You have no idea.
Iran-Contra was in part about directly supporting a war effort against a legitimately elected government that Reagan didn't like
, despite the explicit legislation to the contrary by the Congress, and the support wasn't just money
. President Carter had reinstated the first step of the draft
during his administration, and everyone was really worried that Reagan would actually use it to raise an army and fight wars in the jungles of central america. I was of draft age at that time, so you might imagine that I was paying attention ...
If you're feeling really paranoid, consider the very timely death of William Casey
before he was going to testify about Iran-Contra.
As for Watergate, that was about the suppression of dissent and the consolidation of power in the Imperial Presidency
. Oh and guess who
was doing his thing in the executive branch at that time, under the tutelage of another familiar face
? It's funny how the same old tactics used in that era have reappeared once again ...
Oh, one more thing: in your first comment, you phrased things as if Bush were being led around by the nose by Cheney, as if he were some country bumpkin. He may play a country bumpkin, but consider how neatly that image lets him off the hook if it all goes bad. I'd suggest that the reason it appears that Cheney is in charge is that Bush agrees with him (their goals are aligned), and he lets people believe that ...
You're only paranoid if they're not actually out to get ya.
Mostly, though, I'm just deeply cynical about politics, but in spite of that, I vote in every election.