HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Did the Reagan campaign m...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:55 PM

Did the Reagan campaign make a deal with the Ayatollah?

We just saw ARGO - great movie, by the way. I remember that the hostages were released on Reagan's inauguration day but don't know why, exactly. Was there some kind of a deal? A preparation for the Iran-Contra pact that never touched our Teflon President?

60 replies, 3841 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 60 replies Author Time Post
Reply Did the Reagan campaign make a deal with the Ayatollah? (Original post)
question everything Dec 2012 OP
thelordofhell Dec 2012 #1
BainsBane Dec 2012 #49
LeftofObama Dec 2012 #2
BainsBane Dec 2012 #51
graham4anything Dec 2012 #3
Darth_Kitten Dec 2012 #34
question everything Dec 2012 #45
craigmatic Dec 2012 #4
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #5
DollarBillHines Dec 2012 #12
Deep13 Dec 2012 #6
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #11
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #7
unblock Dec 2012 #13
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #15
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #47
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #18
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #22
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #42
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #44
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #48
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #54
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #55
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #57
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #58
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #59
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #60
graham4anything Dec 2012 #52
marybourg Dec 2012 #53
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #8
zbdent Dec 2012 #9
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #28
unblock Dec 2012 #10
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #50
Octafish Dec 2012 #14
question everything Dec 2012 #16
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #19
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #17
Berlum Dec 2012 #20
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #21
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #23
former9thward Dec 2012 #24
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #31
former9thward Dec 2012 #38
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #39
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #43
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #25
liberal N proud Dec 2012 #26
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #27
truebluegreen Dec 2012 #29
moondust Dec 2012 #30
spanone Dec 2012 #37
Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #32
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #33
NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #35
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #40
spanone Dec 2012 #36
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #41
freethought Dec 2012 #46
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #56


Response to thelordofhell (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:27 PM

49. you realize that page is labeled "conspiracy theory."

Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:00 PM

2. I was always under the impression,

or maybe I read it somewhere, that after the arms for hostages deal Reagan's handlers included in the deal that the hostages not be released until inauguration day to make it appear that Reagan was super-tough and that the Iranians were afraid of him which would give him the image in the U.S. as being someone to be feared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftofObama (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:29 PM

51. or the Ayatollah just really hated Carter

and wanted to wait until he left office to free them. I'm not up on the details of this, but I don't think it is certain that Reagan was involved in the hostage release.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:00 PM

3. yes

 

and I question the damage to the helicopters too

but we learn from the past and Our President made the call and got OBL

I need to see Argo.
Remember all hostages came home alive, that is the key

if only we had twitter and other social media then, i am sure things would have been different in that election, same as 2000

also remember John Anderson ran in 2000 3rd party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:35 AM

34. Yeah, see Argo and NOT learn the truth.

Whoops, what did those pesky Canadians have to do with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darth_Kitten (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:06 PM

45. They did say that some part were fictionalized for drama purpose

as the last scene in the airport my heart really was pounding even though I knew that it ended well.

It was not a documentary but a movie and was quite enjoyable. Imagine a movie for adults with no sci-fi gadgetry or comics characters or bratty kids mocking of their parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:01 PM

4. Probably at least I think so. I remember hearing that Arafat told Carter that Reagan cut a deal and

Carter didn't want to hear it. This was sometime after the 1980's when Carter was working on a project in the region.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:06 PM

5. That is a prevalent theory.

The Reaganite wanted to avoid an "October surprise" in the form of Carter getting the hostages released before the election, so they promised to sell the Ayatollah a bunch of weaponry and then later used the Ayatollah's cash to finance the counter-insurgency against the socialist government of Nicaragua.

Gary Sick, a Carter Administration aide, wrote the story in a book entitled "October Surprise:"


http://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Gary-Sick/dp/0812920872/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354489469&sr=1-1&keywords=gary+sick+october+surprise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:44 PM

12. You should check out Barbara Honegger's book of the same title

http://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Barbara-Honegger/dp/0944276466

or get your local library to request it.

The last pages are full of surprising things (deaths) that happened to parties involved in the sordid mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:17 PM

6. Probably not.

The hostage crisis was not authorized by the revolutionary government. While the rhetoric of the revolution was anti-western, Khomeini did not intend to alienate the USA in policy. When students took over the embassy on their own, Khomeini felt that the political situation in Iran required his acquiescence. One of the stated goals of the hostage-takers was to bring down the Carter govt. which had been so cozy with the Shah. They knew little of internal American politics. When Carter left office, it may have given Khomeini the excuse he needed to end the hostage crisis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:44 PM

11. I'm not so sure about that.

The revolutionary government and Khomeini were furious when Carter allowed the Shah to come here to have his cancer treated. The embassy was attacked right after that. I think Khomeini was playing a double game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:22 PM

