Omission sinks writer's argument

When I criticized the decision to place a statue of President Reagan in the Capitol rotunda, I anticipated an angry rebuttal.

The only question was how would someone defend the actions of President Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair.

For those unfamiliar with the facts, President Reagan approved an illegal plan to finance the insurgents in Nicaragua by selling missiles to Iran and then transferring the money to the insurgents. This was clearly an impeachable action by President Reagan.

In his June 30 letter, Fred McCarthy employs some heavy-handed sarcasm, distortions and lies as attempts to offer a convincing rebuttal; but in the end he fails miserably. He fails because nowhere in his letter does he even mention the illegal sale of missiles to a country the sponsored terrorism or the fact that Congress had banned any additional aid for the insurgents. That would be like discussing how the U.S. entered WW11 without mentioning the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Victor Darst

West Dundee