Journalist Gary Webb Gets the Last Word in

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.

I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…

again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt. [/quote]

And who forced the C.I.A. to sell cocaine to these individuals?
[/quote]

No one. They made a choice to do so, and the people that bought it made a choice to buy it. Then the people that smoke it, made a choice to smoke it.

No one forced anyone here. That is why your implication that “the government caused the crack epidemic” is completely fucking moronic.

People wanted to smoke crack, other people (illegally and immorally) sold them the crack. No one forced anyone here. [/quote]

So, maybe I’m late to the conversation, but I’m not sure why it matters all the much that the C.I.A. had a willing pool of purchasers, unless the argument is that the drug laws are simply stupid and shouldn’t be enforced at all. No one forced the C.I.A to conspire with drug cartels to sell coke, but dealing is treated as a much more severe crime than using. Anyone associated with dealing should be prosecuted as long as the law criminalizes dealing, and, I would posit, especially if they are dealing while supposedly acting as agents on behalf of the American People because that is additionally a breach of public trust. I am not all the concerned with what people do in the privacy of their own home vis a vis drugs, but I am concerned that our intelligence agency is (or at least was) in the drug business apparently partnering with or providing aid to violent cartels.

[/quote]

The CIA didn’t “conspire to sell drugs.” The accusation is that they “knew that there was an arms-for-drugs shuttle and did nothing to stop it.” And why should they? The CIA is not a law enforcement agency.[/quote/]

It is against the law to know about a crime and not report it.

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

They choose the system democratically.

Actually no. They came to power in a violent revolution. The fact that they may have subsequently gained legitimacy five years later is neither here nor there. A violent, anti-democratic regime cannot gain legitimacy after the fact.

Whether you or the U.S. likes it or not should be irrelevant.

Actually you have that the wrong way around. Whether or not the Nicaraguans like their own government or not is irrelevant to the interests of the United States.

It is not the business of our country to overthrow democratically elected governments

Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do
so.

because it is not favorable to the U.S. business class or as you put it a “anarchic international political system”.

The fact that the international system is anarchic and lawless is justification in and of itself for dispensing with morality. The only consideration should be what is in the interests of the United States.[/quote]

Anti-democratic regime? Are you aware of all the anti-democratic regimes supported by the U.S.? Or is it okay as it may further U.S. interests?

'Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do so."

Even if the government was elected democratically by the people?

From the mind who brought you “blowback” and reasons for the atrocity that occurred on 9/11.

You must love the neocons…

[SexMachine]

It is against the law to know about a crime and not report it.

Actually no, apart from these unrelated exceptions relating to teachers reporting child abuse and so on:

http://www.criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html

It is not illegal for them not to report a crime.

Understand? Good. I’m glad we can agree that the CIA is not a law enforcement agency and that they were not required to report these alleged crimes that allegedly occurred 30 years ago and that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that could possibly be of any significance or interest to anyone today.

[SexMachine]

Anti-democratic regime? Are you aware of all the anti-democratic regimes supported by the U.S.?

Yes.

Or is it okay as it may further U.S. interests?

Didn’t I already answer that? Yes, it is okay for the US to support anti-democratic regimes when it is in her interests to do so. Particularly when the alternative is an even more anti-democratic regime that would pose a security threat to the US and her allies and destabilise the fragile balance of power. It’s called statecraft and geopolitics.

'Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do so."

Even if the government was elected democratically by the people?

How many times do I have to answer this? Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes it’s okay.

From the mind who brought you “blowback” and reasons for the atrocity that occurred on 9/11.

So the Soviet Union is not responsible for invaded Afghanistan and the ISI and the Saudis are not responsible for radicalising the Pashtun but the US is responsible for 911 because she indirectly funded Mujahideen years before the Taliban and al Qaeda even existed? You’re an idiot.

You must love the neocons…

No, the neocons are dilettantes. They’re Wilsonian idealists who subscribe to democratic peace theory. They’re also liberals are former Marxists for the most part like yourself. Not sure why you are trying to link me in with left-wingers.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It is against the law to know about a crime and not report it.

Actually no, apart from these unrelated exceptions relating to teachers reporting child abuse and so on:

http://www.criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html

It is not illegal for them not to report a crime.

Understand? Good. I’m glad we can agree that the CIA is not a law enforcement agency and that they were not required to report these alleged crimes that allegedly occurred 30 years ago and that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that could possibly be of any significance or interest to anyone today.[/quote]

My understanding is the CIA did not merely “fail to report,” they provided material support for drug runners; knowingly provided equipment used by the drug runners in their drug running; paid drug runners to run supplies to the contras; took active steps to thwart or interfere with the DEA from investigating these drug runners; that drug money was also used to fund illegal arms deals; and that there was a sort of drugs/drug money/arms/“humanitarian aid” smuggling ring that was all intertwined together. My understanding is that the evidence may have been disputed, but would likely support a jury finding of aiding, abetting, or conspiring with drug runners if believed. I am not sure why you want to give a government agency a pass for aiding and abetting drug runners.

The Contras, Cocaine, and U.S. Covert Operations

[theuofh]

The neocons are the ones who thought they could openly deliver democracy attached to the end a bomb and that they would love us for it. If that’s not idealism, I don’t know what is.

The realists understand that making the world friendly to America needs to be done sensitively and clandestinely, and the resulting friendships are usually temporary.

I never thought I’d say it, but at some point nuking our enemies and I mean killing them all indiscriminately, seems a sane solution. Defining enemy is the hard part.

[SexMachine]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

My understanding is the CIA did not merely “fail to report,” they provided material support for drug runners;
[/quote]

Yes, but the CIA was not actually selling or transporting drugs which was the accusation.

knowingly provided equipment used by the drug runners in their drug running;

The equipment provided was intended and was used to ship arms. Traffickers then using the same aircraft to ship drugs does not constitute direct involvement in drug trafficking. I’m not suggesting it wasn’t dodgy. The CIA is a clandestine espionage organisation - dodgy is part of what they do. Remember, this was a crucial period in the Cold War. Duck and cover and all that. Congress was tying Reagan’s hands and trying to crucify him. The CIA was the President’s only weapon against Soviet backed regimes in the US’s sphere of influence.

paid drug runners to run supplies to the contras;

Military supplies yes.

took active steps to thwart or interfere with the DEA from investigating these drug runners;

My understanding is they tried to get leniency for some traffickers who were facing prosecution. But regardless, they were not deliberately facilitating drug trafficking. You can see from Ollie North’s notes that they were concerned about the activities of their assets.

that drug money was also used to fund illegal arms deals;

That’s a pretty vague accusation. I’m not sure exactly what using “drug money” means. The CIA weren’t selling or profiting from drugs so I’m not sure exactly how they could be said to have “used drug money”.

And in relation to the legality of the arms sales; that’s what I’m referring to by Congress tying the President’s hands. All modern Presidents have used the CIA for this sort of stuff. Getting Congress to approach and fund such operations is fraught with difficulties which is why the President uses the CIA for such things.

and that there was a sort of drugs/drug money/arms/“humanitarian aid” smuggling ring that was all intertwined together.

All “intertwined” is a vague accusation. I am relatively familiar with the whole thing. I’ve heard Ollie North’s version of events and the accusations against him. The Dems launched investigation after investigation and ran Reagan through a shitstorm trying to throw him out of office. It went on for years. In contrast to the shit Obama has been up to in the ME, Iran-Contra is nothing.

My understanding is that the evidence may have been disputed, but would likely support a jury finding of aiding, abetting, or conspiring with drug runners if believed. I am not sure why you want to give a government agency a pass for aiding and abetting drug runners.

The Contras, Cocaine, and U.S. Covert Operations

I’m not wanting to give them a pass. My opinion is that the executive branch has so little leeway to operate that it’s inevitable the President has to operate like this. Reagan couldn’t get funding so he had to fund the whole thing outside of the budget and he couldn’t ship arms so he had to go under the radar. It’s these restrictions on POTUS’s ability to conduct clandestine ops that necessitates dodgy dealings. All Presidents do it - especially during the critical periods of the Cold War.

