For want of a more snappy title:
Democrats Lie about Illicit Nookie;
Republicans Lie About Substantive Policy Matters
In the wake of the impeachment hearings, a person writes:
>
I have had it with this crap that lying is okay for Clinton because
its
>
only about sex.
>
Weeeeeellllll.........maybe not so much that "lying is ok," but that.....sometimes.....
"lying is irrelevant."
Certain lies.....in certain contexts...... (what am I doing??? I analyzed THAT whole thing on THIS web page! Go there, for the impeachment and lyin' stuff!!!)
Now, let me return to this particular tangent of "presidential lying," when and when it does NOT matter.
------------------------------------
There are certain facets of public officials I could care less about, whether or not it is "under oath."
Not to mention what a colossal red herring the whole "under oath" drivel is. First U.S. president to be deposed for anything like this while in office. Would have been fun to see how Ronnie would have behaved under oath...........
..............on the other hand, considering he was essentially
clueless on specifics concerning 95%
of his executive branch, he might have plausibly testified
"I don't know."
Sez a lot about a president who didn't even recognize several
of his current cabinet members, on
more than one occasion.
Ah heck, this is too easy a dovetail for the easiest point
of yours to address....the supposed great presidency of the poster child
for early senile dementia, Ronald Reagan. It is late, so this one
first:
> Tell me all the things that Reagan
lied about that had an effect on our national security
>and that compromised
the integrity of the U.S.?
>
If one wants to look at substantive actions "breaking the law," I refer you to the War Powers Act .
True, the relative constitutionality of WPA has been long
debated--nonetheless, it is STILL standing
law, never challenged in court for various
reasons.
<Oops, Henry Hyde imitation mode off>
The fact is, Reagan
either lied like a dog on national TV and press conferences SEVERAL
times
(and had major cabinet officials do the same)....OR......
.........he was so out of it, brain-dead, and/or incompetent he really didn't know what was going on.
In either case, the result was a complete bypassof the normal Congress-State Department-Defense Department troika in the promulgation of U.S. foreign policy.
Added to the War Powers Act previously mentioned was the Boland Amendment, which specifically forbade interference on the part of the U.S. government with "certain functionaries" in the Central American region.
Specifically, Nicaragua.
...remember Nicaragua......that country with the corrupt,
longstanding virtual dictatorship of
Anastazio Somoza....a dictatorship propped up by Unca Sam,
no less?
This was a consistent manifestation of the so-called "Kirkpatrick
Doctrine" of UN ambassador
Jeane Kirkpatrick....the essentials of the doctrine (in 25
words or less) are that "right wing
dictatorships are more likely to PEACEABLY evolve into democratic
institutions, than are left-wing governments."
(Unfortunately for Jeane, the right-wing dictatorships of South
Africa, the Philippines, and Chile
disproved this doctrine pretty soundly. All of them regimes
supported--quite strongly in the first two
cases---by Reagan)
And what of the stellar accomplishment of the Reagan
Administration.....the collapse of the
Soviet Union? Two accurate views:
1)
We are lucky, VERY lucky, that Yuri Andropov was already old
and
sickly
when he completely seized control of the Soviet Union in
late
1982.
Most competent foreign policy commentators (of both left
and
right wing
inclinations) pretty much agree that when Brezhnev kicked
off
in November
1982, the Politburo was so spooked by Reagan's
sabre-rattling
and endless "Evil Empire" BS that they chose the
most
hard-line,
draconian, cutthroat around. Andropov.
A former
highly decorated officer in the Red Army, the former KGB
head
had stated,
several times, that he would rather see the world
consumed
in ashes,
rather than EVER again see the Soviet Union be second in
power
to any
nation.
Was he
bluffing? The man who cavalierly authorized KAL 007 to be
shot
out of
the sky, and essentially said to the UN, and Secretary of
State
Schultz,
"Screw you, do something about it!"
Things
only got escalated with the "Star Wars" stuff in early
'83.
After the
fall of the Soviet Union, much data came out that so far
as
the Soviets
were concerned, we were mounting for a first strike,
and
that they
should retaliate big-time for any significant
provocation.
Fortunately, ol' Yuri kicked off rather quickly.
2)
The dissolution of the Soviet Union, what an accomplishment, what
a
good
thing. Sure. What is the better situation for the U.S. to be
in:
A)
Instead of dealing with a behemoth whose general patterns we
knew
from 40+
years of observation; whose hard-line leadership was
dropping
like flies,
replaced by fairly enlightened Gorbachev-ilk reformers;
we
instead
have......
B)
How many, two dozen new or reincarnated splinter nations? At
least
a half
dozen or so half the appealing combination of
shattered
economies,
plus large stockpiles of fissionable material,
plus
highly-trained
civilian technicians and military officers who are
either
starving
or haven't been paid in months. In short, the entire fabric
of
these nations
being torn asunder.
Personally,
I would be shocked and stunned if some U-235 or
Pu-239
hasn't
already made it to the hands of Muammar and Saddam (in
other
words,
fission grade Uranium and Plutonium)
2C)
One thing the Soviet Union did VERY well was contain
various
simmering
ethnic battles and such in areas under its control.
Bosnia.
Croatia.
Bunches of others. All which now are posing various
serious
risks to
global stability.
One thing you didn't bring up was the supposed wonder that
Reagan
inspired in the American economy during the 1980's. Of
course, very
little of that WAS due to:
1) President Carter's appointment
of Paul Volcker as Federal Reserve
chairman (over some significant Republican
opposition) whose
often-politically disastrous money supply
decisions were essential to
the eventual turnaround; and even more
importantly
2) That pesky Iran-Iraq War.
