So you say. But it is only the Democrats who keep insisting he got away with something illegal. If it's illegal why wasn't something done. They certainly tried, and failed, so "All parties agreed" says exactly nothing.

They proved nothing, or Reagan would have gone down for it. And if they proved nothing, then, according to the law, he is "innocent until proven guilty".

And when I say your arguments are one-sided, I'm not referring solely to this. You never take a neutral stance, but invariably default to the Democrat side.

Too easy.
Look at the opening posts, if North wasn't taking one for the team then he cannot have been protecting the team from the legal consequences of their illegal actions.
So that isn't just non democrats insisting he got away with it the republicans are celebrating him getting away with something illegal

So many reasons, the major one apart from national interests is the issue of immunity and the implications that had on testimony.

Nothing new there.
Murderers escape conviction or even prosecution regularly, it doesn't mean they are not murderers, it just means they are not convicted murderers.

That is because in the main US politics only has a right and a further right and on this forum many contentious views put up for discussion come from the far right of the further right, so anything against those views would appear to the left.

You're at a disadvantage basing you're argument on my opinion, perhaps you should watch the film and form your own opinion of the events.

Critisism is fine, but that comment from post #5 bordered on a personal attack and I don't appreciate it. YOU threw out the first comment on the only comment about Col. North (MY comment), I don't see anyone else defending the actions of a soldier following his commanders orders, but again it's ONLY my opinion that a loyal officer to his commander is to be celebrated.

Your opinion obviously differs.

It was a personal attack, on Oliver North.

Look wider, for many North became a hero when he wrapped himself in the flag and lied his ass off.
While you are at it, "following his commanders orders"?
Reagans defence was that he didn't order any of that ciminal stuff.

he is supposed to be loyal to his country.

Obviously, that flag wrapped following orders line went out with Nuremburg.

It's still all talk. You haven't shown any actual evidence. I can claim that anybody has gotten away with any number of things. That doesn't make it so.

Read Tower, its only 200 pages.

From Subsim's board rules: acceptable use policy,
Admitting to a personal attack, eh ? I believe the rules of this board apply to non-members as well.

Stalin was a crazy murdering dictator
Oh no I attacked a non member:har::har::har::har::har:

Um, no. If that were true then half the members would be banned every time Obama was mentioned, and the other half every time Bush was mentioned.

'Personal Attack' means just that - attacking someone here rather than arguing with them.

Okay. The Tower Commission Report basically says that Reagan screwed up. I not only accept that, I believe it (I've never liked the man myself, which of course helps).

But Tower doesn't conclude that Reagan had hands-on knowledge, nor that he did anything illegal. And North was convicted on minor charges, but the fact that Congress screwed up that pesky 'Fifth Amendment' thing is their fault, not his.

Again, show actual evidence. Tower proves nothing.

Game, set and match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N0200mj30Q

HunterICX

Besides the tennis match...Reagan was one of my favorite Presidents. Did he do everything right? No. Was he the most awesome President ever? Not really. He was, however, what the country needed at the time. Plus, his speeches were great to listen to.

:DL :up:

It shows that arms sales to Iran were illegal, it shows that aiding central american terrorists was illegal, it shows that they happened.
If they happened and they were illegal then the people involved were criminals.


It does conclude that he bears responsiblity, as he either knew or was negligent.
If you are negligent in your responsiblities when it comes to illegality you are deemed a criminal .
So knew or didn't know he is still a criminal as the actions taken were undeniably illegal.

Al capone just fiddled his taxes.


Not unless steve can prove that all the events which people agree happened didn't happen and prove that the laws covering these crimes which existed didn't exist.