Saint Ronnie NOT LIABLE in Iran-Contra scandal. Poppy Bush? NOT LIABLE. USA! USA! USA!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

"I didn't do it, Mommy."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/52993488-68/reagan-bush-mixter-iran.html.csp

Prosecutor: Reagan, Bush not criminally liable

BY PETE YOST
Associated Press

First published 2 hours ago
Updated 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON • One of the prosecutors who investigated the Iran-Contra affair concluded two decades ago that neither Ronald Reagan nor George H.W. Bush was criminally liable in the scandal that tarnished the presidencies of both men, according to reports made public Friday.

Associate independent counsel Christian Mixter reached that conclusion in 1991 even though he found that President Reagan was briefed in advance about every weapons shipment sold to Iran in the arms-for-hostages deals in 1985-86. In a separate report on Bush, Mixter wrote that the then-vice president was chairman of a committee that recommended mining the harbors of Nicaragua in 1983.

Mixter’s reports were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Security Archive, a nonprofit research group, which released them on the 25th anniversary of the Iran-Contra scandal. At a Nov. 25, 1986, White House news conference, Reagan and then-Attorney General Edwin Meese disclosed that money from the arms sales to Iran had been diverted to the Contra guerrillas fighting the leftist government of Nicaragua after Congress had cut off military aid to the rebels.

Mixter concluded it would be difficult to prosecute Reagan for violating the Arms Export Control Act mandating congressional notification of arms transfers through a third country — Israel in the case of the Reagan White House’s secret arms sales to Iran in 1985. The reason, said Mixter, was that Meese had told Reagan the National Security Act could be invoked to supersede the export control act.

[Hotler]

1. k&r n/t

[Angry Dragon]

2. Landslide --------- by Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus

tells a different story

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Is that the book that explains Raygun couldn't remember his own name....

much less make a decision about anything, and that everything was done by the people that surrounded him?

I'm not so sure about that tho. If you read up on his anti-American activities efforts before he got fully into politics, you'll see that he was a full-fledged asshole and an excellent member of the Repuke party. Great lackey, too!

The man was a piece of crap in his youth, a piece of crap in his middle age, and a piece of crap in his old age. His legacy is having damaged the U.S. for the majority for decades, as he ushered in the decades-long repuke efforts to destroy this country's economy and lifestyle, while redistributing the wealth of this country up to the 1%. I never had respect for the a-hole, and I continue to have no respect for the a-hole.

I find it VERY, VERY SAD, that some Democrats liked him, and even VOTED for the a-hole. I don't know that I could even have a conversation with a Dem that sank so low as to do that.

[Angry Dragon]

8. It deals with the aftermath of his second election

where it seems no one is in charge and everyone pretty does much as they please
A lot of infighting, a very lost president
and yes he admits not able to remember, I think because his mind was going a great deal by then


You and I can talk because I never voted for him.............

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. I know... I don't understand anyone who isn't a right wingnut ever voting for him

or defending anything about the man.

I'll have to read that book. Sounds like the kind of book I won't be able to put down because the subject matter fascinates me.

[alphafemale]

3. oHHHH fer fucks SAKE!!!! Could you at least WARN somebody????

:puke:

:rofl:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. hahaha! I couldn't agree more. LOL! nt

[baldguy]

4. And Henry II wasn't responsable for Thomas Becket's murder either.

When he said "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" he was just joking.

[karynnj]

7. So, if the attorney general in any administration says something illegal is legal, the President is

off the hock? Is this the correct interpretation. As to the VP, how about the fact that the CIA admitted in the 1990s that they allowed the sale of cocaine to finance the arming of the rebels. Even if that was said to be legal by Meese, it is still immoral and hurt the country. (Ending that cocaine flow may have done more for the cities that mayors, like Guilliani who get credit.

It is sad that people were killed or harrassed to get this information - and it appears that the people involved - even those indicted and pardoned really did not suffer any long term loss of respectability. (I especially cringe when people like Oliver North and Elliot Abrahms stand in judgment Of Senator Kerry, who was the person in the Senate who did the most to uncover the Contra piece - with no disclosure of that history.)