I don't know, I was in the military at the time of both events and it seemed that most of us felt that way. Were not civilians concerned about the lost lives in the failed raid on Iran or pleased with our success under Reagan? Seems unreasonable to me. Of course there are many who deny our current successes also.

I really don't see why this would be added or how it has anything to do with terrorism. Please explain.

hey, your original "story" brought up the Iran hostages. We paid ransom for them.

The problem is the "facts" are events that are then wrapped in hyperbole and opinion/inuendo. And a lot of other "facts" are left out.

Bottom line is you believe and hear what you want to, and can't seem to filter the spin. And if you have to ask what Ollie North has to do with terrorism, and don't know who Salvador Allende was, then your republican "fact providers" might be missing a few details...

Sing:

The only thing in Anne's timeline that can be verified (possibly) with any certainty is the dates. Everything else is conjecture on her part. A very good example of selectively telling the truth.

Sorry, on this subject, I respectfully have to disagree.

BTW...Thanks to everyone who posts. I wish all bulletin boards had folks like this; for the most part respectful and civil. I enjoy this board very much.

Oh, good point...I totally missed what you were getting at. I was locked onto the Contra thing on your first post. Thanks for elaborating.
I don't think Iran/Contra truly paid ransom (of course I admit you could fairly call it that). The agreement was to sell Iran Hawk missiles in exchange for releasing hostages and ceasing terrorism. Then the proceeds were to be diverted to the Contras and fund them around Congress. Of course, as you know...the deal fell through.
I agree that that was ill conceived and that Ollie was amazingly lucky to have his convictions overturned on appeal....I also do not believe he was free of wrongdoing, but also was not as evil as cast by some. During the cold war we did lots of crap that was very hard to explain if brought to light....most had the best of motives. Yes, it was very poorly done.

flintstone,

good post...I sense gray :)

I think in general GW has good motives (ie his heart is in the right place), but I don't agree with some of his choices. I think that often Cheney *doesn't* have good motives, but that is my opinion. I won't toss around terms like "evil" (although I just did), but I think there are plenty of ulterior motives there. In GW's case I think it really is that becuase of his history and upbringing, he is just doing what he knows how to do, and playing the game the way he has seen it played...and keeping his buddies happy is how the game is played.

I am in total agreement that during the cold war we did some amazing nasty stuff. And I would also argue that some of what is going on could very easily be viewed the same 20 years from now. Time will tell...

Nostatic
I have no problem admitting it when someone proves themselves right or me wrong......facts are facts. It is the grays that are difficult. It was very difficult during the cold war because the President and Congress were so at odds that both seemed to make decisions to spite each other. But I do see a lot of misinformation out there. By virtue of coincidence (you would be amazed), I seem to somehow end up places that make the news and am shocked at how different it is when I read about it in the papers or on TV. Most of the time the author was never there and it was a creative writing exercise.
By the way...my favorite politician and the most moral and honest person in Washington(IMHO) is a man thet I have personally worked with and impressed by.... a Democrat.

when I was in high school I actually knocked on doors campaigning for Carter (that was '76). I thought he was a very smart guy with great ideas and energy. While many consider him a "failed" president due to high inflation, gas crisis, and the hostage fiasco, I think that history is starting to be kinder to his legacy, realizing that some circumstances can't be solved. And I have the utmost respect for him, even though I don't agree with everything he does...but he seems to be very honest and "walks the walk".

As for the media, it has become a very sad and dangerous joke. The only "independent" media is found in the weblog space...everything is controlled by a very small number of corporations. And that is a recipie for disaster...or at least for en route to diminished democracy.

I also thought he would be a great president and supported him prior to his election. My pespective was that he was a Southerner, a Navy man, and actually admitted he had "lusted in his heart!" to Playboy Mag..a shocker at the time.....but I do consider him "failed." I most resent that way he has broken the long tradition of former presidents of not meddling in current adminstration's affairs. He does seem like a good honest man, but from my perspective, he was in a bit over his head. It was a very difficult time (in the military)....as were the Clinton years. Perhaps if I had followed a different profession, I would have a different outlook.

I agree as to the media. that is why I try to always read and watch both sides and decide myself..if nothing else, it helps in debates.

Fintstone, You haven't said what exactly your job was in the military, but I thank you for your service! I came very close to joining the Navy when I was 18, (see the world, etc....), sometimes wonder if it would have been the thing to do. The year was 1977, pretty soon after Viet Nam and the end of the draft, not many guys I knew were enlisting then. The world was considered to be "between wars" at the time, how things have changed.

The interesting thing about some of the political discussions we are having in regards to terrorism is that we, (on both sides), ascribe 'motives' to the politicians that we don't like that cannot usually be proven. We all agree that they say what they think we want to hear, but members of both parties give their leaders the benefit of the doubt whether they deserve it or not, IMO. It must be different when you have volunteered for military service, you obviously have to believe in the mission. I think that privately a lot of soldiers do question WTF we are doing, but they are the tip of the sword and have to 'soldier on'.

My .02. :cool:

Denis...did a lot of different stuff...Someone asked in one of these political threads either yesterday or today..i listed as much as I can talk about..you will probably come across it. Other than the Iran thing, my strongest memory of the Carter years was...we had no parts to fix anything (I was a aircraft maintainer then), we didn't even have money for toilet paper...although I was making less than minimum wage..I had to bring it from home. Oh and we were not allowed to plug in the water fountains..to save energy...so the water was always hot and smelled bad. We were allowed and required, however to plug in the coke machines (as they had a contract). But, of course, I couldn't afford a coke.