>>Let's see Iran Contra vs the litany of Clinton-gates, I'll take it every time. And besides, there has never been any proof Reagan knew about that. Clinton has been found guilty of lying to a Federal judge.
>
>Yeah, right. This is exactly my problem with the conservative right. When a liberal does it, there is a huge uproar. When a conservative does it, hey, let's look the other way. I'll call it both ways, and I am on record on the UT as believing Clinton should have been impeached for perjury.
>

>And proves another point: Reagan was either lying or stupid in not knowing what was going on right under his nose.

Are you saying every CAO should know every nuance of every detail in their business. That there is something Reagan could have done about this when he didn't know about it. Where's the proof. Typical liberal revisionism.

>
>"We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages -- nor will we." - Reagan in televised address to the nation

You have no proof to support your position, nor will you ever. The only thing you have is vitriol for a great president who took this country from a general feeling of disgrace (see Jimmy "I'm too confused to make a decision" Carter and his handling of everything including the hostages) and 23% interest rates to a country that felt good about itself, and interest rates below 10%. The good times we've experienced lateley have been due in large part to the policies of Ronald Reagan starting in the early '80s.

As for Clinton:
I did not have sex with that woman . . .
That depends on what is is . . .
I'm going to run the most moral presidency ever . . . .

I hope he gets his just deserts soon after departing office. I think he'll look good in a striped suit!