Obama is Becoming More Like Reagan … But Not the Way He Intended
It is fairly well known that Barak Obama appreciated Ronald Reagan. Not his economics or politics, but the transformational power of his presidency. He has repeatedly said so (here’s one example) and it was even reported in Time Magazine. Some have argued — and even encouraged — him to adopt Reagan’s model.
For the moment, let’s leave it to Political Science grad students to tease out if Obama was successful in adopting the Reagan political model and to what effect. We have more immediate fish to fry.
You Are Supposed to Learn from Mistakes, Not Copy Them
It just wouldn’t be an American administration if there were not a scandal or two. In Ronald Reagan’s second term he experienced arguably the greatest political crisis of his administration — the Iran-Contra Scandal. Setting the partisan politics of personal destruction aside, the facts are now simple and well-known. Officials in the Reagan Administration conducted secret exchanges with Iran for arms and cash with the profits going to fund Democratic “Contra” rebels in Nicaragua. Congress was largely kept out of the loop and the transactions were in secret cash payments (which were as illegal then as they are now).
Whether you agree with their motivations or not, all those involved claimed that they were seeking the greater good — diminishing terrorism and helping further a democracy movement in the struggling third world.
400 Million Ways
Everything in the following paragraph is not in dispute by any government or political party that I am aware of.
A few days ago The Wall Street Journal broke the story that officials in the Obama Administration had arranged for a large, secret cash payment to Iran. Congress was largely kept out of the loop. Direct cash transactions with Iran are illegal, so the officials arranged for the money to be passed through through Central Bankers in the Netherlands and Switzerland and converted into a range of foreign currencies. The amount of the transaction was $400 million, a sizable sum that had to be transported on a number wooden pallets. This cash was loaded onto an unmarked chartered plane and flown to Iran where American hostages were waiting to depart. Immediately subsequent to the cash-laden plane landing in Iran and offloading the bulk currency, the hostages were allowed to depart on their scheduled, non-secret flight.
Read that paragraph again. In any other context, this kind of transaction sounds like an implausible payment to a nefarious drug lord in some B-movie action flick. If you were a business man disguising secret payments via foreign banks to skirt laws … well, that’s called money laundering, collusion, and conspiracy. You would likely be indicted.
This is where the politics starts to muck things up. Obama is calling all this a “coincidence” facilitated by “different teams.” In other words, some members of his administration were negotiating for hostages, some were negotiating the highly controversial nuclear deal, and still others were trying to resolve a financial dispute from decades ago wending its way through the international courts. Sure, everyone involved reported to Secretary of State John Kerry and all were concluded at the exact same time, but again … just a coincidence.
Whether you agree with their motivations or not, all those involved claimed that they were seeking the greater good … but we have heard that before, right?
The Aftermath
There is little doubt that the transaction violated several long-standing laws. Left-leaning CNBC is reporting (among others) that Obama’s own Justice Department warned that the transaction would be construed as a ransom payment, and Andrew McCarthy lays out the case that the actions were definitively illegal.
Again, everything in the following paragraph is not in dispute by any government or political party that I am aware of.
The President has publicly admitted that they had to use extraordinary measures to get around sanctions and other laws. Even CNN has been reporting John Kerry’s admission that the money will likely be used to fund terrorism around the world. Iranian Mullahs are claiming the payment was ransom. And tragically — perhaps predictably — in the days since the cash payment, Iran has taken more US hostages under questionable circumstances.
At the conclusion of Regan’s Iran-Contra Scandal, a congressional commission investigated, the President publicly apologized to the American people, two people were given prosecutorial immunity for their testimony, and nine were indicted including senior administration officials, CIA officers, and an Iranian-American businessman.
So, What Do We Call It?
The administration of our 40th President was objectively one of the more successful ones in our history. It’s smart to look back at previous administrations for clues on successful governance. But you should also mine history for the things we should NOT do.
So … what do we call this mess then? The “Iran-Kerry Scandal” has a nice historical ring to it. Or do you prefer “Ransom-gate?” How about just plain “tragically foolish?”
Be well,
Author’s note: I have intentionally cited mutiple sources from left-leaning, neutral, and right-leaning publications. I am desterately trying to be fair. But do not believe me. Search for yourself and keep an open mind. Just do not argue with me from thrid-rate blogs, political spin-meisters, or blatant electioning tripe. Thanks.
