Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2004 11:25:26 GMT -5
By the way, it appears the best defense of Negroponte is that he was too busy with the Honduran Death Squad coverups to spend MUCH time with the Iran-Contra scandal.
Wow.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 20, 2004 11:45:53 GMT -5
The Boland Amendment (prohibiting US aid to the Contras) took effect in October, 1984.
Negotiations for, and the sales of weapons to Iran occurred from mid-1985 through 1986. The first reported diversion of "Iran money" to the Contra funding appears to have occurred in late November, 1985.
Negroponte was ambassador until sometime in 1985 (haven't been able to find out when).
I'm more than a bit dubious as to Negroponte's role -- or even presense -- in the Iran side of things.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 20, 2004 11:48:41 GMT -5
By the way, it appears the best defense of Negroponte is that he was too busy with the Honduran Death Squad coverups to spend MUCH time with the Iran-Contra scandal. But how is that ironic with regard to his being named ambassador to Iraq? That was your major point, after all. Heck... if you want irony, look at which country actually sold/delivered the weapons to Iran -- "Israel."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2004 11:58:21 GMT -5
As I said, your best defense was that his role was minor. I am, in no way, abandoning my view that he was still culpable.
Nor am I abandoning my view that the arming of the Contras is part and parcel of the Iran-Contra scandal.
I still find it ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 20, 2004 12:19:06 GMT -5
What I excerpted from the AFP article on him. Based on that, he clearly impressed his peers with his skills. He also appears to have a "knack" with languages. Did the AFP article do anything other than glorify him? If not, how is that not another case of making a case based on biased partial truth / evidence?
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 20, 2004 12:25:33 GMT -5
As I said, your best defense was that his role was minor. I am, in no way, abandoning my view that he was still culpable. Quibble -- the best defense may well be that he was not involved at all. What you will accept does not alter what the best defense is. The arming of the Contras (through US means) started long before anything w/ Iran. The arming of the Contras through foreign contributions (initially Saudi Arabia) happened before anything regarding Iran. The initial sale of weapons to Iran was not to generate Contra funds, but rather, to get the hostages freed. The idea of transferring "Iran" money to "Contra" funding didn't happen until the end of 1985. That is the only thing that connected what was happening in Iran with what was happening in Nicaragua.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2004 12:55:40 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree.
The whole Contra cesspool was part of the same misguided (and illegal) U.S. policies. And Negroponte was knee-deep in the muck.
As I recall, the Reagan boys needed somewhere to bury their ill-gotten gains from Iran. What better place to hide them than in some other immoral scheme--one administered by John Negroponte.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 20, 2004 13:31:17 GMT -5
Um... subjective statements are all over Molly's opinion piece. Subjective statements are usually all over (R)uffda's comments as well. Take this one for example........ Regardless, the whole point is that W continues to surround himself with the Reagan neo-cons. And WE are all the worse off for it. Speak for yourself (R)uffda, you don't speak for everyone! Why should it matter to you who gets sent there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2004 13:35:26 GMT -5
The arming of the Contras (through US means) started long before anything w/ Iran. The arming of the Contras through foreign contributions (initially Saudi Arabia) happened before anything regarding Iran. The initial sale of weapons to Iran was not to generate Contra funds, but rather, to get the hostages freed. The idea of transferring "Iran" money to "Contra" funding didn't happen until the end of 1985. That is the only thing that connected what was happening in Iran with what was happening in Nicaragua. I understand your point and I will concede, based on the info I have been able to dig up, that there is no evidence that the U.S.'s intent, in selling arms to Iran, was to fund the Contras in Central America. As you say, it was to free the hostages. It remains ironic that the new Ambassador to Iraq used the proceeds from these sales to Iran (Iraq's enemy) to fund his own dirty little operation in the Honduras--and that it continued to fund his dirty little operation even as he moved on. I will also admit that there are better reasons to oppose Negroponte's nomination than the Iran arms angle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2004 13:42:24 GMT -5