As I said, they dragged Reagan through the wringer over this and blew it way out of proportion. It was in US interests and it was part of a wider strategic effort that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I’m a foreign policy realist. What matters to me is results. The fact that Ollie North and co worked with dodgy people and…shall we say, “overextended” some laws to the point that their tensile strength was challenged, is very much secondary in my mind.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It was in US interests and it was part of a wider strategic effort that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
[/quote]

Meh. I don’t know. I’m not a big fan of the FSLN, but Samosa was a pretty big cock sucker and my personal opinion is, in the grand scheme of things, the local situation in Nicaragua had dick all to do with U.S./U.S.S.R. conflict. There would not have been an FSLN if Samosa wasn’t such a big cock sucker and the agencies involved broke a lot of laws and used up a lot of resources inserting itself into what was mostly a local issue backing guys who were mostly ex-Samosa thugs and criminals. I think our interests would have been better served letting the locals sort that shit out for themselves.

[SexMachine]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It was in US interests and it was part of a wider strategic effort that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
[/quote]

Meh. I don’t know. I’m not a big fan of the FSLN, but Samosa was a pretty big cock sucker and my personal opinion is, in the grand scheme of things, the local situation in Nicaragua had dick all to do with U.S./U.S.S.R. conflict. There would not have been an FSLN if Samosa wasn’t such a big cock sucker and the agencies involved broke a lot of laws and used up a lot of resources inserting itself into what was mostly a local issue backing guys who were mostly ex-Samosa thugs and criminals. I think our interests would have been better served letting the locals sort that shit out for themselves.

[/quote]

Some retrospective thoughts of a senior FSLN leader:

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/nicaragua/hostility.htm

The Sandinista regime was a disaster for the Nicaraguans. The FSLN ruined the country.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It was in US interests and it was part of a wider strategic effort that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
[/quote]

Meh. I don’t know. I’m not a big fan of the FSLN, but Samosa was a pretty big cock sucker and my personal opinion is, in the grand scheme of things, the local situation in Nicaragua had dick all to do with U.S./U.S.S.R. conflict. There would not have been an FSLN if Samosa wasn’t such a big cock sucker and the agencies involved broke a lot of laws and used up a lot of resources inserting itself into what was mostly a local issue backing guys who were mostly ex-Samosa thugs and criminals. I think our interests would have been better served letting the locals sort that shit out for themselves.

[/quote]

Some retrospective thoughts of a senior FSLN leader:

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/nicaragua/hostility.htm

The Sandinista regime was a disaster for the Nicaraguans. The FSLN ruined the country.[/quote]

The basic premise of your statement is that: (1) the country was not in a state of ruin during the 40 years of dictatorship before the revolution (i.e., that it was only “ruined” after the FSLN took power); (2) that the FSLN was the primary or sole cause of the ruin after the revolution; (3) and the fact that the U.S. poured $100s of millions of dollars into a bloody counter-revolution after the FSLN took power (and shortly thereafter held elections) was not a primary or contributing cause of the ruin. Without claiming the FSLN is blameless, I think its an oversimplification to stack it all on them.

Again, I’m not generally a big fan of Marxist revolutionaries, but my preference would be for the local people to solve their own local problems without a disproportionate amount of U.S. interference into what should have been matters of mostly local concern. I understand the counterargument that there was concerns of Cuban interference as well as the danger of regionally exporting revolution, but I think these concerns were largely exaggerated by guys like Elliott Abrams for whatever reason.

[SexMachine]

[quote] jjackkrash wrote:

The basic premise of your statement is that: (1) the country was not in a state of ruin during the 40 years of dictatorship before the revolution

[/quote]

I know Samosa was one of the worst human rights abusers in the region. I’m not arguing otherwise. However, as is so often the case the regime that replaced him was WORSE. The reason I linked to that particular article is because it referenced a senior Sandinista who acknowledged this fact.

(i.e., that it was only “ruined” after the FSLN took power); (2) that the FSLN was the primary or sole cause of the ruin after the revolution;

It certainly WAS the prime cause. I don’t think you realise how bad it was. There’s a good collection of scholarly essays here:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left.html

At the bottom of the page. I already mentioned the Miskito Indians, however human rights abuses against minorities was WIDESPREAD and SYSTEMIC. For example, one of the essays in the link above details how the Sandinistas were closely allied with Palestinian terrorists and how they(Sandinistas) bombed synagogues, murdered Jews and drove them out if Nicaragua after robbing them of their assets. This alliance with international left-wing terrorists is part of the broader geopolitical anti-American/anti/Western movement that Reagan was fighting.

(3) and the fact that the U.S. poured $100s of millions of dollars into a bloody counter-revolution after the FSLN took power (and shortly thereafter held elections)

The first thing the Sandinistas did when they took power was murder around 5000 people in a few months including many members of the clergy, human rights campaigners and trade unionists that they opposed. The elections were not held until 1984. By this time they had suppressed their opposition. The main opposition parties didn’t even participate in the election due to the suppression by FSLN.

…was not a primary or contributing cause of the ruin. Without claiming the FSLN is blameless, I think its an oversimplification to stack it all on them.

Seriously, take a look at some of the essays I linked. The Sandinistas were egregious human rights abusers - far worse than Samosa’s regime. Even Jimmy Carter knew what these guys were like but he turned against Samosa when footage of the murder of Bill Stewart came out.

Again, I’m not generally a big fan of Marxist revolutionaries, but my preference would be for the local people to solve their own local problems without a disproportionate amount of U.S. interference into what should have been matters of mostly local concern.

It could be argued in hindsight on practical and material grounds that it was not worthwhile, however as I said it was part of a broader strategic struggle against Soviet backed regimes, international left-wing terrorists and Castro.

I understand the counterargument that there was concerns of Cuban interference as well as the danger of regionally exporting revolution, but I think these concerns were largely exaggerated by guys like Elliott Abrams for whatever reason.

I think your views are clouded by the mainstream narrative which is the anti-American/Soviet narrative. Guys like Chomsky in particular heavily influenced what Western journalists and academics thought and wrote about events shaping the mainstream narrative. The reality is that anti-American regimes like the Sandinistas have been systematically whitewashed by left-leaning academics and the west who are little more than apologists and propagandists. However, serious scholarship on the subject reveals the magnitude of human rights abuses and the threat that international, anti-American left-wing forces posed at the time. The US was facing the prospects of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, was facing major terrorist threats with whom the Sandinistas were closely aligned and worked with and was facing the rise of radical, anti-American Soviet/Cuban backed regimes in Latin America - all part of a global, geostrategic war against the United States and her allies.

[theuofh]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The first thing the Sandinistas did when they took power was murder around 5000 people in a few months including many members of the clergy, human rights campaigners and trade unionists that they opposed. The elections were not held until 1984. By this time they had suppressed their opposition. The main opposition parties didn’t even participate in the election due to the suppression by FSLN.

Question:

In light of all this, why did Congress pass the Boland amendment?

…was not a primary or contributing cause of the ruin. Without claiming the FSLN is blameless, I think its an oversimplification to stack it all on them.

Seriously, take a look at some of the essays I linked. The Sandinistas were egregious human rights abusers - far worse than Samosa’s regime. Even Jimmy Carter knew what these guys were like but he turned against Samosa when footage of the murder of Bill Stewart came out.

Again, I’m not generally a big fan of Marxist revolutionaries, but my preference would be for the local people to solve their own local problems without a disproportionate amount of U.S. interference into what should have been matters of mostly local concern.

It could be argued in hindsight on practical and material grounds that it was not worthwhile, however as I said it was part of a broader strategic struggle against Soviet backed regimes, international left-wing terrorists and Castro.

I understand the counterargument that there was concerns of Cuban interference as well as the danger of regionally exporting revolution, but I think these concerns were largely exaggerated by guys like Elliott Abrams for whatever reason.

