Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on U.S. Foreign Policy: Iran-Contra, the Imperial Presidency, and the Problems of Being a Democratic Superpower. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 9 page paper discusses the way in which the Iran-Contra scandal and President Reagan’s handling of it paved the way for the “imperial Presidency” of George W. Bush. Bibliography lists 9 sources.
Page Count:
9 pages (~225 words per page)
File: KV32_HVimpprz.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
sometimes dishonorable ability to use its power for conquest-though it cloaks its desire for empire in less inflammatory terms, such as "delivering democracy." This paper considers several aspects of this
dilemma: the Iran-Contra scandal and what it says about an "imperial Presidency" and the problems the U.S. has trying to be both a democracy and a superpower. Discussion "Imperial Presidency"
is a term that was coined to describe a President who acts like an emperor. It was first associated with Ronald Reagan because of his involvement with the Iran-Contra scandal.
Iran-Contra, in brief, was a "secret arrangement in the 1980s to provide funds to the Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained by selling arms to Iran" (Iran-Contra affair, 2009). It
is one of the major scandals of American government in the last 30 years. Iran-Contra relates to the idea of the imperial Presidency because Reagan approved of an operation to
supply arms to the Nicaraguan rebels in defiance of Congressional policy. In the Walsh Iran-Contra report, the author discusses the fact that those charged in the conspiracy (LtCol Oliver L.
North, USMC; Admiral John M. Poindexter; Richard V. Secord and Albert Hakim) "conducted an unauthorized covert program in support of the contras. Because they feared that Congress would stop them
if it knew of their activities and because they feared, as well, the political consequences of that exposure, they deceived Congress about the fact that they were providing this support"
(The operational conspiracy: A legal analysis). By providing support to foreign insurgents, the conspirators "obstructed Congresss legitimate functions of regulating governmental expenditures and overseeing foreign covert actions" (The operational conspiracy:
A legal analysis). Second, Poindexter and North used their positions in government to create a "hidden slush fund" that they kept under their exclusive control (The operational conspiracy: A legal
...