Biggest bungle of the Obama admin? Operation Fast & Furious?

[Patroklos]

So how may of the tens of thousands international initiatives/operations/programs of the State Department, CIA, DIA, FBI, military and myraid other agencies with similiar international jurisdiction do you think Obama has visibility on?

 

[Ajidica]

Do you blame Reagan for the Iran-Contra Affair?

Well, he did send the Iranian government a signed Bible (along with several million dollars of weaponry for one hostage), so I'm sure he knew about it and supported it to the extent he was sending over a signed Bible.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Reagan was intimately involved in Iran-Contra and personally directed it. As others have mentioned, I seriously doubt Obama knew about this absurd scheme until he read about it in the papers.

If the ATF had allowed individual assault weapons to be purchased and closely tracked to discover supposed cartel leaders operating in the US, it would have been one thing. But to allow hundreds of them to be sold knowing full well the ATF didn't have the resources to monitor each one is completely nuts. In any case, the person who bought each weapon should have been arrested and the weapon confiscated long before it had any opportunity to leave the country.

The ATF in particular has an incredibly bad track record of doing stupid things which dates all the way back to its inception.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you blame Reagan for the Iran-Contra Affair?

Yes, because he lied to Congress about it. It was his orchestrated and executed idea. This operation has nothing to do with Obama at all.

Every single mistake in the government doesn't go up to the President, obviously. This is a pretty big enchilada though, and I really don't believe it was not known to at least AG Holder.

Why not? The government told you it was so. I thought you always trusted the government.

 

[kochman]

Reagan was intimately involved in Iran-Contra and personally directed it.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_27.htm

Fundamentally, it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that President Reagan knew of the underlying facts of Iran/contra that were criminal or that he made criminal misrepresentations regarding them.

This is the official report on the matter from:
FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS

 

[Ajidica]

So he was aware enough to send a signed Bible along with the shipment of weapons, but not aware enough to know what exactly was going on. Are you excusing incompetance?

 

[Leonel]

I'm curious how authorities would be able to trace the guns back to the cartels? I would assume they would pay in cash to avoid a money trail.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This is the official report on the matter from:
FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS

There is far more to this story than the report of one independent counsel who could find no actual evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ایران-کنترا, Spanish: caso Irán-contras), also referred to as Irangate, Contragate or Iran-Contra-Gate, was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, senior Reagan administration officials and President Reagan secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[1] Some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[6] no conclusive evidence has been found showing that he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[2][3][7] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostages transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to what he was told were "moderate elements" within that country.[8] Oliver North, one of the central figures in the affair, wrote in a book that "Ronald Reagan knew of and approved a great deal of what went on with both the Iranian initiative and private efforts on behalf of the contras and he received regular, detailed briefings on both." Mr. North also writes: "I have no doubt that he was told about the use of residuals for the Contras, and that he approved it. Enthusiastically."[9]

After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[10] To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages. Notes taken December 7, 1985, by Defense Secretary Weinberger record that Reagan said that "he could answer charges of illegality but he couldn't answer charge [sic] that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free hostages.'"[8] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[11] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."[12]

Several investigations ensued, including those by the United States Congress and the three-man, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[2][3][7] In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[13] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[14] Several of those involved in the Iran–Contra scandal, later became a member of the administration of George W. Bush. Only one, Elliott Abrams, was convicted of two misdemeanors and subsequently pardoned.[15]

Not finding any evidence isn't the same as not knowing anything about it, especially when much of the evidence was deliberately destroyed or withheld.

The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On - Documents Spotlight Role of Reagan, Top Aides

Washington D.C., November 24, 2006 - On November 25, 1986, the biggest political and constitutional scandal since Watergate exploded in Washington when President Ronald Reagan told a packed White House news conference that funds derived from covert arms deals with the Islamic Republic of Iran had been diverted to buy weapons for the U.S.-backed Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

The scandal was almost the undoing of the Teflon President. Of all the revelations that emerged, the most galling for the American public was the president's abandonment of the long-standing policy against dealing with terrorists, which Reagan repeatedly denied doing in spite of overwhelming evidence that made it appear he was simply lying to cover up the story.

Despite the damage to his image, the president arguably got off easy, escaping the ultimate political sanction of impeachment. From what is now known from documents and testimony -- but perhaps not widely appreciated -- while Reagan may not have known about the diversion or certain other details of the operations being carried out in his name, he directed that both support for the Contras (whom he ordered to be kept together "body and soul") and the arms-for-hostages deals go forward, and was at least privy to other actions that were no less significant.

In this connection, it is worth noting that Poindexter, although he refused to implicate Reagan by testifying that he had told him about the diversion, declared that if he had informed the president he was sure Reagan would have approved. Reagan's success in avoiding a harsher political penalty was due to a great extent to Poindexter's testimony (which left many observers deeply skeptical about its plausibility). But it was also due in large part to a tactic developed mainly by Attorney General Edwin Meese, which was to keep congressional and public attention tightly focused on the diversion. By spotlighting that single episode, which they felt sure Reagan could credibly deny, his aides managed to minimize public scrutiny of the president's other questionable actions, some of which even he understood might be illegal.

 

[kochman]

So he was aware enough to send a signed Bible along with the shipment of weapons, but not aware enough to know what exactly was going on. Are you excusing incompetance?

