Will McAvoy pwns the Tea Party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY

I know we've talked about the TP before, but it's scary and shameful on all of us that we allowed a group of such hateful, delusional people to participate in gov't and even push it around (maybe now we know why corrupt Karzai isn't thrilled about a power-sharing peace deal with the Taliban?). I wish Anonymous or some other tech-savvy group would hack the GOP convention and play this during a big speech. You can start watching at 2:25 if you're pressed for time.

Again, shame on the MSM that I actually learned a lot of new things from the Daily Show and HBO's Newsroom during this campaign season. I know Sorkin can be over-the-top (and did he accidentally compare an old black lady to a stray animal, or accuse the TP of doing so?), but I think Newsroom is refreshing and you actually care about the characters' struggles (and admire them for it). Too bad it won't shame any of the current big anchors into being actual journalists.

The Cold War right wing extremist roots of the Tea Party

Glen Beck and the Tea Party's right-wing extremist Cold War roots:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fa_fact_wilentz

The Princeton professor author of this article thinks that if several Tea Baggers (how some of them have chosen to call themselves) win seats in Congress this fall, the GOP representation will be possibly the most right-wing in our history. People like Barry Goldwater were dismissed or even feared as dangerous wackos during the Cold War, but now similar views are well accepted in the TP. Mainstream conservatives like William Buckley cautioned that candidates like Goldwater would hurt their party. Recently Karl Rove insinuated something similar about TP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), and the pro-TP backlash was so huge that Rove had to recant on the cable news circuit. When Karl Rove is the voice of moderation, I think the GOP has to realize that they've gone too far. And probably the establishment already has, since the RNC is also secretly hoping for the TP to fail so they can be top dog again. But how can they speak out against a movement that is galvanizing conservatives, raising money, and may win them back Congress? But they should consider the long-term repercussions of hitching their wagon to these wild horses.  

I find it ironic that Beck (the self-proclaimed historical brain behind the TP movement) espouses the libertarian views that government should stay out of our lives and the free market, and that gov. control leads to totalitarianism and fascism. Yet he is a devoted Mormon, which is one of the most socially invasive religions in history. Mormons can't watch certain movies, can't drink certain things, and must give up a % of their wages to the church (i.e. taxes). The church even tells members to rat out each other if they witness violations, like the Gestapo. So it's evil when a body of democratically elected officials and Constitutional law experts establishes things like due process, the EPA, and income tax, but it's fine when appointed church leaders (with no accountability, transparency, and checks/balances) do it?

DNC Thoughts

I want to know who paid Obama to flop on the election. Biden?! This guy who ~6 months ago said to Obama’s face that he was not ready for the presidency and states he would be honored to run for or against McCain? Wtf? Either he will say what needs to be said to win elections (thinks obama is ready for presidency) or he is banking on an early assassination (not entirely unlikely). And the guy has foot in mouth disease, a political time bomb at this stage in the election. I just can’t wait for some 1 on 1 debates between McCain and Bama. If the polling spread does shoot through the roof then I know racism is calling this election.

---------

Who else pays black men these days, NIKE of course! I think it's pretty clear that Biden was chosen as an attack dog type guy. Obama is seen as a nice guy, in fact I haven't seen a single attack ad against McCain yet but I've seen plenty against Obama. Biden will probably change that. It's a weird comparison to make, but it's kinda like when Cheney was chosen to be Bush's vp. He is picked specifically to be a jackass and take on the negative aspects of a campaign.

Also, I'm a little surprised that Obama has done so well as it is. I always kind of assumed there was a lot of racism in this country but apparently democrat followers are more loyal than I would have thought. Although, no one likes Hilary except for middle aged women so that helped him a little bit.

As for t's email, my bitter and cynical nature about politics prevents my surprise or outrage but the whole convention thing is one big circle jerk for the parties. Basically it's a "look how awesome we are" event that is as you pointed out, a waste of time and money. It's simply the American way to throw money at whatever worthless shit suits our fancy. Especially in politics and government.

-------

Well, I think T is talking about an ideal case for the convention; the fact is that (in 1968) the DNC's convention was a "media spectacle" of the highest order as well, although for different reasons... having Abby Hoffman-inspired protesters getting stomped by cops in riot gear makes headlines too, albeit to the benefit of a guy like Richard Nixon.

-------

I knew that Obama’s jumper looked too good to be luck. Dude went to the nike training facilities.



“In my run to the white house, I need to be competitive and I need to move fast. That’s why I need Obama brand shoes. Buy your Obamers today!”



I saw a digg article recently, maybe it is still front page if you check fast, about a supposed attempt on Obama’s life at the convention. I’m telling you Biden wants the oval!

--------

Haha yeah, and I almost forgot about this:

In the article published Wednesday, Biden is quoted evaluating presidential rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. His remarks about Obama, the only African-American serving in the Senate, drew the most scrutiny.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." (Watch Biden's comments and Obama's reaction )

Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

I guess he let bygones be bygones, but really it wasn't such a big deal - just funny and indicative of Biden's ability to put his foot in his mouth. Not sure why he picked Biden; two northerners on the same ticket? Delaware isn't a swing state. I guess Hilly was out (bad blood, and no one wants to risk the veep outshining the top dog), and Edwards is an adulterer. Webb is a Senate noob like Obama, so that ticket would get punched. But I tend to agree with some of Biden's foreign policy stances, and I respect him for being outspoken to the point where it gets him in trouble (remind you of anyone?).

Well let's be honest - Obama isn't ready for the presidency, maybe McCain too. Very few candidates are I think. He's never held a prominent executive role (not even head of a Senate Cmte). He got people together and got them to vote in Chicago. "There's no school for presidents", said JFK. But it's ok; you learn "on the job" and do your best I guess. I know that crock hate book about Obama that was recently published was a load of crap, but one part of the title, "The Cult of Celebrity", is relevant. Some of his hard core fans and adorers really scare me, especially coming from an "educated Western democracy". This is like the stuff where ignorant poor masses worship leaders like Bhutto and Mao, even though such people might screw them behind their backs (not saying Obama is like that). They don't even know why they love them, they just do, and can't even articulate what that leader has really done for them (if anything), apart from the obvious propaganda disseminated by the PR machine. It just makes them feel good, so they do it. How can you love someone so much who you don't really know and hasn't really had much of a public career? He "inspires" people with speeches. I guess after years of bad news and currently a bad economy looming over their heads, folks really want to believe in "the promise of America" and hope for change for the better, so they may embrace Obama as a potential manifestation of those feelings. It's a hope, like buying a lottery ticket. Heck I might even vote for him as part of that hope. But it may not be a rational choice. I'm not saying that any other available candidate is better, but it's sad when the most powerful and privileged voting public on Earth may resort to that thinking, and it sets a scary precedent.

I think some speakers at the DNC today said that America "needs" Obama. Really? He's the only one who can save us huh? I'm fairly sure that there are at least 100 Americans out there who could be better presidents that him, and most of them aren't even politicians. You just have to care about doing right, sacrifice for the good of others, and have some common sense (at least enough to hire the right help, unlike how W did). I think it's really that simple, but of course not everyone can put themselves in the position to have a shot for the Oval Office. All his ideas about energy policy, climate change, health care reform, Middle East, job creation, etc. have been around for years. Obama didn't invent any of it. A president is not an idea man; he has no time for that. He instead acts as a conduit for other people's ideas to flow through and get to the right parties, so stuff can actually get done in government. But some people are acting like Obama will somehow succeed where others have failed. I hope they're right. He's got skills, but I don't know if he'll be able to deliver us from the housing bust, the wars in the Middle East, the middle class squeeze, and racial-social injustice, to name a few of the problems that he and his supporters have professed to be able to solve.

Instead of solving problems, it seems that the office of the president has become more of a money and power making vehicle for the president's buddies. I am sure it will be the same with Obama or McCain, though of course toned down from the ludicrous Bush years. The VIPs that helped them get elected aren't just doing it because they love America. Maybe some are, but others will want kickbacks, and President 44 will try to find ways to satisfy them without making a stink. Though the tough part is when they have to decide between special interests and national interests. But it's still quid pro quo, especially when re-election time comes. If a president can totally divorce him or herself from those conflicts of interest, then I think they have a chance to be an excellent leader. I just can't see that happening in these days of modern campaigning, where candidates are raising and spending $30M+ a month.

