Jump to content

The Republican Field

Recommended Posts

JRush...suggest you study the Unitary Executive Theory; and yes, Reagan overstepped, right into both treason, and sedition.The Iran-Contra scandal can be traced to the October Surprise during the 1980 Presidential election between incumbent Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. In the fall of 1980, Carter was marginally leading Reagan in the polls with the election right around the corner. The release of hostages before election day presumably would have insured the election for Carter. The Reagan team conspired to negotiate a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. Campaign manager William Casey and George Bush met with Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr in Paris in October, only weeks before the election and with Carter having a slight lead over Reagan. Part of the deal cut between the Reagan team and Iran was to provide military weapons which Iran desperately needed in its war with Iraq (an ally and partner we supported during the Iranian Iraqi war). As it turned out, the 52 American hostages remained captive in Teheran. Carter's popularity continued to plummet, enabling Reagan to be elected in November, and ironically the hostages were returned at 12 o'clock noon on January 21, 1981 when Reagan was inaugurated. In short, this was high treason, and a political coup that rigged an election.


As for control of both Houses, the 97th through the 99th Congress saw the Senate controlled by Republicans, and the House by Democrats. The 100th Congress saw the Republicans out of the driver's seat in the Senate. So saying Congress was under Democratic control during Reagan's two terms is misleading.


Now, you can continue down that well traveled road as a Reagan apoligist, and caretaker of the myth as I could care less. I've drawn my line in the sand, and will stand by it. Reagan betrayed by acts of treason the Office, the American people, and the Constitution. At least I've got the guts to say so, and more should...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually le Voyageur, I think you are ignoring the serious issue raised by Joe Bob.



Obama and the left objected to those captured in the war from being held at Guantanamo or other detention camps, complained about their civil rights being violated and so on.


But when Obama became President, he didn't do much about that.


What he has done is to mount military strikes that leave people dead rather than captured. We can note that under Bush Saddam was captured and had a trial before being executed.


Under Obama, Osama Bin Laden was killed in circumstances where it would seem his capture could have been made.


Thus Obama seems to be vindicating the civil rights issue by making a point of killing people rather than capturing them, which saves him from having to deal with the awkward issues involved in detention.


This seems like a peculiar way to solve civil rights issues, and seems to give a good deal of credit to President Bush who took the heat for capturing rather than killing people during a war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LeV, agin, I recognize your disdain for Regean, but you need to face some simple facts:


We were not at war with anyone during Iran-Contra. Reagan neither levied war against the US nor did he adhere to an enemy. Giving a country aid is not treason if you are not at war with them. Note that Americans caught spying for Russia are charged with espionage, not treason, because even though Russia and the US were antagonists, they were not at war with each other.


Further, the actions were not sedition. If they were, the House had the duty to impeach Reagan (and they had the votes to do so) and attempt to remove him from office. Further, if he in fact committed sedition against the Constitution, the US military itself had the duty to remove him from office.


So, either Reagan didn't commit treson and/or sedition, or he did, and both the Democratic House and every member of the US military failed in their SWORN duty to defend the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was mighty puzzled at being called a racist (can I get my money back from Herman Cain?) and an attacker of ad hominems.


I even went back and re-read a few posts to see if someone had spoofed my screen name. Then I found it: I had used the word 'boy' in association with the half-black occupant of the White House. And since the liberals on the board could not deal with the issue raised, they inflated some charge against the messenger.


Let me retract the word 'boy' and reissue the challenge:

"Shall we realists just quietly turn our heads and ignore your liberal application of double standards, because it's your man in the Whitehouse?"


Although I must personally observe that POTUS's constantly blaming someone else for failures, promising payment tomorrow for imagined benefit today, and refusal to lead is more childish behavior than manly...



Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Joe Bob, I accept this and I admit that I'm sensitive to things having to do with racial prejudice even after all these decades, partly because where I live, I get nasty reminders every few days. But I do understand that your words were perhaps not carefully chosen, as was not your reference just now, referring to Obama's racial status (it has only been two days since I've heard persons in this area refer to him as 'a half-breed'). Or should I add you to their numbers?