Pity poor Carter, who had to face a
fairly united OPEC during all of his
presidency, along with Oil prices
going through the roof.....and the various
speculators convulsing the
gold and silver markets during the later
summer and fall of 1980 as a
result.
And envy Reagan, that almost coinciding with his election,
a huge war starts in the Middle East,
betwixt two of the major oil powers.....a war that inspired
then to turn on the spigots full-blast,
driving oil prices way, way down, thus jump-starting the U.S.
economy, as well as that of
Britain (how convenient for Maggie Thatcher).
Pragmatically, that was the best reason to funnel arms to Iraq (the lesser power at the time), to keep the war (and cheap oil) raging on.
As a logical result of this oil glut, the economies of the
oil patch states (Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Alaska) went completely down
the tubes....some of which still haven't come close to recovering.
I heard all the time about the chaos the oil bust caused in
the Austin, TX economy.
On the other hand, the residents of those states were retarded
reflex votes for Reagan, regardless of
how his policies were shattering their economies....so screw
'em. If they were dumb enough to
keep moronically vote him in, let 'em go down in flames.
Everybody seems to whine about how many of Slick's cabinet
members have gotten into hot water
for taking Super Bowl tickets from chicken companies (though
imposing stricter and stricter ag
policies would show the "bribe" was pretty ineffective) and
in paying off former bimbos (a
la Henry Cisneros, best HUD secretary in history), but just
take a look at convictions of Ronnie-poo's buds in Iran-Contra:
The individuals charged and the disposition of their cases are:
(1) Robert C. McFarlane: pleaded guilty to four counts of
withholding
information from Congress;
(2) Oliver L. North: convicted of altering and destroying
documents,
accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in
the
obstruction of Congress; pension rightly stripped, restored
by Bush.
(3) John M. Poindexter: convicted of conspiracy, false
statements,
destruction and removal of records, and obstruction of
Congress;
(4) Richard V. Secord: pleaded guilty to making false statements
to
Congress;
(5) Albert Hakim: pleaded guilty to supplementing the salary of North;
(6) Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related
offenses
for failing to report income from the operations;
(7) Carl R. Channell: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud
the
United States;
(8) Richard R. Miller: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud
the
United States;
(9) Clair E. George: convicted of false statements and perjury
before
Congress;
(10) Duane R. Clarridge: indicted on seven counts of perjury
and false
statements; pardoned before trial by President Bush;
(11) Alan D. Fiers, Jr.: pleaded guilty to withholding
information
from Congress;
(12) Joseph F. Fernandez: indicted on four counts of obstruction
and
false statements; case dismissed when Attorney General Richard
L.
Thornburgh refused to declassify information needed for his
defense;
(13) Elliott Abrams: pleaded guilty to withholding information
from
Congress;
(14) Caspar W. Weinberger: charged with four counts of
false
statements and perjury; pardoned before trial by President
Bush.
At the time President Bush pardoned Weinberger and Clarridge,
he also
pardoned George, Fiers, Abrams, and McFarlane.
Note that the Weinberger and Abrams pardons
came right as Bush was
leaving office, nice cover.
You mentioned "compromised the dignity of the U.S." Lemme
see, what did ol' Ronnie do that made
us look stupid?
1) Kicked off the 1980 campaign in the cracker hamlet
of Philadelphia,
MS.....site of the cowardly traitor murders of the three civil
rights
workers back in the early '60s.
2) When he visited Germany in '86 or so, gave a speech
honoring the
actions of the buried dead at an SS cemetery. Boy, that
one went over
real well. I know some Jews who are still royally pissed
off at that.
Of course, dissing Jews and "coloreds" is de riguer for the Repubs.
3) Appoint a cavalcade of bumbling idiots to the U.S.
Courts of Appeals
and U.S. District Courts. There have been a slew of rigorous
analyses
done of "judicial quality" looking at judicial appointees from
Hoover
through Clinton, and without exception (though to varying
degrees),
Eisenhower, Clinton and Carter are given the best marks, and
Reagan dead
last (though JFK did a bad job, primarily by kowtowing to Senator
James
Eastland's and Senator Richard Russell's hick preferences down
South).
It did wonders for domestic and foreign prestige to see our
courts try
to reverse decades of social progress.
You also mentioned:
> Tell me about the bombing of
the Sudan pharmaceutical co. and
> the entirely ineffective
bombing of Iraq.
>
Interesting observation. If it was such a bad idea, why
did every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....not to mention Defense
Secretary William Cohen (who was, lest we forget, REPUBLICAN senator from
Maine, 1978-1996) heartily endorse the idea, and urge Slick to do it,
right
then?
Admittedly, he should have done it a week or two before, but we dunno what info he was getting from NSA and company. And it is a bad idea to let too much info slip, lest there be something important for the other side.
Who knows. I had only a puny "Secret" (compartmentalized
for nuclear engineering materials)
clearance, so I never got to see too much fun stuff that I
can talk about <B-)
The Iraq bombing got some strategic stuff, plus f---ed with
Saddam, which was probably reason enough....that, plus actually giving the
poor schlepps on the carriers over there something real to shoot
at, which in itself was also a good reason, I can attest.
Sudan? Hmmm, why would the JCS and SecDef bother to bomb
something in a
non-combatant country, for no reason? Figure it out.
Enough to ponder for a while, I reckon.
This page has had
hits since 1:00 A.M. Central, April 17, 1999