You're putting words in my mouth again.
I was asking the previous poster if he was holding a double standard.
I actually think Reagan knew, and I think it was effective, in that our people came home.

There is far more to this story than the report of one independent counsel who could find no actual evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair



Not finding any evidence isn't the same as not knowing anything about it, especially when much of the evidence was deliberately destroyed or withheld.

Well, I know, wikipedia is WAY more factual than the independend counsel that reviewed that case.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Once again, the difference is that Reagan got off. And he did so because there was no actual evidence that he specifically knew about one detail of this case after that evidence was deliberately destroyed or withheld, even though Oliver North and others claimed he clearly had that knowledge.

But Reagan clearly knew about all the rest. He should have been impeached and many of his advisers put behind bars for these clearly illegal acts if not for that specific element.

Why isn't Obama held to the same standards as Reagan? Why is this the "biggest bungle of the Obama admin" when there is no evidence he had anything to do with it?

 

[Ajidica]

I actually think Reagan knew, and I think it was effective, in that our people came home.

Guess how many hostages we got out of Iran-Contra?
Three, and only one from direct dealings with the Iranians. The rest were from Lebanese terrorist groups. I think supply weapons to groups that were on the US State Departmenst list of terrorist organizations would qualify as 'aiding terrorists'.

 

[bhsup]

Would you guys that hate Reagan please decide whether he was an a drooling old fool who could not know anything because of Alzheimer's, or was an active President with full knowledge of what was going on around him?

 

[Formaldehyde]

First, I don't hate Reagan. I merely think he was completely unqualified to be president, as would be anybody else who consulted with a soothsayer. At least GHWB and Nixon were competent, and I think Eisenhower was generally a very good president.

Second, why can't he be both to some extent? Even a drooling old fool has moments of lucidity. But even what he didn't specifically remember was detailed in the evidence that mysteriously disappeared.

 

[Ajidica]

Would you guys that hate Reagan please decide whether he was an a drooling old fool who could not know anything because of Alzheimer's, or was an active President with full knowledge of what was going on around him?

So Reagan signs Bibles that are sent to the Iranian Government as a state gift willy-nilly?

 

[RedRalph]

Would you guys that hate Reagan please decide whether he was an a drooling old fool who could not know anything because of Alzheimer's, or was an active President with full knowledge of what was going on around him?

What's your opinion on said gift?

 

[bhsup]

Oh, I have no doubt that Reagan was actively knowledgeable and probably heavily involved with Iran-Contra.

 

[Cutlass]

Would you guys that hate Reagan please decide whether he was an a drooling old fool who could not know anything because of Alzheimer's, or was an active President with full knowledge of what was going on around him?

A bit of both, really...


More seriously, I don't think it's really a case that Reagan was disabled by Alzheimer's while still in office. It's more of a case of his general incompetence as a executive.

What Reagan did is he picked his staff based on ideological purity and personal loyalty. As long as you were a "Reagan man", and parroted the party line, what you actually did was of no real concern to Reagan. He would simply believe that, since your motives were pure, so were your methods and competence. So Reagan says "Find some way to support the Contras that Congress doesn't need to know about", and the fools create Iran Contra. Reagan himself was indifferent to how they did it, so long as it got done. It's not like he would take the time to manage his own immediate staff. It wouldn't have occurred that there was a need to. Only when someone showed disloyalty by not following the party line exactly did he have management issues.

So Reagan can set these things in motion, and remain aloof from them otherwise.


The difference here between the blame of Reagan and the blame of Obama is that Reagan's immediate aides and White House staffers did Iran Contra. But this one was done by a second tier agency within the Justice Department.

 

[bhsup]

The difference here between the blame of Reagan and the blame of Obama is that Reagan's immediate aides and White House staffers did Iran Contra. But this one was done by a second tier agency within the Justice Department.

Oh, I actually agree. I don't think Obama personally was aware of this at all and don't really blame him for it other than a general "this happened under his watch", but he isn't directly responsible.

 

[kochman]

Why isn't Obama held to the same standards as Reagan? Why is this the "biggest bungle of the Obama admin" when there is no evidence he had anything to do with it?

I don't consider bungles and impeachments in the same boat...
This is the biggest bungle, thus far, of his administration, meaning, the highest level failure of the Executive Branch, which he heads.

Guess how many hostages we got out of Iran-Contra?
Three, and only one from direct dealings with the Iranians. The rest were from Lebanese terrorist groups. I think supply weapons to groups that were on the US State Departmenst list of terrorist organizations would qualify as 'aiding terrorists'.

Yes, politics makes strange bedfellows... but it was much more reasonably executed than this abortion.

First, I don't hate Reagan. I merely think he was completely unqualified to be president, as would be anybody else who consulted with a soothsayer.

How about our current President? He's qualified? His resume was less than Sarah Palin's, which is terrifying, and he's blown it...

Oh, I have no doubt that Reagan was actively knowledgeable and probably heavily involved with Iran-Contra.

Agreed, and I think it was worth it.

 

[Ajidica]

Yes, politics makes strange bedfellows... but it was much more reasonably executed than this abortion.

So several million dollars in weaponry to terrorist organizations for three hostages (we could have gotten more if we didn't blindly follow whatever Saddam said in the Iran-Iraq War and clearly take Saddam's side) is reasonable? I thought the basic rule of fighting terrorists is to keep them from getting weapons, not giving them weapons.