So it's okay to give in to terrorists? To break our country's laws as long as they are conservative law breakers?
Which is it?
But wait. To be fair, the 2 situations shouldn't be compared.
Because in your example, arms were traded for hostages. Even you know that. And you can't wait to turn off Olie North's radio show so spread the word that Olie says Olie was done wrong. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
So does Dickmuncher want to compare and contrast Iran-contra with Benghazi? Okay. Here is how Peggy Noonan compares and contrasts the two scandals:
"The attorney general, Ed Meese, launched a review of the (Iran-contra) affair. It was a real investigation, and he went public with his findings... The president delivered a national address. Two congressional committees launched investigations. Networks covered the hearings live... Reagan waived executive privilege so his aides would testify. He announced a special commission to investigate everything. There was a full housecleaning. Colin Powell was brought in to run the National Security Council... Ultimately Reagan dumped his chief of staff.
The Iran-Contra affair did not spring from low motives. There was no hope of partisan gain, it wasn't a political play.
All involved were trying—sometimes stupidly, almost childishly—to save lives, and perhaps establish a new opening with Iran. They had good reasons, but the actions were bad, and everyone involved paid a price.
Compare that with how the Obama White House has handled Benghazi. It's all been spin, close ranks, point fingers, obfuscate, withhold documents, accuse your accusers of base motives. Nobody in the administration has paid a price.
No, Benghazi was no Iran-Contra, in terms of the nature of the crime or the handling of it.
Dude, that was, like, almost 30 years ago. You can look it up.
Dude, that's how patriots, not punks, deal with scandals."
.
's