That is the worst attempt to spin the Iran-Contra mess I've ever heard.
It happens to accord with the historical facts.
They were giving weapons and spare parts to the Iranian government. How in the hell was that supposed to keep them out of the hands of the fundamentalists?
I said that was the point of it all - the theory, not the "mess" itself. And who was "they?"
I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy, but you're all wet when it comes to Iran-Contra. Here's Victor Davis Hanson:
Iran-Contra was as serious because there was a veritable war inside the Reagan administration over helping insurgents with covert cash that had in part been obtained by, despite denials, selling arms to enemy Iran to free hostages — all against U.S. laws and therefore off the radar. The Reagan administration was left looking weak, hypocritical, incompetent, and amoral — and never quite recovered. Yet even here the media soon covered the story in detail, and their disclosures led to several resignations and full congressional hearings.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... ffair.htmlThe Iran–Contra affair[1] (Persian: ماجرای مکفارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, President Ronald Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[2] At least some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the Reagan administration had been prohibited by Congress.
The affair began as an operation to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to a relatively moderate, politically influential group of Iranians, and then the U.S. would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who in turn were connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[3][4] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[5][6]
While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[7] no conclusive evidence has been found showing that he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[3][4][8] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostages transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[9] Oliver North, one of the central figures in the affair, wrote in a book that "Ronald Reagan knew of and approved a great deal of what went on with both the Iranian initiative and private efforts on behalf of the contras and he received regular, detailed briefings on both." Mr. North also writes: "I have no doubt that he was told about the use of residuals for the contras, and that he approved it. Enthusiastically."[10] North's account is difficult to verify because of the secrecy that still surrounds the affair.
It would appear that both Dr. Hanson and I are correct. The entire fiasco was a bit more complex than "Reagan sold arms to Iran."
The Princeton article is a bit sloppy in one particular, and that's its treatment of the Boland Amendments. Those laws only prohibited the use of government funds to support the Contras. North was soliciting funds from private citizens and other outside sources, not trying to funnel tax funds to the program. It did circumvent the will of Congress, but was not "illegal" in any salient sense.