On the other hand I'm glad to see you are sensitive to civil liberties, in this case, on behalf of Awlaki. I am also troubled by the manner in which Awlaki was killed. I am fairly certain that I don't know all the reasons for the manner of that action, but as I was initially with the Bush actions, I accept this one tentatively and will wait until I am convinced one way or the other.

That said, when an American citizen leaves this country in order to actively work in support of terrorism against Americans, it is difficult for me to find sympathy for that terrorist, American citizenship not withstanding.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What he has done is to mount military strikes that leave people dead rather than captured. We can note that under Bush Saddam was captured and had a trial before being executed. Under Obama, Osama Bin Laden was killed in circumstances where it would seem his capture could have been made.


Oh puhlease! This is da sort of mindless neo-right nonsense that has undermined da American conservative cause.


Saddam was captured in a country we occupied, and da fellow was found in a hole in the ground with no support and no route of escape.


Bin Laden was taken by a strike team operatin' deep in what amounted to enemy territory and was killed durin' an extended firefight.


Anybody who questions da integrity and honor of our military personnel operating under such conditions or accuses 'em of carrying out an assassination does dishonor to the flag and to our men and women under arms. Is disgustingly anti-military and anti-American, and da so-called "conservatives" who stoop to such calumny to try to score political points should be ashamed of themselves. All da rest of us are. By accusin' our troops of acting improperly yeh aren't doin' anything more than givin' aid and comfort to the enemy.





Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anything that would have prevented the capture of Bin Laden released so far.


And the drone strikes neatly side step the problems of dealing with prisoners. They are the preferred way of dealing with AlChaida these days.


No loose ends for liberal lawyers to get their panties in a twist.





Link to post
Share on other sites



I appreciate the civility of your response. Thank you, sir.


I have been known to defend myself against the 'Raaacisst' charge regarding Obama by pointing out that I don't like the policies of his white half either. This is not intended as the slur that 'breed' or 'half-breed' would generate for Native Americans, but is merely intended to be a clever way of pointing out the obsurdity of using racism as a defense against policy. Please note that it's Obama's policies I don't like. The man has charisma, and can probably tell a good story or two.


As for civil liberties, I'm tickled pink that al Awlaki got toasted by remote control. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals who screamed bloody murder when BUSH JAILED FOREIGNERS caught on the BATTLEFIELD, and then turn a blind eye when OBAMA KILLED a US CITIZEN making his DAILY COMMUTE.


I'm sorry that you're on the wrong side of this irony, but you gotta admit, it's delicious!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are yeh suggestin', SeattlePioneer, that rather than use drone strikes we invade Pakistan and Yemen? Yeh ready to send your kids to do that, and vote da huge tax increases that would require?


Because then I would agree with yeh. Once we invade and an enemy surrenders, he is a prisoner of war and entitled to be kept free from torture and in acceptable conditions under international monitoring. Either that, or he is a civilian criminal subject to arrest and prosecution by da occupying authorities or provisional government.


Let's just not confuse a raid behind enemy lines with an occupation, nor a belligerent in a firefight with U.S. forces for a surrendered prisoner of war. Bin Laden has been wanted "dead or alive" since 9/11, and had he surrendered he would be alive. But dead is just fine if da alternative involved even da slightest additional risk to the brave men of da Navy who took action that day.


And I don't reckon any of us has a problem with a drone strike on the most recent nut job any more than we would have objected to a sniper takin' out Benedict Arnold after da plot against Washington. A traitor is just a traitor, and enemy command-and-control is always a legitimate target.



(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It always amazes me how many folks can forget the Constitutional definition of Treason:


Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."



I will tell you there's a fair bit of debate amongst the professionals I know in the Profession of Arms over the Al-Awlaki attack. The biggest debate is have we opened the door to let another Nation-State attack one of its citizens on our territory because they damn that citizen a terrorist (or any of many other crimes)?


Actions have consequences... and they don't always show themselves right away.



Meanwhile, so long, Sarah...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...