From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:46:05 GMT

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM wrote:
: In <1istkaINN4d0@shelley.u.washington.edu>, Ryan Mcneilly writes:
: 
: >HOLD THE PHONE!!!  I thought the arms sales to Iran was to help in getting
: >our people out of Lebanon.  Am I wrong?  And the money going to the
: >Contras, congress already appropriated money to them.  It sounds like all
: >they are guilty of is over giving to the contras.
: 
: Well, if my understanding is correct, Congress ordered the CIA to stop fund-
: ing the Contras.  There were actually a few pro-Sandinista members in the
: Congress, too.
: 

My understanding is that NOBODY in the government could fund the contras.
And citizens, also.  It would have been trivial to go to, say, Ross Perot,
tell him to give $30 Mil to the contras and then reimburse him (somehow).

: Anyway, the money sent to the contras (technically) never entered the hands
: of the U.S. government--or so they say.  I have no reason not to believe that,
: but I don't wholeheartedly accept it without proof.  If that is true, then
: there is technically no violation of law, even if the actions were clearly
: undertaken as a sneaky way to circumvent the law.  I will say, though, that if
: this is the worst thing that an administration has done, then we've had lots
: of creampuffs in government.
: 

Again, my understanding is that Ollie North spent a LOT of his time going
to foreign powers (govts and corps) with slide shows, movies, and other
aids to request those foreign powers aid the contras.  North was not charged
with any crimes on those activities, and he is open, blunt, and honest about
doing so.  In fact, at the senate hearings, he even made his presentations
for the senators.

Also, my understanding is that the so-called arms-for-hostages deal was not
really arms for hostages at all.  This is if you listen to the stories of
those involved: Bush, Weinberger, North, Reagan, etc.  As you correctly
pointed out, arms were SOLD to _some_ Iranians covertly through Israeli
intelligence.  Those Iranians were not officials of the Iranian government,
but were considered moderates and friendly towards the US.  To me this is
comparable to the French selling arms to the rebels in the colonies in the
revolutionary war.  In other words, the french didn't sell arms to the
Brittish, even though we were Brittish colonists - they were selling those
arms to moderates who would be favorable to the French when the war was won.

Anyhow, when we sold these arms, how could we be really really really sure
that these "moderates" were representing themselves truthfully?  In order
to prove themselves, they promised to use whatever influence they had with
the holders of the hostages to free them.

And for what it's worth, many of the people in Reagan's administration knew
of the plan and believed that it _could_ be perceived to be a trade of arms
for hostages.  And they argued against it.  Just how much of the entire
plan was known by any one person seems to be the focus of those who simply
have no tolerance of Reagan's success.

Now here's where the giant leap to conclusions has been done:  Ollie North
and a very few others actually implemented the plan, did the face to face
negotiations, etc.  When it was all over (arms-sale-plus-hostage-release),
there was $30 Million in cash that wasn't directly traceable back to the
US, nor even specifically property of the US.  North and Poindexter felt
that it may or may not have been a violation of the Bowlen Amendment to
divert that money to the contras.  They felt it was no more illegal, in the
end, to do so than to lobby foreign powers to aid the contras, so they
diverted the money.

And something HAD to be done with the money, and COVERTLY (even at Congress'
expense).  If people started asking questions about the money here, it would
be publicized, and the moderate Iranian faction's cover blown.  If that had
happened, those Iranians' lives were at risk, and the hostages may have been
executed on the spot, and of course Reagan would have gotten the blame.  Some
people, who are KNOWLEDGABLE about the facts in the case, might suggest that
North or someone else in the administration could have told congress behind
closed doors.  However, after seeing the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill leak
of equally sensitive classified information suggests that would have been 
FOOLISH.  It only took ONE staffer to leak the Anita Hill information, and
given that we have 10s of thousands of staffers working for the Fascist
Democrats, the likelyhood of staining the president's hands with the blood
of the hostages was a sure thing.

The first hostage that was freed, and sorry I don't remember his name,
got off the airplane after debriefing and he BEGGED the press not to
investigate the story and dig up dirt because the lives and potential
freedom of the hostages and others were at stake.  He explicitly did
so.  First words out of his mouth.

To suggest that Reagan formulated the whole plan, or Bush, or Weinberger,
or any of those really close to Reagan formulated the entire plan, including
the diversion, is a giant leap to conclusion and based solely upon 
circumstantial evidence.  I have little doubt that Reagan was certainly the
policy maker and made the decision, for example, to deal with the Iranians
and to support the contras.  But to suggest that Reagan would even be
bothered with the picky details of what to do with the $30 Million, or that
he suggested or planned to mix the two (iran and contras) is absured, IMO.

I also should add that Kohlmeni had NOT appeared on TV for several months
at the time we dealth with the Iranian moderates, and the US media reported
that he was rumored dead or dying.  There was certainly reason to deal with
the moderates...

: >If the crime was ment to be benificial and doesn't hurt people, why wory
: >about it to this degree.  I mean congress use this excuse all the time.
: >They do a no no and say it was in the best intrest of the people and it is
: >okay.
: 
: The actions and the holier-than-thou attitude of the Congress have pissed me
: off for years.  Thankfully they've exposed themselves more in the last couple
: of years as the boobs that they are.  As I said, if the Iranian money never
: entered the U.S. Treasury, and if the profits which were not earmarked for the
: Treasury went (in part) to the Contras, then I see no *technical* violation of
: the law.  Certainly the spirit of the law was violated, but I would (if that
: secnario as I understand it is true) not say that there has been criminal acti-
: vity.  Sneaky and underhanded, yes.  Ill-advised, probably.  Criminal?  I
: really don't think so.
: 

Technically, I believe the administration could have petitioned the courts
to allow the transfer of the $30 Million and likely would have Won. However,
that would have been foolish, under the circumstances.  And I also know that
a mountain has been made out of a molehill...  The $30 Million is like
.005% of the military budget.  The arms exchanged were spare parts for
the US weapons we had already sold to Iran during the Shah days, mostly,
plus a handful of rockets/missles that were used in a week's worth of
a war that lasted almost a decade.

If Reagan really wanted to be nasty, he could have offered to congress a
bill to give Isreal an extra Billion in aid and had Israel just hand over
half of it to the contras.  

: >I dream of the day when the petty crimes that congress does are persued to
: >the degree this was.  --Ryan
: 
: I agree.  Where Congress is concerned, there is a whiff of contempt and hypo-
: crisy when they look for any GOP scandal while ignoring their own or anything
: which happens to their political cronies.  That doesn't make the actions of the
: Reagan Administration right about this, but if they were to say that they were
: being persecuted by Walsh and Congress because of political differences and not
: because Congress wants only the truth, I would believe it.

Thank you ...

: 
: I do think that Reagan knows a hell of a lot more than he was telling.  I have
: little doubt that in any case, North was a fall guy and a scapegoat who was
: following orders.  If he was following orders, a pardon and/or exoneration was
: in order *for him*.  That's not to say that higher-ranking officials therefore
: deserve the same consideration.
: 

North received no pardon, as none was necessary.  Any charges of illegality
in the entire affair could not be made out as crimes and were DROPPED.  The
only piddly shit that COULD be made to stick was lying to congress 
(understandable, however) and obstruction of justice (destroying documents
to save the moderates and hostages).


: 
: Tim Irvin
: ******************************************************************************
: "In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
:  for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh