history : "US PRESIDENT REAGAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED" DO YOU AGREE? [+] serious ballot by xxxxxxxx created Tue Jul 11, 06 Reagan’s master plan was to sell arms to Iran… the war with Iraq gave Iran an insatiable appetite for American arms and ammunition… The bonus was that the Iranians were willing to pay double and triple the value of the weapons; the profits would be diverted to the Contras in Nicaragua and provide them with a permanent source of funding. Long-term funding, in fact, as Reagan was simultaneously supplying Iraq with critical military intelligence, gathered by American spy satellites, which would ensure that even with the American arms, Iran could not win the war. Her need for arms might never end. In implementing his plan, Reagan operated in the utmost secrecy. He failed to inform the State Department or his Secretary of State of the new policy. Thus he failed to build a base in the bureaucracy for the policy… In public… he continued to insist that… all nations impose on arms embargo on Iran, as he said the United States was doing. … So at the beginning of 1986, Regan increased his pressure on Congress to get behind a policy of aid for the Contras. He demanded $100 million for ‘humanitarian aid’ and support… But he failed… the Congress narrowly defeated the Administration package. Regan funded the Contras anyway, through the arms sale to Iran and money privately raised… In the fall of 1986… Attorney General Edwin Meese revealed parts of the Iran/Contras scam, and suddenly Reagan had a scandal within his Administration that rivalled Watergate for importance… Shocking closures were followed by incomprehensible statements. Reagan initially claimed that only a “few strictly defensive weapons” were shipped to Iran, denied that any third country had been involved, asserted that “no US law has been or will be violated”, and insisted that “our policy of not making concessions to terrorists remains intact.” Two days later he confessed that he had entered into discussions with the Iranians in the hope that they could lead to the release of the American hostages in Lebanon. The following day he said that it was “utterly false” to charge that the weapons he sent to Iran were a “ransom”. From this low point, things got worse. Secretary of State Schultz said he had opposed sensing any arms to Iran, that he had not been consulted about this major shift in American foreign policy, and that American ambassadors in the Middle-east were reporting directly to the White House ignoring the State Department. A week later, on November 25, 1986, Regan relieved his National Security Advisor, Admiral John Poindexter, and his assistant, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who directed the Iran/Contra program for the NSC, because “serious questions of propriety” had been raised. Simultaneously, Reagan praised North as “an American hero”. North began immediately shredding documents in his White House office… By the Spring of 1987, a series of investigations were underway. Former Senator John Tower was the head of an independent committee, appointed by Reagan, to look into the affair. The Tower Commission reported that laws had been violated, pointed to various serious flaws in the Reagan administration’s foreign policy structure, found the President negligent in meeting his duties, but stopped short of charging him with illegal actions. The Congress meanwhile created a select joint committee to conduct hearings. These hearings soon rivalled the Watergate hearings for public attention, as they were telecast daily and continued to reveal additional details of the scam. It was a sorry and sordid sight. Eventually, the congressional Iran/Contra committee concluded that in selling arms for hostages and in diverting some of the profits to the Contras, the Administration had brought “confusion and disarray at the highest levels of government, evasive dishonesty and inordinate secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law.” President Reagan, the committee charged, abdicated his “moral and legal responsibilities to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Strong words, in some ways stronger than the impeachment charges brought against Richard Nixon. Why, then, did Congress make no move to impeach Reagan? One reason was timing- he had less than two years to go and it hardly seemed worth the effort. Besides, the Democrats did not want to run in 1988 against an incumbent President George Bush, nor did the Democrats want to be known as the party that went around impeaching Presidents. So Reagan survived, barely, but his Administration had been seriously crippled.” (SOURCE: Ambrose, Stephen E., & Brinkley, Douglas G., “Reagan and the Evil Empire”, in ‘Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy since 1938’, Penguin Publishing, New York, 1997) So, what do you think? Should President Reagan have been impeached? Explain why / why not. Yes No Wouldn't make any difference. He just played the president on TV. Ballot #97223 : SEE RESULTS Comment: show your vote with comment?

v 2.0

© BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank: