Which Is Worse? That Reagan Knew About Iran-Contra, Or That He Didn't?

[CorpGovActivist]

That's the selfsame "rationale" that Bush is "articulating" in his press conference regarding the Iranian government's knowledge - or lack thereof - regarding the weapons being sent into Iraq.

- Dave

[whistle]

1. Is George Dubya now claiming he has Alzheimer's ?

[CorpGovActivist]

3. No, He's Asking the Rhetorical Question of Which Is Worse?

That the Iranian government - at the highest levels - knew that the weapons were being sent into Iraq, or that they didn't?

So, I'm drawing the parallel to Reagan's claims not to know what agents of his Administration were doing during Iran-Contra.

- Dave

[whistle]

13. I see, so is Bush suggesting that he plans to work closely with the Iranian

...government to stop this activity, or is he just going to order the indiscriminate bombing of Iran like he did in Iraq?

[CorpGovActivist]

14. Bombing Likely, But Watch the Speech Re-runs...

... he's essentially saying that it doesn't matter whether the Iranian leadership knew or not, they're still accountable.

By that standard, Reagan's claimed lack of knowledge wouldn't matter.

- Dave

[acmavm]

2. Reagan was so senile and out of it he didn't know what he knew

or didn't know.

I watched the Iran/Contra hearings.

[porphyrian]

7. Right, what's worse is that he was too gone to be held accountable for his crimes. - n/t

[jobycom]

4. Nice

:thumbsup:

[twilight_sailing]

5. Well done, CorpGovActivist.

[jwirr]

6. That he did not know would have been worse. That is what upsets

me about chaingangs shadow presidency. The constitution only allows for the vp to take over if the prez dies or is incapacitated. We have had two pug administrations who did not follow that. Instead of telling us that raygun was not capable of continuing as prez they just went on making decision for him because he was a popular figurehead. Now it looks like *ss sets around planning his next trip to the ranch while his administration has free reign. Some of us think he has gone back to drinking and drugs so he is not all that different from raygun.

Not only did the SCOTUS give us an illegal election result, now we have a shadow government. All of them are sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States. Bully for them, the traitors.

[Missy M]

8. We could ask Bush which was worse....

knowing there were no WMD's in Iraq and starting a war or blaming Iraq for 9/11 knowing they were not involved and starting a war?

[CorpGovActivist]

9. Exactly - This Rhetorical Framework Is Going to Boomerang...

... on them, "big time," I'm guessing.

- Dave

[twilight_sailing]

11. Good one too!

[Senator]

10. Reagan Quote (He claimed both - simultaneously)

(Yes, really.)

"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." -- Testimony to the Tower Commission (1987-03-04)

This has been the cornerstone of Republican "reality" ever since. The notion that not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.

--

[EST]

12. If the government knew, that implies agreement, even cooperation.

The only way a government can know everything is by having a spy in every bedroom and every boardroom and warehouse.

To my mind, it is worse if the government knew and either cooperated or did nothing to prevent what would be sure to a final reckoning. Of course, in real terms, it means nothing, because nearly every government on the earth has been guilty, at ore time or other, of either supplying weapons or facilitating the supply of weapons to combatants.

The real reason cheney-through * -has set up this dichotomy is, ultimately, his own criminal behavior-and that of congress, with the same question.

For anything that requires govt money and security to pull off, collusion is worse than criminal ignorance.