Subjective statements are usually all over (R)uffda's comments as well. Take this one for example........ "Regardless, the whole point is that W continues to surround himself with the Reagan neo-cons. And WE are all the worse off for it." Speak for yourself (R)uffda, you don't speak for everyone! BiK, you are really becoming tiresome. Congratulations, I know that was your intent. ;D And, Mr. Objectivity, please tell us how we are better off through the actions of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al? 1) No WMD 2) No being greeted as liberators 3) No connection to al Qaeda or 9/11 None of those are subjective statements. Now we are told we are there because God told W to do it. Great. It's so hard to keep up with this Administration. No one can present a consistent story. No wonder Bush and Cheney want to appear together before the 9/11 Commission.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 20, 2004 13:43:46 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1082400368&start=19#1 date=1082481546] Did the AFP article do anything other than glorify him? If not, how is that not another case of making a case based on biased partial truth / evidence? Yes. As I noted in my initial reply, they talked about his potential Iran/Contra connection, and the delay in his confirmation as UN ambassador because of it. The Walsh report indicates that there was $800,000 left over from a thoroughly messed up sales attempt of missiles from Israel to Iran. (The plane was denied landing in Europe, and the few missiles that got through weren't the advanced type, and had a star of David on them.) that was the first time (November or December of 1985 -- Negroponte's last year in Honduras) that the two illegal operations got connected. I wasn't able to find any reference to Negroponte, let alone any hint of culpability in the Iran part of the affair, in the official investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 20, 2004 14:26:52 GMT -5
BiK, you are really becoming tiresome. Congratulations, I know that was your intent. ;D And, Mr. Objectivity, please tell us how we are better off through the actions of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al? 1) No WMD 2) No being greeted as liberators 3) No connection to al Qaeda or 9/11 None of those are subjective statements. Now we are told we are there because God told W to do it. Great. It's so hard to keep up with this Administration. No one can present a consistent story. No wonder Bush and Cheney want to appear together before the 9/11 Commission. 1) The WMD'S are in Syria. I told you that. 2) I'd like to know how the majority of Iraqi's feel, not only those fist pumping doofs you see on CBS news. 3) How do you know this, do you work for the CIA? You said "Regardless, the whole point is that W continues to surround himself with the Reagan neo-cons. And WE are all the worse off for it." How are we worse off because of the 3 reasons you pointed out?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 20, 2004 14:29:42 GMT -5
Yes. As I noted in my initial reply, they talked about his potential Iran/Contra connection, and the delay in his confirmation as UN ambassador because of it. The comments regarding his Iran / Contra connection were pretty much a stock item that was including in every press release I've seen on his appointment to be Ambassador of Iraq. The expounding on his being dazzling (and the like) were not in any of the other releases that I've seen. I've not seen the AFP article in its entirety - I don't know. It just seems that form the excerpts you've posted that they're doing as much of a biased positive spin on him as what you seem to be offended by from Ivan's biased negative spin on him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2004 14:52:19 GMT -5
1) The WMD'S are in Syria. I told you that. Strike one! Strike two! Steeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerike three! Grab some bench, BiK. Try to keep up, BiK. Especially when it's your own post I am responding to. Two separate points in your post and in my answer: 1) I claim we are not better off. You claim we are. How? 2) You claim I am just dishing out subjective items. I listed three which are pretty damned objective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2004 15:01:41 GMT -5
You said "Regardless, the whole point is that W continues to surround himself with the Reagan neo-cons. And WE are all the worse off for it." How are we worse off because of the 3 reasons you pointed out? Although that was not my point in listing those three items, I can answer that question. We went to war, we said, with the Neo-cons making all three of those claims. All have been proven false. Not subjective. Fact. If we go to war, unilaterally, our reasons had damned well better be well-founded. They were not. The result? The world is not united against the real threat. The Arab world is even more hostile toward us. The extremists have even more targets. The U.S., Bush at least, has ZERO credibility. That's just for starters. Want more?
|
|