Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on February 03, 2005, 04:01:30 PM
-
ran-Contra Figure to Lead Democracy Efforts Abroad
From News Services
Thursday, February 3, 2005; Page A25
Elliott Abrams, who pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress in the Iran-contra affair, was promoted to deputy national security adviser to President Bush.
Abrams, who previously was in charge of Middle East affairs, will be responsible for pushing Bush's strategy for advancing democracy.
The White House also announced yesterday that Faryar Shirzad, a deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, will take on added responsibilities for humanitarian affairs, stabilization and reconstruction efforts.
Prior to joining the NSC staff, Shirzad was assistant secretary for import administration at the Commerce Department. Before that, he was the lead coordinator of international trade policy for the Bush-Cheney transition team.
The White House had earlier tapped J.D. Crouch, the U.S. ambassador to Romania, for the No. 2 job at the National Security Council, under national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.
Abrams has served as special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and North African affairs since December 2002. He will continue work on Israeli-Palestinian affairs in concert with Hadley and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Abrams's 1991 plea stemmed from the congressional inquiry into the Iran-contra affair during President Ronald Reagan's administration. On Oct. 10, 1986, Abrams, then a State Department employee, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he did not know that Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North was directing illegal arms sales to Iran and diverting the proceeds to assist the Nicaraguan contras.
Abrams was pardoned by Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush.
His name surfaced last year as part of the investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA operative whose husband publicly disputed Bush administration claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said that Abrams denied responsibility.
-
They really know how to take care of their own. Just what we need more dishonest people in charge.
-
Is it really that difficult to put a link to the source of the story?
-
you of course are saying that it was wrong to support the Nicaraguan contras after the democratic congress cut off aid to them just like the demo congress did to south vietnam, you of course wanted the communist sandanistas to win as you wanted north vietnam to defeat south vietnam.
am i close here?
MLK=some laws are ment to be broken.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Is it really that difficult to put a link to the source of the story?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59235-2005Feb2.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59235-2005Feb2.html)
washington post. gotta have a username/pw
please excuse the exclusion.
:)
-
Originally posted by john9001
you of course are saying that it was wrong to support the Nicaraguan contras after the democratic congress cut off aid to them just like the demo congress did to south vietnam, you of course wanted the communist sandanistas to win as you wanted north vietnam to defeat south vietnam.
am i close here?
MLK=some laws are ment to be broken.
ya, i'm sure MLK would have been cool with lying to congress, breaking constitutional law and selling arms to the axis of evil mullahs over there in iran.
give me a break.
:rofl
btw. have i mentioned my autographed copy of machiavellis "the prince" - signed by oliver north?
he has a girly handshake btw.
-
Originally posted by JB88
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59235-2005Feb2.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59235-2005Feb2.html)
washington post. gotta have a username/pw
please excuse the exclusion.
:)
try
UID = f**kyou
passwd = F**k@you.com
& dont miss the Norm Chad column every monday
-
Originally posted by john9001
MLK=some laws are ment to be broken.
he also advocated non-violence so I doubt he would support the contras.
-
oh no, iran-Contras, that was Kofi Annans fault, not Reagan, he had nothing to do with it. It was Un all along, again :mad:
-
Originally posted by JB88
^^^
Obsessed.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you of course are saying that it was wrong to support the Nicaraguan contras after the democratic congress cut off aid to them just like the demo congress did to south vietnam, you of course wanted the communist sandanistas to win as you wanted north vietnam to defeat south vietnam.
am i close here?
MLK=some laws are ment to be broken.
US got busted real bad by The International Court of Justice and, only pure fluke, kept Reagan out from being brought infront of a Warcriminal tribunal.
Kissinger has his case for Veitnam. Does´nt do to much traveling nowadays, I heard.
-
Originally posted by JB88
ya, i'm sure MLK would have been cool with lying to congress, breaking constitutional law and selling arms to the axis of evil mullahs over there in iran.
Maybe not but Clinton sure was.
-
come on, you can do better than that.
clinton isnt the issue here. his mistakes cant cover the mistakes being made right here, right now.
can anyone really say that this is a good idea?
i, for one would be happy just to hear one republican here say "bad move." just one.
it might shed a little hope on the future.