I think your views are clouded by the mainstream narrative which is the anti-American/Soviet narrative. Guys like Chomsky in particular heavily influenced what Western journalists and academics thought and wrote about events shaping the mainstream narrative. The reality is that anti-American regimes like the Sandinistas have been systematically whitewashed by left-leaning academics and the west who are little more than apologists and propagandists. However, serious scholarship on the subject reveals the magnitude of human rights abuses and the threat that international, anti-American left-wing forces posed at the time. The US was facing the prospects of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, was facing major terrorist threats with whom the Sandinistas were closely aligned and worked with and was facing the rise of radical, anti-American Soviet/Cuban backed regimes in Latin America - all part of a global, geostrategic war against the United States and her allies.[/quote]

[SexMachine]

What did Congress pass the Boland Amendment? Because the Dems wanted to stop Reagan getting involved in Nicaragua. Why? I don’t know. Because that’s what Dems do I guess. Make things difficult for Republicans. Or I guess you could argue they had some anti-interventionist bend to their foreign policy. But that doesn’t really hold water because whenever there’s a Democratic President they back his foreign policy adventures. Just party politics I suppose.

[SexMachine]

[quote]theuofh wrote:

The realists understand that making the world friendly to America needs to be done sensitively and clandestinely, and the resulting friendships are usually temporary.

[/quote]

US foreign policy should not be focused on “making the world friendly to America”. It should be focused on maintaining the post-war Pax Americana - a global military presence to uphold the balance of power in Europe and the Pacific; to assume the maritime surveillance role that Britain once fulfilled, to facilitate international trade, to secure energy security for itself and its allies and to suppress by any means necessary threats to the international order. All of this is dependent upon the dominance of the greenback in international trade and the containment or rollback of other great powers(China and Russia).

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It is against the law to know about a crime and not report it.

Actually no, apart from these unrelated exceptions relating to teachers reporting child abuse and so on:

http://www.criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html

It is not illegal for them not to report a crime.

Understand? Good. I’m glad we can agree that the CIA is not a law enforcement agency and that they were not required to report these alleged crimes that allegedly occurred 30 years ago and that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that could possibly be of any significance or interest to anyone today.[/quote]

I know the C.I.A. is not a law enforcement agency but they aided and abetted drug traffickers at the least. Does that not mean they are not partaking in the crime itself?

The fact that this may have occurred some time ago has a lot of significance today as it sets a precedent. If they can get away with this some time ago without any deterrence (punishment) then they can try it again without fear of reprisal.

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What did Congress pass the Boland Amendment? Because the Dems wanted to stop Reagan getting involved in Nicaragua. Why? I don’t know. Because that’s what Dems do I guess. Make things difficult for Republicans. Or I guess you could argue they had some anti-interventionist bend to their foreign policy. But that doesn’t really hold water because whenever there’s a Democratic President they back his foreign policy adventures. Just party politics I suppose.[/quot

The reasons don’t matter that much. the Reagan Admin. broke the Boland Amendment, plain and simple.

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Anti-democratic regime? Are you aware of all the anti-democratic regimes supported by the U.S.?

Yes.

Or is it okay as it may further U.S. interests?

Didn’t I already answer that? Yes, it is okay for the US to support anti-democratic regimes when it is in her interests to do so. Particularly when the alternative is an even more anti-democratic regime that would pose a security threat to the US and her allies and destabilise the fragile balance of power. It’s called statecraft and geopolitics.

'Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do so."

Even if the government was elected democratically by the people?

How many times do I have to answer this? Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes it’s okay.

From the mind who brought you “blowback” and reasons for the atrocity that occurred on 9/11.

So the Soviet Union is not responsible for invaded Afghanistan and the ISI and the Saudis are not responsible for radicalising the Pashtun but the US is responsible for 911 because she indirectly funded Mujahideen years before the Taliban and al Qaeda even existed? You’re an idiot.

You must love the neocons…

No, the neocons are dilettantes. They’re Wilsonian idealists who subscribe to democratic peace theory. They’re also liberals are former Marxists for the most part like yourself. Not sure why you are trying to link me in with left-wingers.
[/quote]
Yeah the neo-cons subscribe to democratic peace theory all the while they overthrow governments who are democratically elected.