Addressing G's comments about negative campaigning - yes I think for the most part Obama's camp has been classier and more positive than the GOP. But he did of course make a big deal about McCain casually forgetting how many houses he owns in one TV ad, and struck back at the "Barack is the biggest celebrity in the world" McCain ad in another piece. But as the Wiggys said, Biden and others will try to do Obama's dirty work, to keep him smelling like roses to the voters, as Reagan and Bush were able to do. Obama has also tried to rehash the same tired line on the campaign trail: a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of failed Bush policies. One may argue that case, but the fact is that McCain's platform is much different than Bush's. But that is Obama's main (and maybe only) attack on McCain policy so far - he's out of touch with the economy (as if Barack isn't), and he's a carbon copy of Bush. But that's not true; McCain acknowledges climate change and has ideas to combat it (not sure if they're workable ideas). He wants to reform the health insurance system, similar to the ideas of market-driven conservatives from 1990. He believes in energy conservation, which the Bushies dismissed. He also is not a pawn of the Religious Right, though he is definitely courting them. He does take a hard line on Russia and Iran which is quite problematic and unwise. But Obama and McCain actually have quite similar views on several issues, including stem cells, immigration, and government reform. Heck they've worked together in the Senate, and they're even not so different about taxes and the Iraq War, though maybe that issue works in McCain's favor as long as stability is increasing. I guess this may be a symptom of candidates moving towards the center after primary season, but it also shows that McCain, while not a pure Maverick, is not a total party line extremist either. Nor is Obama of course. So Obama really needs to retire or modify this tired attack, unless of course it seems to be working with the voters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,7130991.story

An interesting history of some famous campaign ads:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93694355

Yeah glad C brought up the DNC in 1968. It was a real defining American moment, with '60s protest culture, much anger over the war, and typical Democrat ineptitude merging with TV's growing prominence in politics to create a perfect storm. 1968 is a big reason why the conventions are the heavily controlled, artificial entities that they are today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93937947

--------

the people who bought obama also bought this show. see if they show any of the convention bags. it's got a big AT&T logo on the bag. on sunday night, AT&T threw a private party for lobbyists and delegates and the press was not allowed. what was going on in there? was this a big thank you for giving them immunity only weeks ago? and, why didn't the press cover it? two people showed up to cover the party-amy goodman of democracy now and glenn greenwald of salon. and, where's coverage of the police state outside? if obama gets shot, it won't be because they spent too little on security. a 'fusion' center of all law enforcement(FBI, CIA, local and state police) has been set up a some ridiculous expense. free speech cages have been established once again.

Glenn Greenwald
Monday Aug. 25, 2008 11:15 EDT
AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party
(updated below (with video added) - Update II)
Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program. Matt Stoller has one of the listings for the party here.
Armed with full-scale Convention press credentials issued by the DNC, I went -- along with Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, John Amato, Stoller and others -- in order to cover the event, interview the attendees, and videotape the festivities. There was a wall of private security deployed around the building, and after asking where the press entrance was, we were told by the security officials, after they consulted with event organizers, that the press was barred from the event, and that only those with invitations could enter -- notwithstanding the fact that what was taking place in side was a meeting between one of the nation's largest corporations and the numerous members of the most influential elected faction in Congress. As a result, we stood in front of the entrance and began videotaping and trying to interview the parade of Blue Dog Representatives, AT&T executives, assorted lobbyists and delegates who pulled up in rented limousines, chauffeured cars, and SUVs in order to find out who was attending and why AT&T would be throwing such a lavish party for the Blue Dog members of Congress.
Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. After just a few minutes, the private security teams demanded that we leave, and when we refused and continued to stand in front trying to interview the reticent attendees, the Denver Police forced us to move further and further away until finally we were unable to approach any more of the arriving guests.
It was really the perfect symbol for how the Beltway political system functions -- those who dictate the nation's laws (the largest corporations and their lobbyists) cavorting in total secrecy with those who are elected to write those laws (members of Congress), while completely prohibiting the public from having any access to and knowledge of -- let alone involvement in -- what they are doing. And all of this was arranged by the corporation -- AT&T -- that is paying for a substantial part of the Democratic National Convention with millions upon millions of dollars, which just received an extraordinary gift of retroactive amnesty from the Congress controlled by that party, whose logo is splattered throughout the city wherever the DNC logo appears -- virtually attached to it -- all taking place next to the stadium where the Democratic presidential nominee, claiming he will cleanse the Beltway of corporate and lobbying influences, will accept the nomination on Thursday night.
The only other media which even attempted to cover the AT&T/Blue Dog event was Democracy Now -- they were also barred from entering. I was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman this morning to discuss what happened. They put together a 5-minute video montage, including our efforts to enter the event and interview the guests, which they broadcast before my segment. The video and my segment can be seen and/or heard here -- it begins at the 1:00 mark. A transcript will be posted shortly.
Jane Hamsher also filmed some of what transpired, and Salon has created our own video of last night, including the efforts by the private security teams and Denver Police to prevent us from standing on public property to interview the arriving members of Congress and AT&T executives and lobbyists. That will be posted shortly. There's nothing unusual about this event -- other than that it was more forcibly private than most and just a tad more brazenly sleazy. The democracy-themed stagecraft inside the Convention is for public television consumption, but secret little events of this sort are why people are really here. Just as is true in Washington, this is where -- and how and by whom -- the business of our Government is conducted.

