Me thinks some of you are discussing a topic (Iran/Contra) that you have very little knowledge of other than the very surface level content.  It is quite unlikely that Reagan was particularly involved in that.

But let's keep some perspective - when Republicans scheme, it's to help provide funding for anti-communist freedom fighters.  When Democrats scheme, it's to cover up getting blow jobs in the white house with a 20 year old intern.

So it is telling that the nitpicking of Reagan boils down to some of his staff putting together a scheme to get money for anti-communist fighters in Central America.

Reagan was almost certainly one of the greatest Presidents in US history. Certainly the best one in my lifetime.

the walsh iran/contra report arrives at a different conclusion.  chapter 27 paints a pretty sad picture of a president stubbornly insisting on engaging in activities for which the president couldnt be prosecuted--unlike those with whom he conspired--but very likely could have been impeached...if only he hadnt managed to 'not recall' his activities.

this isnt some deluded fantasy nor an uninformed 'surface level' misaprehension on my part.

both quotes below are taken directly from the walsh report:

3 In his written answers to interrogatories requested by Independent Counsel and the Grand Jury, Reagan stated that he did not monitor the details of the Iran arms sales and had no specific knowledge of such key matters as North's role or Secord's role. The President said he did not authorize any profits from the sale of arms to Iran and that he was unaware that there were excess proceeds and that some of them were diverted to aid the contras.

When the Iran initiative was exposed on November 3, 1986, the President convened a series of meetings with his top national security advisers and permitted the creation of a false account of the Iran arms sales to be disseminated to members of Congress and the American people.4 These false accounts denied the President's knowledge and authorization of the initial sales from Israeli stocks of U.S.-made TOW and HAWK missiles to Iran in August, September and November of 1985. Attorney General Edwin Meese III and others were concerned that those sales violated the Arms Export Control Act and the National Security Act of 1947.5 Previously withheld notes by participants in the November 12 and November 24, 1986, meetings constituted evidence of an effort to cover up the true facts of the President's authorization of the 1985 Iran arms sales. But the discovery of the notes by Independent Counsel came too late to investigate effectively and to prosecute the false statements involved.6 The passage of time, claims of dimmed recollections and the running of the statute of limitations protected the underlying acts.

129 Hill Note, 11/22/86, ANS 0001883.

The foregoing facts would suggest that the President, during the first three weeks in November 1986, knowingly participated or at least acquiesced in the efforts of Casey, Poindexter and North to minimize or hide his advance approval of and participation in the 1985 Israeli arms shipments to Iran without notice to Congress.

Yet, such a conclusion runs against President Reagan's seeming blindness to reality when it came to the rationalization of some of his Iran and hostage policies. The portrayal of President Reagan in the notes of Regan and Weinberger, and Shultz's read outs to Hill, not only the November 24, 1986, meeting but beginning at least on December 7, 1985, show a consistent reiteration of the President's position. The simple fact is that President Reagan seems not to have been ashamed of what he had done. He had convinced himself that he was not trading arms for hostages, that he was selling arms to develop a new opening with Iran, and that the recovery of the hostages was incidental to a broader purpose. He disdained the restrictions of the Arms Export Control Act. He made that clear as he brushed off Weinberger's concerns about illegality on December 7, 1985. At the November 24, 1986, meeting he was ``v[ery] hot under the collar & determined he is totally right.'' 130

the only freedom fighters in nicaragua were those who ousted the somoza brothers from their country--unless you also qualify the sunni insurgents as freedom fighters.  until reagan's election, the contras were designated as terrorists and rightly seen as attempting to overthrow the legitimately elected government of daniel ortega. 

as i've already pointed out, there's no basis for a comparing blowjobs with reagan's determination to destroy nicaraguan democracy--the people chose ortega out of a field of multiple legal parties and candidates--by aligning himself with the genocidal butchers of honduras, the somozista terrrorist insurgents with funding obtained by selling the very missles that may someday take down an american commercial airliner to the rogue state of iran  and conspiring to keep the american people and their congress in the dark.

hahahaahahaha well then allya gotta do is agree with me and ill stop