Was Iran Contra worse than Watergate?

[DevotedDemocrat]

Not in terms of it's effect (it didn't stall the nation for about a year or result in Reagan leaving office before his term ended), but in terms of the illegal activities done and the possible involvement of Reagan?

Also, why didn't the Democrats pursue Iran Contra with same zeal and energy that they pursued the Watergate investigations with?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well of course, giving weapons to an enemy regime to fund terrorists harms a lot more than just illegal wiretapping.

[J. J.]

No, because Reagan didn't cover it up. 

[TNF]

No, because Reagan didn't cover it up. 

Yeah, he just pretended like he didn't know what was going on.

[memphis]

Obviously. How is this even a question? Is Mt Everest taller than the hill behind my house?

[Maxwell]

Of course.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I don't know, but it was definatly worse than Whitewater.

[rwoy]

Absolutely!  What is more amazing is that when he was caught lying to the American people and Congress he claimed he didn't remember it.  So Reagan was either senile or a crook.

[Zioneer]

Of course. People died, for heaven's sake. There's no question that Iran-Contra was worse, especially since while Nixon is rightfully vilified for his actions, Reagan is absolved of his responsibility, or even applauded for fighting socialism in Latin America.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Obviously not.  Reagan was neither senile nor a crook.  Oliver North was the main man involved in that.  Of course, Reagan probably should have fired him, but still, every new scandal that comes along gets "-gate" attached to the end, not "-Contra."  (There's a reason they're called "Troopergate" and "Bountygate" rather than "Trooper-Contra" or "Bounty-Contra.")

[Zioneer]

Obviously not.  Reagan was neither senile nor a crook.  Oliver North was the main man involved in that.  Of course, Reagan probably should have fired him, but still, every new scandal that comes along gets "-gate" attached to the end, not "-Contra."  (There's a reason they're called "Troopergate" and "Bountygate" rather than "Trooper-Contra" or "Bounty-Contra.")

Are you serious? Oliver North was doing it either on Reagan's orders (remember, Reagan had clearly expressed his disqualification with the Boland Amendment limiting his ability to help the Contras), or behind a senile Reagan's back. Also, nobody died anywhere with Watergate. People died because of Iran-Contra.

[Sol]

Obviously. Another reason why Reagan was the worst president of the 20th century.

[Link]

Also, why didn't the Democrats pursue Iran Contra with same zeal and energy that they pursued the Watergate investigations with?

You answered your own question.  Unlike Republicans Democrats have a sense of discretion.  I wasn't around for Watergate but even as a kid I could tell adults were in no mood to relive it.

Now that Reagan is gone and we've had several presidents since Nixon we can put things in perspective and realize Iran Contra and the illegal invasion of Iraq were far worse than a bungled break in.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Obviously. Another reason why Reagan was the worst president of the 20th century.

What about Harding, Carter, Hoover, or Wilson?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously not.  Reagan was neither senile nor a crook.  Oliver North was the main man involved in that.  Of course, Reagan probably should have fired him

The President is responsible for his staff. It's not an excuse.

[Sol]

Obviously. Another reason why Reagan was the worst president of the 20th century.

What about Harding, Carter, Hoover, or Wilson?

Those are all pretty bad- although Wilson, Hoover, and Carter had some redeeming traits.

Reagan starting the disease of huge tax cuts and privatization, worsened the deficit and was responsible for Iran-Contra, among other things.

[memphis]

Not only was it worse than Watergate, it was, far and away, the most corrupt, treasonous act ever undertaken by an administration. Heads should have rolled. Literally.