7. No. Carter & his administration worked tirelessly in the final hours for a safe release...

If I recall, when Carter was at the inauguration, many of his staff remained at the White House essentially working until 11:59 trying to get the hostages released. That's not to say there wasn't some behind the scenes handling by the Reagan Campaign - but in the end, it was Carter's administration that ultimately worked out the release.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:47 PM

13. i recall hearing they were very close to a deal in october and they abrutly stopped talks

and remaining efforts were essentially brick wall discussions until the january when the talked changed to logistics of getting the hostages home.

yes, i do recall the white house working to the last minute even on january 20, to get the hostages home, but it was just logistics; the deal-making had clearly been done somehow in october.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:58 PM

15. I think there were issues with the assets the government had originally frozen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:25 PM

47. It's where the phrase "October Surprise" comes from...

Actually the phrase goes back even earlier, but most people think of October of 1980. Bill Casey (Reagan's CIA Director) is allegedly the pivotal character is a plot to bribe the Iranian government to withhold release of the hostages until after the election, in return for future consideration in the form of covert arms sales.

While there's never been conclusive evidence of the conspiracy, knowing what we now know about the Reagan Administration (selling arms to Iran and funnelling the profits illegally to terrorist cells in Nicaragua), the allegation certainly do not seem all that far-fetched.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:29 PM

18. I've got a bridge........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:14 PM

22. So you think Carter did nothing to help release those hostages?

Saying Reagan was the mastermind, even if in a villain way, completely takes away the credit Carter deserves working his ass off to see those hostages removed safely from Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:31 PM

42. You are conflating two discrete occurrences. Yes, Carter worked at it; but yes, Reagan committed

TREASON by making a deal outside the sitting government.

So no, Carter's attempts did not ultimately secure the hostages' release (unless you think the timing was not supposed to insult Carter?); Reagan's double-dealings did.

Sorry if you think this treason "takes away the credit Carter deserves."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:04 PM

44. No I'm not.

Read the original post. They asked if Reagan made a deal to release the hostages. If he did, Carter's role in this is extremely limited ... for good reason or not. I think Reagan did some dirty tricks, but no, the deal at the end was all Carter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:26 PM

48. The deal at the end didn't matter

The damage was done and Reagan won the election. What Carter did was the equivalent of making the last out in the World's Series.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:51 PM

54. Doubt it...

But that's fine if you want to give all credit to Reagan. That's what history wants us to believe - Reagan was responsible for the hostages coming home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:39 PM

55. I think you're missing the larger point...

Reagan was responsible for bring the hostages home THREE MONTHS AFTER the Iranians were originally willing to release them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:15 PM

57. No I'm not.

There are two points here:

1) Carter was responsible for finally breaking through with a deal - which the Carter administration freely admits is THEIR reality ... that their administration was working up until the last minutes of his presidency to make sure they returned home safely.

2) Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to hold off on releasing the hostages until he was sworn in president. Therefore, it was Reagan who made the deal and it's all because of Reagan - Carter, like how history remembers him, did nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:22 PM

58. It's not that Carter didn't do anything...

Allow me to revise your points.

There are two points here:

1) The Carter administration was working up until the last minutes of his presidency to make sure they returned home safely.

2) Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to hold off on releasing the hostages until he was sworn in president.


Reagan's people interfered with Carter's efforts. They cut a deal with the Iranians to delay the hostage release until after the election in return for future arms sales. What Carter's people didn't know was that all of their efforts were ultmately futile because the fix was already in -- I certainly don't give Reagan "credit" for resolving the crisis because his people committed multiple acts of treason in order to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:27 PM

59. Reagan interfered, but is not the reason those hostages were released...

You can try to paint it anyway you want - but accepting Reagan orchestrated the release, regardless of how he does it, plays right into the idea Republicans WANT to push - that Reagan was and is the sole person responsible for the release. Sure, they'll change how he managed to do it - his mere presence as a leader being the reason - but in the end, you've both came to the same conclusion and it's just another thing to take away from Jimmy Carter.

The reality is that Carter deserves the credit for working to release the hostages. It was something he, and his administration, spent over a year trying to do and finally, in the waning moments of his presidency, he accomplished it.

I'm sorry, but I do not give Reagan the credit and admitting he was the one pulling the strings, even in a treasonous way, does exactly that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:23 PM

60. Well....

Now that you put it that way (I'm a little slow), there's no way of knowing one way or the other how the end game played out. Once the election was over, I'm sure Reagan didn't two shits when they were released -- he got what he wanted. And I'm sure that Iranians were probably not inclined to take orders from Bill Casey in any case.

So sure. I'll give credit to the Carter Administration for the work they did during November - January to being the ordeal to a close.

