it was a free election.

Thus, it would seem fairly obvious to me that when the Contras forced them from power, the Sandanistas were 'democratically elected'. I don't see any other interpretation. Would you say that, for example, Iraq's new government wasn't 'democratically elected' - because it wasn't installed immediately after Saddam Hussein was toppled?

'actions like that do absolutley zero to build credibility with other editors'

Yes, I've always found that happens when I violently remove Somoza and hold elections five years later :).

'you must now provide sources for any claim whatsoever on this subject'

I'm not perfect - given enough time, I could cite all that stuff. Does this mean that I can delete any article that doesn't give citations? Because I think most of Conservapedia's '6500 clean, safe and encyclopedic' articles would disappear in that case, and other solutions reek of double standards.

'blatantly false distortions'

No ad hominem attacks, please. Anyway, I've found some sources - if you want to call them blatantly false distortions (some examples would be helpful), the burden of proof is with you to provide contrary evidence. Wikinterpreter

Just don't see what you claim here,

Nicaragua was recently ravaged by a civil war, between the Contra guerillas and the democratically elected socialist Sandanista government.

as having any relevence or honesty; and this claim, "The UN, among others, backed them up, saying it was a free election"

is total horse hockey. The UN is democratic? Pul-leeez.....

Let's go a step further to illustrate the bogus claim made here; I've read probably 15,000 articles since the year 2000 about how Jeb Bush stuffed the ballot box in Florida for his brother; now why should any weight be given whatsoever to a claim that a regime, which came to power backed by Cuba which hasn't had elections since Rover was a pup, somehow was "democratically elected"? Pure propagandizing. RobS 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

If the UN isn't seen as a reliable source, then what would you say is one? Anyway, the UN did back them up; it's factually accurate.

2nd point: your point is? They did have an election, which international observers said was not fraudulent. The Florida election, on the other hand, was said to be biased. Wikinterpreter

Hurrah for revisionist history!

So, According to Mr. Schlafly, "The Reagan administration cooperated fully with the investigation, and no wrongdoing was ever proved." So, if the administration cooperated fully with the investigation, why were so many people convicted of perjury? Including Robert MacFarlane? Perhaps you'd care to cite a source for this wonderful factoid. In reality, the Reagan administration did everything it could to conceal their wrongdoing, and most of the convicted perpetrators were later pardoned by George H. W. Bush, acts for which the words "conflict of interest" scarely cover, especially considering the evidence that later came to light of Bush's own involvement in National Security Planning Group meeting, which he lied about having not attended. --Abrown 13:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

If you want to put in some facts about MacFarlane, go ahead. There was nothing about him. I was removing some false allegations about others. MacFarlane wasn't even mentioned. RSchlafly 13:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused, how does the process of removing "false allegations" also include adding uncited lies? You removed a direct and cited quote from president Reagan proving he lied to congress about the affair, and added in its place the the line that "the Reagan administration cooperated fully" without any reference to factual material. I don't call lying at every opportunity full cooperation. You simply edit these articles to support your own twisted world view. You challenge others to cite sources or have the material they write removed, but it's absolutely fine for you to express your own unsupported opinion. --Abrown 13:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

if the administration cooperated fully with the investigation, why were so many people convicted of perjury? Including Robert MacFarlane?

This primea facia is a false claim. MacFarlane was not a member of the Administration when he was convicted.

I don't see where the Walsh Report has anymore weight in the history of the Reagan administration then the Starr Report has in the Clinton administration. RobS 14:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Hah, that's the most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard. Yes, he retired in 1986, before his conviction, but the crimes he committed were while he was National Security Advisor. This is exactly the reason I don't even dare to mention Poindexter, I just know that someone like you will point out his conspiracy conviction was reversed. Of course, what you'd fail to mention that the case against him was water tight, and he got off on a technicality. --Abrown 14:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so we can agree you exaggerated and distorted facts. Secondly, "I don't even dare to mention Poindexter, I just know that someone like you will point out his conspiracy conviction was reversed"; yes indeed, this and North's conviction being overturned are a BIG part of the story, how investigators and prosecutors renigned on promises and assurances to get them to testify in the first place. Yes indeed, this is a scandal, and we will report on it. RobS 15:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

crimes he committed were while he was National Security Advisor

You still haven't been able to cite a single claim for this other than perjury after he left the White House.

got off on a technicality, as Ollie North said, that "technicality" is called the Constitution of the United States (Fifth Amendment). RobS 16:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the Reagan administration cooperated fully, and Reagan was exonerated. If you have some facts, please present them. I think Reagan did admit to a misleading statement. Is that what you want to include? RSchlafly 14:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Your very own conservapedia commandments say you need to cite your source. Cite, or have your unsupported opinion removed.

