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)