:)
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
^^^
Obsessed.
whatever.
-
Quick question, is the assumption in the beginning of this post that once you make a mistake, you can never recover from it?
If the guy can serve, and has the experience, then maybe he's the right person for the job. I don't know ANYTHING about him, mind you, but it seems like our society isn't long on forgiveness.
-
in this case, id say no.
it crosses my line anyway, and i dont recall hearing that he, or anyone else has asked for his forgiveness.
i just dont think that it is either wise or healthy for this country to condone and/or reward behavior like that without some serious inquiry.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i just dont think that it is either wise or healthy for this country to condone and/or reward behavior like that without some serious inquiry.
commonalities (http://mccarthy.cjb.net/)
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
commonalities (http://mccarthy.cjb.net/)
Hardly
-
I thought the campaign against the communists in Nicaragua was a resounding success? I also thought that a US Congress filthy dirty in democratic control throughout the 50s (Korea), 60s (Nam) and 70s (Nam, Oil Embargo, Iran hostage crises) had made the position of the US fighting communism in the western hemisphere so difficult that the patriots of Freedom actually needed to break laws written by a democratic congress ripe with liberal communist supporters, a neccessity.
If my thinking is correct, and it is, then whoever the hell blabby88 is complaining about is without question, a Hero.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by JB88
come on, you can do better than that.
clinton isnt the issue here. his mistakes cant cover the mistakes being made right here, right now.
can anyone really say that this is a good idea?
i, for one would be happy just to hear one republican here say "bad move." just one.
it might shed a little hope on the future.
:)
JB88, consider: this may be one of the most politically astute moves GWB ever made. Abrams is probably one of the most able people available for just this kind of job, and he has certainly shown himself to be a loyal soldier, and has vast experience in Middle Eastern affairs. (examine his resume with a dispassionate eye for qualifications, if you can). Besides prosecuting his own world vision, GWB knows the time is right to further entrench themselves in every possible area of the Washington power structure. And a "pit bull", if you will, like Abrams is more a valuable commodity than liability at this point. This facet of politics, distateful as it is, has been the forte of the Dems for generations. I'll say it again: for generations; Republicans just aren't as polished at it, yet.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
JB88, consider: this may be one of the most politically astute moves GWB ever made. Abrams is probably one of the most able people available for just this kind of job, and he has certainly shown himself to be a loyal soldier, and has vast experience in Middle Eastern affairs. (examine his resume with a dispassionate eye for qualifications, if you can). Besides prosecuting his own world vision, GWB knows the time is right to further entrench themselves in every possible area of the Washington power structure. And a "pit bull", if you will, like Abrams is more a valuable commodity than liability at this point. This facet of politics, distateful as it is, has been the forte of the Dems for generations. I'll say it again: for generations; Republicans just aren't as polished at it, yet.
nice analysis. i'd agree with you if it just wasnt plain WRONG. dem or rep.
wrong. wrong. double wrong with a cherry on top and poop sprinkles.
-
Originally posted by JB88
nice analysis. i'd agree with you if it just wasnt plain WRONG. dem or rep.
wrong. wrong. double wrong with a cherry on top and poop sprinkles.
Uninformed.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
If my thinking is correct, and it is, then whoever the hell blabby88 is complaining about is without question, a Hero.
keep trying for the title yeagar, though blabbyyeager doesnt sound right.
i dub thee "horsemitten"
has a nice ring to it dont ya think?
:)
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Uninformed.
schtick (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/77/s0377700.html)
-
jb88 is gonna have so many people on ignore that he will finaly get his wish and only read people who agree with his childlike and liberal little world... I think eventually he will be replying only to himself with a bunch of blank space in between.
oh well.... whatever keeps him from sucking on another cig (if he hasn't started again allready).
lazs
-
"woooOOOooooOOOooo!!!!"
"WoooOOOoooooOOOooo!"
"what was that!?" she asked.
"oh its nothing...just the ghost of lasz." he says.
"who's lasz?"
