Al Shiraa published a story claiming the CIA sold weapons to Iran in return for help in releasing hostages.
Funny that Howard Baker was called in to save the day for Reagan. 20 years before, Nixon railed against him and Baker's house was broken into.
In order to remove a President from office by impeachment, what must be proven? If crimes are committed by "the Presidency" without the knowledge of the President, can the President be held responsible? Why or why not?
The crimes that were committed in the events leading up to the Iran/Contra investigation seem pretty serious to me, and yet no serious voices were heard to talk about impeaching the president. Why?
Maybe this is too sarcastic: Would you rather have a president who lies about kissing interns, or one who lies about selling arms to terrorist nations?
The assessment we have for these crises seems to depend a lot on the intention and motivation of the agents involved. Apply the framework of Peters and Welch to evaluate the severity of the crimes in Iran/Contra.
When you read Woodward's description of what happened when Special Prosecutor Walsh had a chance to question former President Reagan, what were your reactions?
If you were George Bush, would you have pardoned the accused criminals in the Iran/Contra affair? Why?
