What BenT Doesn't Realize
A mere 16 years ago, my ideologies mirrored his own. I haven't suddenly become irrational, but rather, my beliefs have evolved-- some would say digressed --over time into what they are today. But if I had to point to any one thing that began to change my political views it would have to be the first couple years of Clinton's 1st term. One specific event in particular, which I won't elaborate on-- it wouldn't add anything constructive to the debate that goes on here already. And no, it wasn't one of the many scandals that plagued his administration. For me, the incident in question was far more scandalous and damaging-- in my mind --than Monica Lewinski. It made me question the sincerity of Democrats... I'd have to say this one event is what made me stop voting democrat.
That's it, I've said too much already... It's not a can of worms I intend to air here.
That's it, I've said too much already... It's not a can of worms I intend to air here.
from the mind of... Eric | 1:04 AM
16 Comments:
You tease!
I'd say if you let the actions of one man turn you away from a party, then you weren't very wed to the party in the first place.
Worms! Worms! We want worms!
I'll bet it was don't-ask-don't-tell ...
And a mere 25 years ago, I was pulling for Reagan. Then he committed war crimes and began his war on the poor and welfare for the wealthy and his attacks on the environment and I realized that "conservatives," were not very and that the Religious Right may have been religious but weren't very Christian, according to the values that my conservative Baptist church taught me growing up.
Unfortunately, the Dems aren't much better and so I'm a stranger in a strange land, taxed without representation and finding a great deal of joy and comfort nonetheless in the commune of the saints...
Er-- No, it wasn't Gays in the Military.
Dan-- "There you go again," as Reagan would say. You're beginning to look and sound like a one-trick pony.... War Crimes... Sheesh!
Oh! And welcome to the commune. It can get loud here at times, but don't let that chase you away.
WE WERE CONVICTED!!
It's all there in the public record. WE SUPPORTED TERRORISTS!!
I'm sorry that the last three Republican Presidents have been involved with war crimes (only possibly so, with Bush, as he hasn't been convicted), but THAT is why I've been soooooo opposed to them (not because I hate Republicans, because, as you can see, I was one).
You will have to provided documentation for that claim. I have looked dilligently for such and can find nothing to support the statement
"WE WERE CONVICTED". Really? By whom?
The International Criminal Court was only established in 1998, which makes it a bit difficult to claim the last 3 Republican Presidents have been found guilty of war crimes. The fact that Clinton actually signed the treaty demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of each and every American's basic rights under the United States Constitution. Bush2 did the right thing in rejecting it.
If you intend to make claims like this, please provide documentation. Then we can debate the merits and validity of said documentation. I'm not willing to accept the label of War Criminal without conclusive beyond-any-shadow-of-doubt proof. For when you say, "WE" you include me as a citizen of this nation.
I'm sorry Elashley. I thought this was a well-known fact. You can check it out yourself, google "reagan war crimes nicaragua," to verify.
Here's a summation from:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/
Ronald_Reagan_Foreign_Policy.htm
"In Jan. 1984, mines were laid in Sandino harbor in Nicaragua, accompanied by other mine-layings, sabotage of Sandanista communications, and destruction of an arms depot. In April, it was disclosed that the CIA had conducted the action, and a Senate resolution condemned the mining 84-12.
The mines were designed primarily to damage and scare off ships rather than destroy them, but they were a clear violation of international law. The Sandanistas took their case to the International Court of Justice in the Hague (popularly known as the World Court) and won, though the administration refused in advance to recognize the court’s jurisdiction. The mining of the harbors was an example of “force against another state,” the court said; US support of the contras “amounts to an intervention of one state in he internal affairs of the other.”"
You can also read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_
Interventions_of_the_Reagan_Administration
I tried to find some conservative source for the story, but apparently they believe in "covering up" shameful news rather than dealing with it (or, at least I couldn't find any references to it from conservative sources).
Just to be clear:
1. Are you not believing that we were convicted by a World Court or, 2. you believe that but don't think we did what we were accused of or,
3. you believe we did what we were accused of but don't think we should have been convicted for it?
If you are unaware of the facts, no one is disputing that we were convicted, that we did, in fact, mine the harbors at Corento (as you can see in the quote above, Congress condemned the action). For those conservatives that I've read in the past who talk about it, what it comes down to is that we had justification for mining the harbor of a sovereign, Democratic nation because the nation was a "communist" one and we were at war with communism, therefore, it wasn't illegal, or something to that effect.
Congress and the World Court disagreed. By the way, in case you didn't know this, Reagan/Bush refused to acnowledge the World Court's decision.
