I know you will ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but for OTHERS reading this, who are open to actual facts, here you go:You've got one thing wrong right from the start. I do not have preconceived notions. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. Now, to the Boland Amendment. The first amendment was a rider attached to the Defense Appropriation Act. It was passed by the House 411-0. Now, a democrat authored the amendment, but when something passes 411-0, that's hardly a partisan vote.
http://www.historyandtheheadlines.ab...38&productid=8
"Boland Amendment (1982 and 1984)
Introduced by Edward Boland, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, the Boland Amendment is actually two pieces of legislation that amend other U.S. laws. The first, passed by the U.S. Congress on December 21, 1982, banned funds from the budget being used by the federal government to aid the contras fighting a civil war against the leftist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Congress was concerned about U.S. entanglements in the many conflicts raging in Central America during this period, particularly the involvement of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and thus passed the amendment to limit the CIA's input. Known as Boland I, it remained in effect until October 3, 1984, when it was replaced by an even stronger version of the law, known as Boland II. This second amendment prohibited the federal government from supplying any type of aid to the contras, either financial or otherwise. It remained in effect until December 5, 1985"
So.. was CONGRESS interfering with Presidential perogatives in running Foreign Policy there or not? And tell us how much BETTER it is for Democrats to do that, vs Republicans writing an OPEN LETTER, not passing a law, just writing a letter.. was more interference with the President than the Boland Amendment?
I don't know why I even ask those questions.. you won't answer or if you do, you'll deflect with name calling and the usual tripe that these threads devolve into. But at least you've been answered and shown the hypocrisy of the liberal Dems with their complaints about interfering in foreign affairs policy set by a "sitting President". Originally Posted by RedLeg505
I don't believe you and I have devolved into name calling. If I'm treated with respect, I try to reply in kind.
So, your question is was it right for it to be done then? You're assuming that each situation is the same and that's the fault in your reasoning. Something like this is not automatically right or wrong, regardless of when it's done. These actions are not taking place in a vacuum. At the time, in the early 80's, do you think we should have been aiding the leftist fighters of Nicaragua? I would say no.
Now, on to what Cotton did and how it's not exactly the same thing. Firstly, this is not about foreign aid. This is about negotiations, of which we are only one country. So not only is he shitting on us, but our partners in the talks. It's just a sign of disrespect on his part. The upper management of Iran doesn't need a refresher course on our government from a senator who's been in office three months. Most of their people went to college in the West, many in the US. They're well aware of our government and how treaties work. I think beyond what Cotton said, it was what he didn't say, but implied that made it even worse. The letter was worded and written as if was addressing a child. It contained veiled threats, etc. Overall, we're trying to get a deal done. Take off your political hat for just a moment and tell me honestly; when you are involved in negotiations such as these, is it your best play to do what he did and subjugate the office of the President, who is responsible for negotiating foreign affairs? How does it make us look? Like rank amateurs who are not all on the same page. Make no mistake, I am not for one side or the other. I'm for the truth. If the truth is bad for democrats, so be it. If it's bad for republicans, so be it.