"lasz's dead baby. lazs's dead."
VrooooooOOOoooooOOOOoom!
:)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
jb88 is gonna have so many people on ignore that he will finaly get his wish and only read people who agree with his childlike and liberal little world... I think eventually he will be replying only to himself with a bunch of blank space in between.
oh well.... whatever keeps him from sucking on another cig (if he hasn't started again allready).
lazs
<<
-
bastard.
:rofl
-
yes... that does pose a problem to jb's somewhat fragile stance and his even more fragile self honesty... What to do about people who quote me in a post? It is easy enough to pretend that he has been ignoring me (we all know this is not the case) but.... How does he pretend to not see the quotes? And... if he admits to seeing the quotes.... How does he deal with it?
And.... how does one back down from the position of plugging ears and closeing eyes and yelling naaa naaa naaa naaa at every offensive post?
Glad I'm not in that position...
Does anyone think Bush would be dumb enough to get himself into this kind of mess?
lazs
-
sorry lasz. someone will have to trick me into reading your boring diatribes.
it was a good one though. ill give one word answer that. (even though its a bit contrived, it is an interesting character.)
later laszagator.
-
Originally posted by JB88
nice analysis. i'd agree with you if it just wasnt plain WRONG. dem or rep.
wrong. wrong. double wrong with a cherry on top and poop sprinkles.
JB88, I didn't say it was right or wrong, I just said I thought it was politically astute. That is, if you mean "wrong" in the ethical/moral sense.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
JB88, I didn't say it was right or wrong, I just said I thought it was politically astute. That is, if you mean "wrong" in the ethical/moral sense.
i do see it as wrong in the ethical/moral sense.
yes, i can see your point. that is why i complimented the analysis.
astute is much the same as shrewd. so yes.
but it is WRONG to reward such behavior.
i find it ridiculous that anywould actually argue that there is a good time and a bad time to put aside the consitutional seperation of powers which were enacted to establish checks and balances. to act against the will of the other elected officials which have been placed in congress by the people is FUBAR.
it disgusts me to even think of it.
rep or dem.
it shouldnt be rewarded.
-
Originally posted by patrone
US got busted real bad by The International Court of Justice and, only pure fluke, kept Reagan out from being brought infront of a Warcriminal tribunal.
Kissinger has his case for Veitnam. Does´nt do to much traveling nowadays, I heard.
Patrone no american is ever gonna get put infront of one of these tribunals. Especially not the president, not the sec of defense not the foot soldiers. Why? Because we handle our own problems unlike a lot of other countries.
call it hypocritical or a double standard but we do a pretty good job of punishing our own when they mess up. Notice the qualifier pretty good.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Patrone no american is ever gonna get put infront of one of these tribunals. Especially not the president, not the sec of defense not the foot soldiers. Why? Because we handle our own problems unlike a lot of other countries.
call it hypocritical or a double standard but we do a pretty good job of punishing our own when they mess up. Notice the qualifier pretty good.
I call hypocritical and double standard
and a lot of Italian will agree with me.
-
JB88, it all depends on which side of the equation you are looking at. You see a man who lied under oath and participated in the trading of arms to some rather nasty folks we wouldnt have otherwise supported.
I see a man who did what he had to do to support his President in a matter where he was way over his head, could not have possibly known all the information that went into making the decisions he was a part of. He knowingly lied under oath to protect others, including President Reagan. Meaning, he was willing to take the punishment instead of them. He didnt lie because he is a morally corrupt person, he made a sacrifice (as he saw it) for his country and his President. That is what he is being rewarded for.
Life isnt black and white. It's full of gray areas and sometimes we have to do something the wrong way in order to make other things right. I wish life didnt work that way, and sometimes things do go right. In this case they didnt, and he did the best he could. He may not win any Nobel prizes, but he's loyal. You can pay people to say things, true or not. But you cant buy true loyalty.
-
loyalty?
what about the loyalty to the citizens of the country for which his president was elected?
THAT is where his loyalty should have been. period.
he LIED to congress. you know, LIED...like clinton did?
your post was well written, but it made me feel truly gross.