I'm interested in hearing from you on this.
"The International Criminal Court was only established in 1998, which makes it a bit difficult to claim the last 3 Republican Presidents have been found guilty of war crimes."
The ICC is newly organized (and rejected by Bush), but World Courts have been around since at least WWII. And I didn't claim that Bush II was convicted of war crimes, only that he was possibly involved with war crimes.
The Reagan/Bush regime was, in fact convicted, as I showed above. And not only by a World Court, but a record number of their administration were convicted by OUR courts (or charged) due to law-breaking associated with Iran-Contra.
You see, it's illegal to sell arms to terrorists, and it's illegal to cover it up and lie about it to Congress. Generally speaking, I'm opposed to supporting terrorism.
"[The official 1987 report] depicted Reagan as confused and uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed “personal management style” had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. Congressional committees heard testimony that Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed a majority report in Nov. 1987 asserting that although Reagan’s role in the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Poindexter, North, and others were indicted in the affair."
--Ronald Reagan of foreign policy
In fairness to the Nicaraguan affair, also from the same source...
"The Reagan administration’s attitude toward the UN could be gauged by the appointment of Jeane Kirkpatrick as UN Ambassador. She was a frequent critic of the “anti-Americanism” expressed in General Assembly votes. American distrust and dislike of the UN would be confirmed repeatedly in the Reagan years. The Administration withdrew from UNESCO, cut off America’s contribution to the UN Fund for Population Activities, cast the single vote against a World Health Organization code for infant formula, and did not oppose the Kassebaum amendment reducing America’s contribution to the General Assembly by 25% unless the UN should amend its charter. The Administration encouraged Britain’s withdrawal from UNESCO (the objective of a Heritage Foundation campaign), and threatened its own withdrawal from several other international agencies. When Nicaragua took the CIA’s mining of its harbors before the International Court, the US refused to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction."
Reagan was convicted of no crime. The vote of 84-12 in the Senate was the for the mining of a harbor, and it is not a conviction of "crimes". Public condemnation is not the same as conviction. Had he been "convicted", as much as the Left hated him, he could then have been brought up on impeachment charges in the House. No such action took place. Perhaps the Left was more congenial in those days, or, as is more likely, the actions that lead to the Senate vote did not amount to high crimes and misdemeanors.
I do not doubt you see Reagan and Bush 41 as war criminals-- you've said as much, but the fact is, if you're going to go down that road, be prepared to brand every president who ever saw the need to confront an enemy, Republican OR democrat-- especially Clinton who did little to prevent a known enemy from attacking US interests --as a war criminal. The most Clinton did was blow up a factory at night killing a few civilian janitors... Methinks that amounts to murder. He also lobbed a few million dollar missles at targets in Afghanistan he knew were either empty, or the target had already flown the coop. But as Sandy Burglar probably stole the documents surrounding those events from the National Archive, proving those allegations will be difficult at best.
You can find a criminal in every politician, if you look hard enough. Personally, I think you, and others who echo this specious rhetoric do the country you/they claim to love a grave disservice.
I don't argue that these events didn't take place, only that your perception of them is skewed, and the conclusions you draw from them distorted. In plainer english, I think you want to believe they are war criminals. And that's sad. Very sad indeed.
Are you saying that the US was NOT convicted of war crimes during the Reagan/Bush administrations (the conviction came in 1986)?
That is a point of fact, I'm not making it up. Are you separating the war crimes that happened from the Reagan administration under which it occurred? Are you saying Reagan was unaware of it?
Help me understand your position, please.
Yes, I do think that we have committed war crimes (ie violated our own laws about how we are to conduct ourselves during war) including (especially!) Democrat Harry Truman when he killed 200,000+ civilians in Japan.
While I think our laws aren't perfect, they'd be a helluva lot better if we enforced them.
1. The United States doesn't recognize the world court
2. Anything that comes from the U.N. (of which the World Court is a subsidiary thereof) is to be suspect-- The U.N. has a disturbing track record of incompetence, corruption, and a very short list of averted and/or quashed wars. The U.N. in fact is guilty of war crimes as well, but since Peacekeepers were the perpetrators lets, for the sake of argument, call them "Peace Crimes"...
Seemingly, no one but Liberals takes the U.N. seriously. And if the U.N. has been such an abyssmal failure in the aforementioned areas, why should the United States take the World Court seriously, ESPECIALLY since the rules under which criminal procedures at the world court conflict with the American Constitution, and the rights afforded each and every American therein?
