Make Iran Contra bigger

I have to say I still find it weird that the Iran Contra scandal did not have a bigger impact on the US.

How could it be made more significant?

How big an impact does it have?

Would winning the Democrats winning the election of 1988 be a poison chalice?
 

boredatwork

Banned
it's pretty hard for it get bigger on its own.

consider the joe-sixpack view.

>Some guys sold (allegedly defective) weapons to the losing side in one of those stupid wars among people we don't like in the middle east, and used the money to buy guns for folks we sort-of like fighting commies down south.<

Frankly, this isn't going to get folks riled up if they hear about it while eating dinner and reading the sports pages. And, as you note, it didn't.

Dems best bet to leverage it was the televised hearings, which blew up in their faces, courtesy of Ollie North.

So - make the person fingered as running the op less telegenic, and less inclined to fall on his sword for everyone else. That'll help, a little.

But still, not very much. Go back and check lexis/nexis from those periods. The media by and large was frothing at mouth over this, and the public at large just yawned.

Prove some direct link between the iran-contra and something like the Beruit bombing, and then you've got something that will make middle american sit up and take notice.
 
For many Americans, and not just the "Joe-sixpack types", Iran-Contra was seen as a clever and largely successful attempt by the Reagan administration to fund what it considered a legitimate foregn policy objective the majority of Congress did not support and would not have funded thru the normal appropriations process. It reflected a legitimate disagreement about the roles of the legislative and executive branch in setting and implementing foreign policy. The Reagan administration's position would also have been supported by FDR, since he was also forced to circumvent the will of congress to provide military assistance to Britain 1939-1941.

I never considered Iran-Contra a "scandal" in the same way that Watergate was. I agree with boredatwork. It also helped that it worked. The success of the Contras eventually led to elections that the Sandinista govenment lost. The only way Iran-Contra would have galvanized people is if proof occurred that the US was directly hurt by the weapons it provided Iran - or perhaps if our involvement in Nicaragua eventually led to a Vietnam-like entaglement. Even then, it was a policy disagreement, not a scandal.
 
I have to say I still find it weird that the Iran Contra scandal did not have a bigger impact on the US.

How could it be made more significant?

How big an impact does it have?

Would winning the Democrats winning the election of 1988 be a poison chalice?

You should search for Iran-Contra threads...I distinctly remember you either posting or posting in an Iran-Contra thread a few months back.
 
Agree with the everybody. In the end Iran-Contra came down to policy and execution differences both between tihe Adminstration and Congress; and even within Congress (there with Democrats who agreed with the polcy if not the execution, and even some who where in the know.)

It wasn't about anyone's personnal gain, or corrupting elections, that's what made it different from the Nixon stuff.

The only way it truely blows up in main street American, is as stated in the thread, finger-pointing, or some money is being diverted to the someone's pocket, or political campaign, or a ture coverup, maybe Poindexter convinces President Reagan to ingore AG Meese's recommendations, go public, admit it, and request an IC, but I just don't see President Reagan doing that.

Or.. Maybe if Congress had held off on hearings (I was involved in Democrat campaigns, state level back then the hearings totally turned it into "dispute over policy" even with hardcore Dems), and someone other than Judge Wash as IC (he had an ax to grind, especially against VP Bush), who actually investigates the legal issues raised, you get a little more reaction, but not much.
 
Nobody cared then and nobody has any clue today what Iran/Contra was, especially if your under 40. Reagan was still able to recover and leave with high approvals and Bush 41 won election in large part because of Reagans strong campaigning in his final year as President. I really dont think the "scandal" could be any bigger considering it was the primary focus of the Democrats and media and was still a topic in the final days of Bush 41's re-election in 1992. How much more blood could they soak of that turnip?
 
Top