|

Obama’s “scandals” aren’t worse than Watergate or even as bad as Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair

reagan-206b41ed6f6695d6bff15b71830613ae5b82477d-s6-c10

Despite suggestions from such conservatives as Charles Krauthammer and Newt Gingrich to temper their rhetoric, more than a few Republicans these days are claiming that the so-called scandals that currently beset the Obama administration are the worst in American history.

Let’s knock down that nonsense with just two examples of past scandals, shall we?

For starters, the notion that Obama’s problems are worse than Watergate hardly merits discussion. Richard Nixon, after all, needed a presidential pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford, to keep him safe from criminal prosecution.

There is no evidence that Obama has committed any crimes, much less Nixonian offenses.

So, for our purposes here, let’s concentrate on the Iran-Contra scandal during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

This messy business, which first came to public light in November of 1986, involved efforts by certain government officials to secretly sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of seven Americans held hostage by Islamic extremists.

Eventually, the scheme was expanded to divert financial profits from the weapons deal to help fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, thereby circumventing a federal law restricting U.S aid to the Contras.

How deeply was Reagan himself involved in this stuff? Well, according to handwritten notes by then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, Reagan knew that an arms-for-hostages deal was in the works and knew that “he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn’t answer to the charge that ‘big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages'”

But when the arms deal was made public, Reagan went on TV and said that, yes, weapons had been transferred to Iran, but he denied that it was an arms-for-hostages arrangement.

A subsequent congressional investigation of the matter was impeded when large numbers of pertinent documents were destroyed or withheld by the Reagan administration.

Eventually, however, 14 administration officials were indicted, resulting in 11 convictions, some of which were overturned on appeal. And some officials who had been indicted or convicted were later granted presidential pardons by George H.W. Bush.

My favorite part of the Iran-Contra scandal was when Reagan addressed the nation on March 4, 1987, and said this:

A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake.

Imagine how the right-wing noise machine would respond to any similar statement from Barack Obama.

Or imagine the reaction if Obama introduced that confession with this kind of stuff we heard from Reagan:

For the past 3 months, I’ve been silent on the revelations about Iran. And you must have been thinking: “Well, why doesn’t he tell us what’s happening? Why doesn’t he just speak to us as he has in the past when we’ve faced troubles or tragedies?” Others of you, I guess, were thinking: “What’s he doing hiding out in the White House?” Well, the reason I haven’t spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion. There’s been enough of that.

Would remarks like those, if made by Obama, incite deafening calls for his impeachment? Of course they would. But hardly anyone called for Reagan’s removal from office, though he still had 22 months left in his presidency.

Today’s partisans who see Obama’s current difficulties as equal to Watergate and Iran-Contra, if not worse, simply don’t know their history. They may sense that Richard Nixon was an unsavory character, but their thoughts about Ronald Reagan are colored by notions that he was the patron saint of modern Republican conservatism.

Share:

3 Comments

  1. Brian Opsahl

    How many Marines were killed in Beruit…?
    911 3000 Americans were murdered …?
    Savings and loan scandle….taxpayers…?
    Iran/Contra….?
    how many Attorneys did Bush/Rove fire…?

  2. Carlos

    I don’t understand what the point of this story is. Yes, what Ronal Reagan did in the Iranian-Contra affair was despicable. What Nixon did was despicable. In my opinion, most of George W. Bush’s Presidency was despicable. So what?! Does that make any of the deceitful things that this President or this administration has done any better? When the best argument is that this President is not as BAD as that President, we are in serious trouble. The bottom line is that this President and his administration have proven that they are nothing more than a bunch of politicians–LIARS!

    Obama is no better or worse than Bush. The only difference is the ideology and the different sides they support. But at the end of they day, they both lie (or omit facts), they both craped on our constitution, both administrations were/are as transparent as sheet metal, and both administrations pursued their political enemies.

  3. Last evening on NPRs, Fresh Air, I heard an interview of Dexter Filkins. He wrote an article in the current The New Yorker magazine, about Iran and its role in the Syrian war and other revealing aspects of how Iran and Iraq have a cozy relationship. One that we aren’t being told about in our media reports.

    He was quite informative about how Iran is overcoming some of the restrictions that the West based sanctions are having on their country and what role Iraq and its new leader is playing in that assistance. It’s sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend type relationship.

    This author presented some new aspects of that whole middle east situation that made even Terry Gross question what she’s believed through the MSM, about the Syrian situation and the greater role that Iran and Iraq are playing in that very volatile part of the world.

    Here’s the link to an overview of the interview, but if you can access the audio, its very enlightening and provides a new perspective on what’s happening over there and who is playing who.

    I just used this old thread as it seemed appropriate for the message I wanted to post although I don’t want to label anything as a scandal so much as another point of view, one that we aren’t being told about and from a very legitimate source.

    We are lied to and deceived so much in our country not only by govt officials but the MSM, that in some cases is owned by corporations affiliated with the Military Industrial Complex.

    http://www.npr.org/2013/09/25/226104144/meet-the-iranian-commander-pulling-strings-in-syrias-war

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>