Set aside teh World Court for a minute. Do you or do you not think these activities happened? Do you think that we did not mine the harbor?
Reality is we did.
Do you not think it is against OUR laws to do so?
It is.
I truly don't understand you, E. It's like you'll do anything to defend anything some of these Republicans do.
The facts:
1. The CIA mined the harbor at Corento
2. We were found guilty by a world court for doing so.
3. Even if you don't accept the world court, we broke our OWN laws in our actions.
Is it that you disagree with these facts or you think none of the above matters?
I don't discount the facts, nor do I object to them. What I object to is your use of the term "War Crimes".
That is all I'm defending here. But let's take the times into consideration. The U.S. is nearing the end of the Cold War, though it couldn't have known it. The U.S. remembered all to well the lesson of Communism in our hemisphere-- the Cuban missle crisis. All of a sudden communism is trying to take root in Central America? The national paranoia of all things communist was very much alive. Was Kennedy's actions toward Cuba legal? The Bay of Pigs? What other operations that we DON'T know of. Don't be so quick to castigate one president, frequently referring to his party-- namely Republican. Your bias shows, and, as you frequently point out to me, your perceptions might just be clouded by your own personal ideological bent. I'm not going to call any president a War Criminal because none of our presidents have risen to the level of Nicolae Ceausescu, Slobadon Milosevic, Idi Amin Dada, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler... Not even the weak-kneed, sorry excuse for a president that was Jimmy Carter. NO American president has ever been a War Criminal. War, as General Sherman so aptly stated, is Hell. And it's not very pretty. Do people go too far in war? Absolutely! I've already offered a small list of names above; people who went beyond the acceptable war-time pale. But no American president deserves to be on that list.
"All of a sudden communism is trying to take root in Central America?"
No, all of a sudden, Democracy was taking root in Central America. Nicaragua had years of an oppressive totalitarian gov't in the Somozas (which the US supported off and on, eventually cutting off support because of its oppression and corruption), and the Sandinistas led the people in overthrowing that regime.
The Nicaraguan people then elected in a free election Daniel Ortega as their president and democratically chose a form of socialism as their economic system. It wasn't perfect (far from it!), but it was the people's choice.
It was THIS gov't that the Reagan administration gave money to known terrorists to overthrow. First, Reagan did so with Congress' approval.
But soon, Christians in Nicaragua reached out to Christians in the US for some mercy - the Contras were terrorizing the people and we (you and I) were funding it!
When news of how the Contras were terrorizing Nicaragua reached Congress, Congress voted against sending any more money to aid the Contras. When Congress did this, Reagan and/or his people took the initiative to illegally sell weapons to Iran (we were already providing weapons to Saddam in Iraq!!) to raise money that was then funneled to the Contras.
ALL of this is/was illegal by our own laws. And then, when Bush II comes along and starts hiring some of the same actors in that illegal mess (some who were convicted!) to be part of his administration, we could see the path he was off on.
Do you understand at all how many people who pay attention to history and what's happening are outraged and incensed when people dismiss our own illegal actions? Actions such as these contribute to the terrorism problems we have today (see, sending support to Saddam during his deadliest, most oppressive era).
And, assuming you aren't up on our history with Nicaragua (and we have a similar history in much of Latin America), feel free to google "Nicaragua history sandinista somoza" or "iran contra" or any of these stories. Feel free to make a visit to some of the many Nicaraguan (Guatemalan, Salvadoran) villages decimated with our support and ask the survivors to tell you their stories.
I have. Many of my friends have. I looked an elderly Nicaraguan lady in her sober dark eyes as she asked, "I want to know, who gave this man, Reagan, the right to destroy our lives?"
It's a bit difficult to hear the real stories and not be ready to change parties (as I have) and want both parties to at least simply obey our own damned laws.
[here's a starting point. Please, if you just don't know the history, read up on it before making a judgement:]
http://www.stanford.edu/group/arts/nicaragua
/discovery_eng/history/index.html
"Your bias shows, and, as you frequently point out to me, your perceptions might just be clouded by your own personal ideological bent."
I'll ask you to recall that I began this response by pointing out that I was a Reagan supporter and a moral conservative before Reagan's administration made it clear that many of those who stood for "moral conservatism" made the case that it wasn't so. In other words, my "ideological bent" was in his favor.
But sometimes, actions - even of those you support - are so patently immoral that one must choose to either bury your head in the sand, go along with the immorality or take a stand against your former position.
And not so much against my former position, as I was against crimes and terrorism before, but against those I supported when it became clear their idea of morality was vastly different than mine.
Post a Comment
<< Home