I am not posting any opinion. I may have agreed or disagreed with Iran-Contra. There were thorough Congressional and criminal investigations. The opinion of a criminal prosecutor is only meaningful if it was proved in court. Go ahead and post what was proved in court, but do not post allegations that the prosecutor failed to prove in court. RSchlafly 17:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

If it isn't an opinion, cite a source. It's easy. Go on, even you can do it. Just fill in the citation needed tags. It'll take you five seconds, because clearly you're right, and I'm wrong. You clearly know so much more than everyone else on the topic. You're an expert. You wouldn't edit the article if you weren't. So, don't be greedy. Share the source of your insight with everyone else. --Abrown 17:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Abrown, what do comments such as above serve? Are you incapable of addressing the subject under discussion, so you turn your attention in an abusive manner to the person you are speaking with? What purpose does that serve? RobS 20:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Is that not obvious? I'm attempting to shame Mr. Schlafly in to realising his actions are hypocritical, in requiring a greater burden of proof of others than he does of himself. The easiest thing for him to do would be simply to back his assertions with testimony from a primary source. Unfortunately either he has no shame at all, or he has not the wit to realise just how hypocritical his actions are. I am certainly not willing to contribute to any discussion where the end result is not going to be a consensus, but simply whatever it is that Mr. Schlafly happens to believe. If the sort of edits that Mr. Schlafly made were made to the article by anyone else, they would be called vandalism and reverted. --Abrown 15:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, so when you no longer have facts to support a pre-determined point of view, you turn to insults. Thanks for clarifying that. I was fearful if somebody postulated that is often what happens, they'd be accused of being biased. But now we have your first hand testimony that is indeed what you intended to do. RobS 16:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

You're very good at putting words in other people's mouths aren't you? So, you believe Mr. Schlafly's version of events is the correct one? Then do the honest thing, and require him to support his point of view with a primary source or two. You say I'm not willing to support my view with facts, but I'm the only person who has edited the article to cite any sources at all. You may not agree with the conclusions I draw, but at the very least you could support the process instead of just pointing and laughing at anyone who might attempt to get Schlafly to follow his own commandments. --Abrown 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

No shame is needed. Of course there is a greater burden of proof for assertions of criminal wrongdoing. I hope that everyone will remove unsourced accusations of criminality. I am not going to prove that Reagan is innocent of every little wacky conspiracy theory that someone posts here. RSchlafly 16:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I am mainly asking that accusations of criminal behavior be specific and documented. RSchlafly 03:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Don Regan

Don Regan was a patsy. Regan seriously had no knowledge or role. VP Bush, as chairman of the White House national security management team, was placed over Regan and the National Security Adviser, keeping them in the dark. CIA director Casey didn't have to go through Regan to get to Reagan, he was in direct contact with VP Bush. When the story broke, it was Regan made the fall guy. In fact, it was VP Bush who was given authority to fire him, in so doing protecting himself.

My suggestion is to either downplay Regan in the Intro, or add further explanation. Regan is not even a minor player in a cast if thousands, and his name only adds confusion.RobS^{#NeverHillary} 19:15, 20 October 2016 (EDT)

IOW, what makes this unusual, in most administrations if a president wants to change chief of staff, the president would have to do it personally and directly, being there is supposedly no one in between the president and his right hand man, the chief of staff. VP Bush's efforts to fire him took three days, demanding, "The president wants your resignation." Regan argued Reagan would have to ask for it himself, but Reagan couldn't bring himself to hurt and betray a personal friend face to face. As recently cited in Nancy Reagan's obits, it was she who had to call Regan up after VP Bush told Regan several times, and tell Regan plainly to get the hell out-he was the designated fall guy for the activities of Reagan, Bush, and Casey, that Regan knew nothing about. [2].RobS^{#NeverHillary} 19:38, 20 October 2016 (EDT)