in their posts.  Here are my facts, in the order I stated them.

1.  Kicking the mentally ill and veterans out of care facilities
before they were cured.

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

Here are 3 relavent paragraphs from the article:

 Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness

 The new emphasis was on "supply side" economics, which essentially "blamed the nation's ills on 'big government' and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives " (Abramovitz, 1992, 101). Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no lo nger had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the av erage income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased (Barlett and Steele, 1996; Schor, 1992).

Reagan's social policy is best seen as an abdication. Reagan's economic policy was to adjust government regulation so that it favored business once again, and social policy was merely an outgrowth of this larger issue. While family groups and professi onal groups and patient groups did clamor for respect, the real struggle was between the state and the business community. Reagan worked to lessen the tax load for the rich, and the social policies were meant to match this goal. Business needed a more fav orable corporate climate, and Reagan worked to that end. The coalitions that were necessary for election were either gratified (the elderly) or abandoned (the poor). As for the mentally ill, certain changes that their families and practitioners wanted wer e gained, and the administration pointed this out. Even though these changes came about primarily through state governments and the courts, the Administration would take credit. All in all, business interests were served. Families and doctors were appease d. Patients were forgotten

The emphasis is on "involuntary commitment", but as the article states, it applies to all  mentally ill patients.

Iran-Contra in next post.

Here is the title and table of contents.


 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

 InPart II:  History of Investigation  here is the concluding paragraph:

 Independent Counsel's decision to pursue the investigation beyond the Poindexter trial resulted in these major findings:

-- that there was extensive knowledge of North's contra-support activities by high-ranking officials in the CIA, State and Defense departments;

-- that false testimony was given to and highly relevant documents were withheld from the congressional and criminal Iran/contra investigations, despite representations of cooperation by the Reagan and Bush Administrations; (may I add that this seems to being perpetrated by the current Republic Administration.  Just an opinion)

-- that, contrary to their testimony, Bush, Shultz and Weinberger were kept informed of the details of the Iran arms sales; and

-- that senior Administration officials in November 1986 were being invited to conceal President Reagan's involvement in the November 1985 HAWK missile shipment to Iran by Attorney General Meese who believed that it was possibly illegal.


At the bottom of the page is Part XI:  Concluding observations


  So their are no excuses about the conclusions not being found, here is the link to Part XI

 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/part_xi.htm

 Here is the first paragraph; the rest of the chapter is just as interesting in getting to the truth:


 The underlying facts of Iran/contra are that, regardless of criminality, President Reagan, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence and their necessary assistants committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary to congressional policy and contrary to national policy. They skirted the law, some of them broke the law, and almost all of them tried to cover up the President's willful activities.

About Reagan negotiating with Iran for the release of hostages
AFTER the election.


 http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

 The following is a brief explanation of why it's called "The October Surprise.

 Encyclopedia: October Surprise
Sponsored links:

October Surprise is the allegation that representatives of the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign arranged the Iran-Contra deal well in advance of the 1980 election where Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. October Surprise is also the title of a book on the subject by Gary Sick. This usage of the term describes a situation where a Presidential incumbent uses his office to do something very popular at the last minute before election day, to increase his chances of getting reelected. Thus the alleged conspiracy was precisely to prevent an "October Surprise" that would have aided Carter, the incumbent, effected by postponing the release of the hostages held by Iran until after the election.

The allegations are not vague. They allege that representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections, so that Reagan's opponent, then President Jimmy Carter, whose team had been negotiating, wouldn't gain a popularity boost (an 'October Surprise') before election day. The allegations included a date-specific allegation that William Casey met with an Iranian cleric in Madrid, Spain, and much of the tardy investigations centered on whether, at the weekend in question he was actually at Bohemian Grove retreat in California. Though William Casey was provably in London following the alleged meetings, critical pages of his daybook diary were unaccountably missing when the investigators came to look for them over a decade later.

Carter was at the time dealing with the Iran hostage crisis and the hostile regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Those who aver that a deal was made allege that certain Republicans with CIA connections, including George H. W. Bush, arranged to have the hostages held through October, until Reagan could defeat Carter in early November, and then be released. The hostages were in fact released on the very day of Reagan's inauguration, twenty minutes after his inaugral address. If the timing was a double-cross that was meant to tip off the American public to the game, it failed to elicit much commentary.

Two months earlier, in a campaigning interview Ronald Reagan had said that he had a "secret plan" involving the hostages. "My ideas require quiet diplomacy," he had responded when pressed, "where you don't have to say what it is you're thinking of doing." A 1981 Congressional probe into the Reagan campaign's theft of White House briefing books on the eve of a presidential debate disclosed that Reagan campaign manager William Casey (later CIA chief), was receiving highly classified reports on closely held Carter administration intelligence on the Carter campaign and the Democratic president's efforts to liberate the hostages.

A Public Broadcasting System's 'Frontline' documentary in 1990 brought the story unavoidably to the surface in considerable detail. In 1991, while playing golf with George Bush in Palm Springs, Ronald Reagan gave reporters a sound bite. In 1980, he had "tried some things the other way," that is, to free the hostages, he told them. When pressed he said that the details remained "classified." Separate House and Senate investigations were further delayed until 1992 however, by which time the trail was safely cold. William Casey, the alleged go-between, was dead by then, and it seemed impossible to account for all his moves during the summer of 1980, when he is said to have conferred with agents representing the Ayatollah Khomeini's government.

If this is how events happened, some believe that dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve the defeat of a domestic administration would have been an act of treason.

According to Sick's analysis, Oliver North was more or less a fall guy, taking the responsibility in order to conceal the treason of Reagan and Bush.


The adress for this link is:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/October-Surprise

 Thats 2 out of 3.  I will discuss my statements on the fall of the Soviet Union tomorrow.

Again, BK and JB, will you PLEASE direct me to the Kerry legislation proposing a 50 cent gas tax increase!

I can also debunk the Bush claim that Kerry flip-flopped on supporting our troops in Iraq(seriously) once you get me the Kerry legislation.