[allmendream]

That the rebels were pro-Communist or anti-Communist makes no difference to the Constitution. The Executive cannot raise money by selling arms and then use that money absent legislation to fund a rebel army.

Hostages were thrown in on the deal - but the money raised was via selling arms to Iran.

The Iran that Reagan traded with was the same Mullah ruled Ayatollah Khomeini inspired regime. Iran was our ally under the Shah - the guy they drove out of the country. That they were not then on the brink of having nuclear arms doesn't detract from who they were and what they believed. It is the same people in power.

I repeat.....

Imagine if 0bama sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund a rebel army in South America. Would you say that was a bigger deal than ATF allowing lots of guns to hit the streets?

[llandres]

“The Iran that Reagan traded with was the same Mullah ruled Ayatollah Khomeini inspired regime. Iran was our ally under the Shah - the guy they drove out of the country. That they were not then on the brink of having nuclear arms doesn’t detract from who they were and what they believed. It is the same people in power. “

I’m intimately aware of the history of Iran in those times. But even Khomeini said Ahmedinejad is a nut (and that’s saying something). We have a president now who’s doing worse than selling arms where this Iran is concerned.

As far as the Constitution, what do you think about a president who sanctioned (maybe personally planned) a mission to tear down one of the most vital of our Bill of Rights?

Contra was misguided and should have been done differently as you said, but we did NOT have a leader who hates our Constitution and all whom it protects. In fact, he has said so by his words and actions - many times.

I would be loathe to compare BHO to Reagan in any way.

[ctdonath2]

Let’s phrase that a little more accurately:
Facilitating a covert war on another country vs. facilitating a covert war on our country?