surely..Nixy was a dodgy character.. I guess it was best for everyone that he had to quit. but there have been other dodgy actions by other ppl as well. One that my dem pals tell me about is the Iran hostage crises which was lengthened by George Bush, as his pal was running for whitehouse and heas on the ticket as the VP candidate.
I am sure that there are various skeletons in every government's closet worldwide. The question is, was nixy was a step ahead in terms of being dodgy though, or was he a step beind in covering it up.
he dinn execute the plan prolly cuz of deep throat..the source i mean..
kinda funny that slick willy was impeached due to deep throat too
surely..Nixy was a dodgy character.. I guess it was best for everyone that he had to quit. but there have been other dodgy actions by other ppl as well. One that my dem pals tell me about is the Iran hostage crises which was lengthened by George Bush, as his pal was running for whitehouse and heas on the ticket as the VP candidate.
[/QUOTE]
Well.... the Iran hostage crisis went on for as long as it did because of two words: Jimmy Carter. It ended for two words: Ronald Reagan. It is sort of amazing to me that the DEMs could attribute such power and skill to George Bush, Private Citizen, but then talk about how lame and limp he was once he assumed the reigns of power of the Presidency.
Now, the "scandal" I most remember in the Reagan/Bush years was the Iran/Contra affair. I watched virtually gavel to gavel coverage of the Congressional investigation of that one and was truly amazed at the thought processes and ingenuity displayed by the adminstration and the NSA in pulling that off. By the time Oliver North finished his testimony, many of us were truly convinced that we had one great team leading our country.
Imagine. Selling weapons at a profit to the US treasury. Then, pumping the price several times over before reselling to Iran which generated more profits to fund the Contras in Nicauragua. We funded an entire operation for two years using Iranian money and making a profit all at once. :biggthumb
looking at the Reagen right now, i suppose when he said that he had no recollection of certain matters during teh whole Iran Contra affair.. he was not lying... he really could not remember.
but going back to the hostage crises, wasn't GHWB running teh CIA then, and thus nor an ordinary mr citizen with no powers.
but going back to the hostage crises, wasn't GHWB running teh CIA then, and thus nor an ordinary mr citizen with no powers.
[/QUOTE]
No. Bush was CIA Director in 1976-1977. The hostages were taken on November 4, 1979. The election was in November 1980. Bush was private citizen Bush at the time in question and during the election.
interesting, i wonder why people insist that he rigged it so the hostages were nto released earlier to serve as an election boost for Carter. I may have to do some reading on that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
interesting, i wonder why people insist that he rigged it so the hostages were nto released earlier to serve as an election boost for Carter. I may have to do some reading on that.
[/QUOTE]
Uhhh... probably because it makes for a good story to tarnish the image of both Reagan and Bush and if you repeat a story enough times then some people will believe it.
The version I have heard which seems much more realistic is that *following the election *, the President -elect Reagan formed a team to negotiate with the Iranians through Algerian intermediaries. A deal was struck between election day in November 1980 and inauguration day of Jan 20, 1981 as follows: US releases frozen Iranian assets ($8 billion); Iran gets immunity from lawsuits; and the hostages are released. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention.
The grumblings from the DEMS was that the hostages could have been released slightly earlier (days??? Weeks???) after Reagan's team cut the deal if they had only clued in Carter and let him do the deal.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
And Reagan/Bush had nothing to do with the Iran-Contra Affair right myvoice.
[/QUOTE]
UTD: You really need to read all of my posts. I dealt with Iran-Contra above. As you will see, I have great admiration for the ingenuity and thought processes behind that operation.
You have great admiration for leaders who sold advanced technology to enemies of the United states which in the process broke treaties and put the creditability of the United States up to question, leaders that ignore it's own laws? "Many of us were truly convinced that we had one great team leading our country ."
Nixon also scuttled US-vietnamese peace talks...and Israel sold weapons to Iran through Pakistan as a way of preventing Iraq from winning the Iran-Iraq war...using many of the same people now designated as terrorists as middle men. Oh yeah Reagan also used the Saudis money on the contras....
Seperate discussion, though a very good one. Why should Pakistan be accused of selling nuclear tech or military tech when other countries have done so in the past with out any consequence.
Fraudia. Its simple. Understanding consists of a degree of acceptance of the other persons point of view. Btw an observation on gupshup: Unless you make your agruments personal, nobody attempts to understand your point. You arent an idiot. But you got the point i was making. If someone understood you, or say Malik was an idiot. That would consitutite accepting there is some validity to that point. Thus one could understand and accept to a certain degree that Malik was an idiot. Get it?
the word understand could be used in many different ways. understand and agree are still not the same thing
if you Person B says that person.A was an idiot. and explained why, I would understand why person B is saying it..maybe because he is, maybe because he is not but Person B has a chip on your shoulder, or maybe is jealous, or maybe he stole Person B's girl, or maybe he got an award person B was nominated for, or Person B has massive mistrust and misunderstanding.
I can thus understand why Person B would call person A, an idiot, but not agree with the outcome and/or the thought process that went behind that judgement even though I could understand the logic ( however twisted and misdirected I may think it was)
anyways, this could be an entirely diff discussion in general forum.