The neo-cons are left-wing as much as Forbes is a left-wing mag. You are absolutely delusional.

Most people learn as a child it is immoral to steal from someone else by force. So it is absolutely wrong for the U.S. to overthrow a government elected by the indigenous people of that country to further the interests of the U.S. This kind of thinking is a main reason why there is such global hatred for this country. It helps to fuel terrorism against America. It was a main reason for the occurrence of 9/11. But dolts like you just shine it on. Your parents must be so proud!

[SexMachine]

Which countries that were democratically elected were overthrown by the neocons? I can’t think of any.

[SexMachine]

So it is absolutely wrong for the U.S. to overthrow a government elected by the indigenous people of that country to further the interests of the U.S.

So it was wrong to overthrow the Nationalist Socialist regime in Germany? Gotcha.

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

My understanding is the CIA did not merely “fail to report,” they provided material support for drug runners;
[/quote]

Yes, but the CIA was not actually selling or transporting drugs which was the accusation.

knowingly provided equipment used by the drug runners in their drug running;

The equipment provided was intended and was used to ship arms. Traffickers then using the same aircraft to ship drugs does not constitute direct involvement in drug trafficking. I’m not suggesting it wasn’t dodgy. The CIA is a clandestine espionage organisation - dodgy is part of what they do. Remember, this was a crucial period in the Cold War. Duck and cover and all that. Congress was tying Reagan’s hands and trying to crucify him. The CIA was the President’s only weapon against Soviet backed regimes in the US’s sphere of influence.

paid drug runners to run supplies to the contras;

Military supplies yes.

took active steps to thwart or interfere with the DEA from investigating these drug runners;

My understanding is they tried to get leniency for some traffickers who were facing prosecution. But regardless, they were not deliberately facilitating drug trafficking. You can see from Ollie North’s notes that they were concerned about the activities of their assets.

that drug money was also used to fund illegal arms deals;

That’s a pretty vague accusation. I’m not sure exactly what using “drug money” means. The CIA weren’t selling or profiting from drugs so I’m not sure exactly how they could be said to have “used drug money”.

And in relation to the legality of the arms sales; that’s what I’m referring to by Congress tying the President’s hands. All modern Presidents have used the CIA for this sort of stuff. Getting Congress to approach and fund such operations is fraught with difficulties which is why the President uses the CIA for such things.

and that there was a sort of drugs/drug money/arms/“humanitarian aid” smuggling ring that was all intertwined together.

All “intertwined” is a vague accusation. I am relatively familiar with the whole thing. I’ve heard Ollie North’s version of events and the accusations against him. The Dems launched investigation after investigation and ran Reagan through a shitstorm trying to throw him out of office. It went on for years. In contrast to the shit Obama has been up to in the ME, Iran-Contra is nothing.

My understanding is that the evidence may have been disputed, but would likely support a jury finding of aiding, abetting, or conspiring with drug runners if believed. I am not sure why you want to give a government agency a pass for aiding and abetting drug runners.

The Contras, Cocaine, and U.S. Covert Operations

I’m not wanting to give them a pass. My opinion is that the executive branch has so little leeway to operate that it’s inevitable the President has to operate like this. Reagan couldn’t get funding so he had to fund the whole thing outside of the budget and he couldn’t ship arms so he had to go under the radar. It’s these restrictions on POTUS’s ability to conduct clandestine ops that necessitates dodgy dealings. All Presidents do it - especially during the critical periods of the Cold War.

As I said, they dragged Reagan through the wringer over this and blew it way out of proportion. It was in US interests and it was part of a wider strategic effort that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I’m a foreign policy realist. What matters to me is results. The fact that Ollie North and co worked with dodgy people and…shall we say, “overextended” some laws to the point that their tensile strength was challenged, is very much secondary in my mind.
[/quote

Oh now I understand. It is okay for Reagan to break the law because the congress wouldn’t allow him to do what he wanted. He was forced to break the law.