UPDATE: Here is the video from last night's festivities, with our attempt to interview various attendees and interactions with the private security forces and Police -- filmed by Jane Hamsher and edited by Salon's Caitlin Shamberg:

--------

Wow thank you for that link; didn't know about that and it's disappointing. Yes I guess it would be very bad for business if a popular politician like Obama kept the heat on telecoms for their role in Bush's illegal wiretapping. So if they could convince him to "let it go" with various compensations, everyone wins right? If he was only a few months away from the White House, why the urgency to get the bill passed this summer? It's not like Osama will go free because the bill didn't pass (heck we're not even looking for him, because everyone is preoccupied with the Olympics and election). Assuming the Dems retain control of Congress, his people could work with Pelosi/Reid to craft a better version of the legislation, right? Fishy.

Yeah about that security, so much for the Dem Party being the "party of the people", but we knew that long ago. It's an exclusive country club like the other party. The GOP may have the industrialists, bankers, and preachers, but the Dems have the Hollywood elites, academic snobs, and lawyers. Neither represent the lower and middle classes, even though they pander to those groups every 4 years with wonderful speeches and promises. Obama is no different, or hopefully he can prove me wrong. What irks me about Obama and some of his supporters is that they really act like he's cut from a different cloth, like his poop doesn't stink. He's so cool with his fist-bump and "dusting off the shoulder" after Hillary's attacks. He speaks so well! With his limited public service record, he hasn't earned this much love. He worked hard for his own career and family, but he hasn't bled and toiled for his fellow Americans like Abe Lincoln or MLK.

Unlike those stupid emails and books from the Right, these critiques are not slander. We peel back the layers, and we find out stuff we don't like, like the immunity for telecoms, his abrasive history in Illinois, and reneging on public funding. But some people choose to ignore it, because they want to believe in him as a savior, and saviors never have flaws. I don't expect candidates to fix everything, be good 100% of the time, and have all the answers, but at least don't BS us about it. Of course that goes for McCain or anyone else too. The guy is old (senile?) and filthy rich; he was being honest and didn't make excuses - he doesn't know how many properties he owns because it's not on his mind a lot, unlike people in Fresno about to be foreclosed. Maybe he doesn't know how much milk costs, like Bush during the 1991 recession. They're all just products of a flawed system. I saw a bumper sticker online that said, "Someone better for president 2008". Maybe that someone does or doesn't exist, or could never survive in Washington anyway.

Anyone think we could use a few more mainstream political parties to have some REAL choice at the polls? Maybe coalition governments like Europe won't be such a bad idea, because it forces politicians with disparate views to work together and compromise. Of course then you might get the tyranny of the minority, like in Israel, but our nation is 200+ years old and maybe it's time to try something different. The status quo is stagnating, festering, and getting more and more expensive to maintain. So what if it's harder to get things done with a coalition? It's not like DC has a wonderful track record of productivity, or even worse, look at Sacramento! Get a prime minister, an independent judiciary, and have some real separation of powers. If it's not working out, dismantle the government and call snap elections (with only a 3 month campaign window, instead of the "endless American campaign").

Conventions are stupid

Now that delegates (representing voters) nominate candidates and not party insiders, political conventions serve no political purpose. They have degenerated into hollow, simplistic carefully-choreographed media spectacles like the Oscars. Half of the convention airtime is just music, applause, and cheering anyway. At best, they're just an occasion for party self-medication, self-adoration, and rehashing what we already know. Does anyone think that a "great convention", 3 months before the actual election, will actually help their candidate win? If undecideds base their votes on what is said at the conventions, then our political process really needs rescue.

I know the delegates, staffers, and volunteers deserve a big party to feel good after all the hard work they invested into getting their candidate this far, but come on. Politics seems more about pomp and festival these days rather than the actually hard, boring, complex, frustrating work that it must be.

I can summarize 3 days of the DNC into half a page:

- Love and happiness
- Clintons, Kennedys, Obamas
- Starry-eyed media speaking in superlatives
- How awesome Denver and Colorado are
- How awesome and cool Barack Obama is, and there may be a fist-bump sighting
- Obama is a regular guy just like us and worships the Christian god
- Obama's father was from Kenya and was raised by a single mom
- Obama is a "transcendent" politician because he's black AND white, and will let you have abortions AND guns
- Obama, despite reporting $4M income on his last tax return, understands the struggles of ordinary working people and will help us achieve the American Dream
- Upstart politicians using the convention podium as a career springboard, as Obama did in 2004
- Maybe Iraq will be discussed, but in a 2005 mindset (when the war was a more useful talking point for them)
- Unity
- Hope
- Change
- Other abstract one-word cliches, without concrete plans (or honest desire) to actually realize them in a measurable way
- John McCain = George Bush
- John McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns
- Maybe a Hillary coup d'etat to become the nominee

And the RNC will be much worse.

Now they could have just mailed that statement out, and saved millions of dollars and labor hours. Maybe they could have invested those resources to tackle all the critical problems that McCain, Obama et al. promise to fix.

Iran-Contra-Drugs

From our younger days: remember when we were kids, and saw Ollie North
swearing oath on TV with his smart olive uniform, and all the jokes about
shredding documents and whatnot? During the mid-80s, the economy was rolling
(at least for the rich and most of our families), the Soviets were on the
decline, and life was pretty good (“it’s morning in America”), so I
think the whole Iran-Contra scandal seemed like a circus sideshow to most of
us – especially since we were in grade school at the time. However,
Regan’s approval rating did dip to a shocking 44% during the fiasco. It’s
something that the right would really like to sweep under the rug, or even
revise history so that key players like Reagan, North, Bush Sr., George Shultz,
Colin Powell, John Poindexter, and Caspar Weinberger were actually heroes as a
result. If you thought the Katrina fallout was bad, this scandal was so
abusive of power and disrespectful to the American public (and global
community) that if it happened today – even our spineless Congress would
dust off the guillotine.

I’ll *try* to be brief, but the scandal is complex and multi-faceted: we all
know that during the Cold War, the USA had the policy of supporting
anti-Communist forces wherever and whenever beneficial, even if those forces
happened to be unstable thugs like the Mujahadeen, Pinochet, and the Contras
in Nicaragua. Military and logistical support cost lots money (even in the
Third World), so funds needed to be raised – either legitimately through
Congress or covertly via CIA channels. During the ‘80s, much profit could be
made from arms and drug sales involving the right parties.

NICARAGUA

During the early Cold War, Nicaragua was a banana republic of the USA, ruled
by the dictator Somoza. The local Catholic clergy opposed his brutal rule, and
were often silenced by force. The people never supported this puppet leader
(as was the case with the Shah), and the grassroots Sandinistas emerged to
overthrow the Somoza regime. With US and Cuban military aid, the conflict
evolved into a costly civil war during the ‘60s and ‘70s, until the
Sandinistas eventually prevailed with much public rejoice. One problem, they
were socialist and Castro allies.

Once Regan assumed power, Nicaragua was labeled as a major security risk to
the USA and an example of supposed global Marxist domination. This seems hard
to believe, because the civil war against Somoza cost the nation billions,
rendered nearly a million people homeless, and crushed the fragile economy.
However, the Reaganites painted the nation as a launch pad for Soviet
aggression into America’s soft underbelly. Minus the Cuban Missile Crisis,
the dangers that Castro posed have been exaggerated for some time – but
Nicaragua was an even smaller threat. However, in ’81 the White House began
to secretly fund opposition groups and engage in illegal military activities
(as was the case with Cuba in the ‘50s and ‘60s, which of course prompted
Castro to seek enhanced Soviet protection).

The loyalist press and White House made the Contras out to be a cohesive
freedom-fighting organization dedicated to eradicating communist oppression,
but in reality they were non-unified, unprincipled guerrillas and Somoza
loyalists who often terrorized the civilian populace rather than accomplish
any concrete political goals (their largest arm was the “Nicaraguan
Democratic Force” or FDN, see attached Appendix for more details). Congress
eventually got wind of the unapproved operations in Nicaragua and passed the
Boland Amendment in ‘82 to block further military aid and intervention from
’83-85. The Reaganites exploited a loophole in the law to resume Contra
support in ’86. I can’t comment on the moral purity of the Sandinistas,
and probably they engaged in plenty of atrocities against supposed Contra
supporters as well. But they were elected legitimately by Nicaraguans and had
popular support. Like many other examples, the USA just preferred to push for
regime change, rather than respect sovereignty and international law.

IRAN

So we have already established that the Nicaraguans ousted a corrupt, brutal
US-puppet dictator and replaced him with a socialist, populist regime. This
was of course unacceptable to American hardliners, so the Reaganites covertly
aided a violent resistance movement, despite Congressional disapproval, UN
censure, and a World Court ruling to cease illegal activities. If the USA
could not openly oppose the Sandinistas, they needed to go underground and
finance their actions with covert slush fund cash.

We know that the ’79 revolution in Iran was a major blow to US interests in
the Middle East and triggered other Islamic or Arab nationalist movements. Again, a populist movement with non-Western ideals overthrew a corrupt US puppet. Iranians took Western hostages, the US severed diplomatic ties, and
the two nations have had hostile relations ever since. The paramilitary
organization Hezbollah had bombed US Marines barracks in Beirut (over 200
dead) and took US hostages in the early ‘80s during Lebanon’s terrible
civil war. Even though the USA supposedly doesn’t negotiate with
“terrorists”, the Israeli Mossad informed DC that a back-channel deal was
proposed to get the hostages back. The Khomeni regime in Iran was openly
funding Hezbollah, so they basically pulled the strings. They had oil money
and wanted to buy arms to fight our then-ally Iraq, and we wanted our hostages
back. Therefore, the Reaganites could sell arms to Iran at high markups (more
profits for defense contractors too), get money to fund the covert Contra war,
and also win PR points for the freed hostages. The only drawbacks were that
Iran was a sworn enemy (I wonder how our pal Saddam reacted to the scandal?),
and all of these dealings were secret and illegal.

I understand that the safe return of captured citizens is a major priority for
any government, but some prices are too high or the methods of payment
inappropriate. North later testified that the scheme was a “neat idea”.
It’s definitely convenient if you don’t get caught, I’ll give them that.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only time that the US has done business with
enemies (the fascist regimes in Central Europe were major partners with our
companies in the ‘30s). Technically, it is illegal for US corporations to
trade with enemy states, especially those under formal sanctions. The
hardliner patriot Dick Cheney has called Iran “the world’s leading terror
exporter”, yet as Halliburton CEO he pushed the Clinton White House to
reduce sanctions so his company could exploit the Iranian cash cow
(http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2004/10/09/build/natio...).
Even as recent as 2003, offshore Halliburton subsidiaries did $65M in business
with Axis-of-Evil Iran (an easy way to circumvent the law). This is the same
company that is providing massive logistical support to our forces in Iraq and
reaping lucrative defense contracts (via KBR). Conflict of interests, isn’t
war great for business? You can profit from both sides in a conflict. But how
is it morally justifiable to do business with a rogue nation that is
supposedly supporting the Iraqi insurgency? And that same insurgency is
attacking American troops that Halliburton claims to love, and supports with
services such as laundry, energy, and food
(http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/news. jsp?newsurl=/default\main\halliburton\eng\news\source_files\press_release\2005\k
brnws_040505.html).


But getting back to Iran-Contra, we sold hundreds of anti-tank and anti-air
missiles to Khomeni via Israel (made with pride and American craftsmanship),
and the hostages were returned in ’85. While North and others saw this
arrangement as a long-term moneymaking scheme, Hezbollah took more hostages,
the Iranians complained about missile quality, and the program was supposedly
terminated in ’86.

THE SCANDAL BREAKS AND INVESTIGATION ENSUES

A Lebanese magazine broke the story in ’86, and a flight of arms (purchased
with Iranian blood money) bound for the Contras was shot down and exposed. The
US press was quickly active thereafter. North and his secretary Fawn Hall then
famously shred classified documents about Iran-Contra. In ’87 the Congress
decried that Reagan bore responsibility for the wrongdoings of his
subordinates, and he offered regret and explanation on TV. NSA Poindexter was
convicted with North (obstruction of justice, conspiracy, lying to Congress,
destroying/altering docs), but later both were cleared (Poindexter via appeal)
because 5th Amendment rights may have been violated to cut deals with
Congress, testifying for immunity. No one else even came close to being
punished. The investigation is fairly complex, uneventful, and boring (even
more so than the foreign policy history behind it all!), so I won’t say much
– but the links below are very informative.

THE DRUG CONNECTION

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html (Webb’s original San Jose Mercury News story
series)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/storm.htm (analysis of Webb’s
investigation)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1509/a02.html (the Kerry investigation)

Since the Reagan White House knew that they couldn’t sell arms to a sworn
mortal enemy forever without getting pinched, they needed new sources of
funding for covert Contra operations. Basically North and other CIA operatives
met with then friendly Panamanian dictator Noriega to help organize a drug
trade between Latin America and US inner cities, with Panama acting as a hub.
It was already a major drug artery, so while the Reaganites were touting
D.A.R.E. to us and declaring war on black/Latino drug dealers and users, they
turned a blind eye to Noriega and the Contra drug runners, selling arms and
giving other aid to their buddies. After North was indicted and the Nicaragua
fiasco reached the headlines, the new Bush White House severed ties with
“Manolo” and eventually ousted him from power with much pomp and fanfare,
though all the punishment he received was a slap on the wrist at Club Fed
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega). Sadly, the prosecution
couldn’t even make a legit case against him, since they needed to tread
lightly due to Noriega’s previous covert dealings with US government personnel.
I guess the same can be said of the Saddam trial today, but of course Noriega
probably wasn’t a war criminal.

Members of prominent LA gangs and Columbian cartels were also involved. While
mainly hidden and forgotten in the mainstream, these facts are not even in
dispute anymore – it really happened despite our initial reactions of
incredulity and revulsion. During the '80s rise of the crack cocaine trade in US
inner cities, CIA allies raised an estimated $50M a year in southern CA for
Contra ops. While no CIA operatives were accused of direct involvement, a LA
County Sheriff’s affidavit indicates that the CIA was well aware of
Nicaraguan cocaine trafficking in CA (therefore guilty by commission). The primary Contra group FDN was assembled and run by CIA agents. According to “Dark Alliance”, Gary
Webb’s series in the San Jose Mercury News in ‘96, Norwin Meneses (known
as “Rey de la Droga” in the Nicaraguan press) was the FDN officer
responsible for using coke profits for arms purchases, and his lieutenant
Oscar Blandon handled sales in San Diego and Miami. Both men acted as cartel
kingpins, and committed crimes on par with Mafia bosses and Colombian drug
lords. However, Blandon only served 28 months in prison, and Meneses was never
charged. In fact, they lived in comfort in the US, bought real estate, and
Blandon was even paid $166k in DEA informant stipends (taxpayer dollars). As
you would expect, the Justice Department blocked investigations into the two
men’s CIA ties.

This story is very similar to that of Cuban exiles contracted by the CIA to
perform guerilla warfare against communist Cuba. Clearly wanted criminals,
they roamed the Southern USA with great luxury and virtual impunity. Illegal
immigrants are hunted down like dogs in the American Southwest, yet these drug
pushers and murderers lived better than many Americans. It seems highly
improbably that such foreign figures would do business so openly and live so
well without CIA and government support (or approval at least). The FBI and DEA
are busting small time dealers all over the country, yet these kingpins ran
free for years?

AFTERMATH AND LEGACIES

If liberals attempted such a stunt like “guns for hostages, drugs for
guns”, the GOP would have gone bananas. Unfortunately, so much of this is
now relegated to conspiracy theory and fringe history. Many noble people
sacrificed their livelihood and careers to expose this fiasco that no
democratic, free society should ever come close to attempting, but we did. As
a result, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans (many of whom were civilians)
suffered and perished from US-Contra activities. Over a million were left
homeless, and economic sanctions against Nicaragua left the country in
shambles when the Sandinistas lost the vote in 1990. Radical Islam and Western
responses have claimed thousands (if not millions) of Western and Arab lives
in the Middle East as well. We can’t be sure what Iran used the hundreds of
US-purchased missiles for, but they are renown for aiding terrorists, and the
8-year Iran-Iraq war extinguished over a million lives and fueled extremist
hatred into the 21st century. Hezbollah is still active and many veterans of
the Iran-Iraq war now fight in the insurgency. Crack cocaine ruined thousands
of lives in the USA and cost our nation billions in enforcement, treatment,
and collateral damage since the ‘80s. It also made a lot of money for people
of questionable moral constitution. Of course the “war on drugs” was not
such a noble pursuit either, and many innocent or “not so guilty”
individuals were persecuted due to misguided or racist policies/laws. Gary
Webb, the Californian journalist who broke the Contra-cocaine story, was found
dead in 2004 from an apparent suicide. While the plight of the victims is very
obvious and tragic, strangely the major perpetrators were barely singed by the
scandal and ensuing investigations.

Clinton is demonized for lying about fellatio, but let’s see how the main
conservatives emerged from the scandal. Former President Reagan was voted the
greatest American by Discovery Channel viewers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Americas/4631421.stm. Of course those polled
probably were not qualified to make any informed historical evaluations, and it
was partly due to sympathy and nostalgia from his recent passing. After his
exit from office, he retired near Santa Barbara and also became an employee of
the Japan-based Fujisankei Communications Group, earning $2M per week to make
a few speeches (questionable loyalties, since Japan was seen as a major threat
to US economic dominance at the time). Then-VP Bush Sr. was bested by a
recession and an Arkansas hillbilly, but helped his sons achieve great
positions of power (as well as continue the Gulf War that he initiated).
Then-NSA Poindexter had his charges dropped in ’91 and assumed executive
positions in several defense tech companies before Bush II recalled him to
service in 2002 as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA)
“Director of Information Awareness” (a.k.a. Big Brother). He took more
heat when a controversial futures exchange was discovered in his org that
traded/profited in the likelihood of assassinations and terrorist acts.
Then-Secretary of Defense Weinberger was indicted for several counts
(including felony perjury), but was later pardoned by Bush Sr. in ’92 and
became publisher/chairman of Forbes Magazine. Then-General Powell became head
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, before he clashed with
the Bushies over Iraq and is now relegated to the private sector. FDN drug
dealer and convicted felon Blandon became a DEA employee and a favored
informant. Such cronyism and audacity is on par with Michael Brown “doing a
heck of a job” during Katrina, being removed from FEMA, and starting his own
disaster preparedness consulting firm. Yes, it was clear that Iran-Contra hurt
Washington as much as Compton and Managua.

And of course there’s good old Ollie North, felon (later overturned) and
perjurer. A Playboy article about him, yes I read it for the articles!!
http://www.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/want tobees/OllieNorth.html. Since serving
his reduced sentence, he has written over 8 books, is a syndicated
columnist/radio blowhard, and is a regular military correspondent on FNC. Two
decades later, he smells like a rose and is richer than all of us
combined. You can read some of his writing here if curious:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/archive.shtml.

In conclusion, what can we learn from Iran-Contra? How can we prevent it from
happening again? Such scandals are damaging to our democratic principles,
international goodwill, and policy agendas in so many ways. I’m not angry
that they perpetrators were caught and barely punished, but that they were
even able to commit such acts in the first place with Machiavellian arrogance
and unacceptable secrecy. How can we as a society prevent or minimize the
ability of politicians and others to manipulate and capitalize on global
events/fears in order to further their dangerous objectives (cough cough,
9/11)? How do we stop such propaganda from trumping our social principles and
reasonable judgment concerning risk assessment and rational, proportional
response? Yes, communist expansion, drug trafficking, and extremist terrorism
were legitimate, serious concerns during the Cold War, and the after-effects
are still haunting us today. But cutting secret deals and playing global bully
will not fix our problems or make us safer.

Yes, secret deals did save us during the Cuban Missile Crisis, diplomacy with
China, and other times, but none of those covert negotiations or agreements
were illegal or hurtful to anyone. In fact, they saved billions of lives and
reduced political tension in all likelihood. Can we differentiate between
secret dealings that are helpful and harmful? After the fact it’s fairly
trivial, but during a crisis, how can we trust our leaders to “do the right
thing?” How do we make sure that the right parties are involved, and players
are not exploiting secrecy and technicalities in order to advance their
specific agendas?

I know that perfect transparency between branches of government is impossible
(and may not even be desirable), but where do we draw the line and how can we
trust people to make proper, ethical decisions covertly (secret Cheney energy
meeting, CIA-NYT scandal, etc.)? How do we stop people in power from abusing
their privilege, and remaining immune to punishment and oversight? To what
degree is the government, intelligence community, and military permitted to intervene in
domestic or foreign affairs without the consent of Congress and popular
support (or even our knowledge)?

So the cycle is a familiar one, especially recently with Iraq and Katrina:
misguided people execute irresponsible actions (if not outright illegal) that
some would find immoral. The government hypes up a threat in order to execute
some very questionable actions. Ironically, other nations turn to communist or
Islamist leaders because they are so sick of US-backed tyrants. When Third
World people tire of our corrupt puppet dictators and demand popular reform,
we wage war on them the minute they mention Marx or Mohammed. We openly scorn
unfriendly regimes, yet covertly do business and ally with untrustworthy and
criminal partners. Ah well, we picked the “lesser of two evils”, right?

Once things go sour and the scandal is exposed, the guilty parties engage in
propaganda, misdirection, and damage control, eventually sacrificing a lamb or
two to the angry press and public. Later on the storm blows over and the
nation gets preoccupied with other issues, so history is gradually rewritten,
failures morphed into victories, and the victims forgotten. The perpetrators
are protected by their chums still in power, and may emerge years later
stronger than ever before. Often the same players engage in similar
improprieties in the future. We barely learn, we hardly punish, and we rarely
improve. Then new innocents must suffer because of our stupidity, and it
breaks my heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair (a quick Wikipedia summary)
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/ (an independent investigation a decade later)
http://www.dpft.org/racism.html, http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303e.asp, http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/pol/495lect04.htm (racism in the war on drugs)