Edit: But we're in agreement that Reagan can rot in hell, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:32 PM

52. I don't believe it was Reagan himself, but his vp. Reagan himself wasn't smart enough

 

they got the idea for W from what they did to Reagan

remember who was the one that shot him the first year of his presidency
what an odd coincidence it was

the son of a best friend of the vp

why the hell was that kid allowed to stand there in the first place?

you think it was that noone saw him there?

I never understood that nugget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:52 PM

53. I think you"ve gotten this right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:27 PM

8. James Baker & the boyzzzz let him know he would get a "better deal" from St Ronnie

so Carter was made "the goat" & glorious St Ronnie got all the credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:37 PM

9. Didn't Ollie North pretty much admit it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zbdent (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:01 PM

28. No, that was Iran-Contra

Where the Reagan administration traded arms to Iran, in order to secure the release of Americans held by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:42 PM

10. gosh no, they released them in exchange for nothing because reagan talked tough!

saint ronnie didn't talk to terrorists!

if they got anything it must have been from carter the appeaser!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:27 PM

50. And he made us feel good about ourselves...

Yeesh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:56 PM

14. According to Gary Sick, Yasser Arafat, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr...

Eyewitness accounts, evidence, plus the way history unfolded between 1981 and 1987 make it look likely the GOP and the Ayatollah did business way before the Iran-Contra Thing.

There is evidence that members of the Reagan-Bush camp met with representatives of the government of Iran in Washington DC. There are allegations that Bill Casey and George Bush flew to Paris to meet with Iranian higher-ups. The end result is that Iran held the hostages until the minute Pruneface was sworn in.

The story makes sense when one considers that months later, the Reagan-Bush administration gave Israel the OK to send US weapons and spare parts to the Iranians, who were locked in a war with Iraq.

There are several excellent books on the October Surprise available by Barbara Honegger, Gary Sick, Abolhassan Bani Sadr, and Robert Parry.

BTW: One of the people who met with Iranian middlemen in Washington is former Judge Lawrence Silberman, the fellah appointed by George W Bush to head the commission charged with finding out why there were no WMDs in Iraq when US intelligence said there were. Small world.

Here’s a good overview:

http://www.wrmea.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1632:reprise-of-the-october-surprise-is-the-worst-surprise-still-to-come&catid=131


Here’s a link to ConsortiumNews.com’s excellent work:

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:22 PM

16. Interesting. This means that the campaign was dealing in foreign policy

when it had no business doing so.

At least, this year the Romney campaign realized that it could not do this, as much as they wanted to. I wonder whether the 1980 established a guideline where only the current administration can be engaged in foreign policy.

Speaking of the State Dept. - among the credits following the ARGO movie, was special thanks to Huma Abedin. I wonder whether she was some kind of liaison between the producers and the State. Dept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:43 PM

19. Look at Reagan's campaign staff

Creme de la Creme of CIA all stars gutted under Carter by Stansfield Turner. October surprise was Safari Club ex CIA revenge just as much as it was a clever ploy by the Reagan campaign.

There's enough anecdotal evidence for this without Bush and Baker SR71-ing to Paris.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:28 PM

17. I Have Always Considered that A Fact, Sir

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:48 PM

20. Republican treason against the USA

Blatantly so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:59 PM

21. further important info


. Jamshid Hashemi and six other corroborating sources were able to pinpoint separately, without consultation, the exact days during the campaign for which there is no conclusive evidence of Casey's whereabouts. A search of 100,000 pages of Reagan's 1980 campaign documents revealed no traces, such as hotel receipts or journal entries, exonerating Casey. Also, in October 1980, the FBI began surveillance of Cyrus Hashemi's offices because he was suspected of illegal arms sales, but in February 19~, the taping was terminated ahead of schedule by the new administration. The information from these tapings has still not been released despite many Freedom of Information Act requests from journalists. Then there are the inexplicable arms sales to Iran after the Reagan administration took over, which some journalists have estimated to be worth several billion dollars. Sick makes a valid point when he claims that an "October Surprise" deal would serve as a precursor to the Iran-Contra affair between the same parties years later.

http://wjcohen.home.mindspring.com/otherclips/sick.htm

The article is critical of Sick, rightly so. But the quote shows that the critical question - the wherabouts of Bill Casey during the alleged dates - remains unanswered. A conspiracy may therefore indeed have taken place - anyone who can pin down Casey on a day to day basis in 79/80 holds the key.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:26 PM

23. Sure. Poppy was the point man.

I always thought that was fairly settled history, not even remotely tinfoil hat stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:27 PM

24. This is a conspiracy theory which really took off when the internet came into use.

Two separate Congressional investigations, one House and one Senate, both concluded there was no interference. Both investigations were chaired by Democrats.

The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke, who claimed to be a CIA agent.

The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_theory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:35 AM

31. Have the congressional inquiries established the whereabouts of Bill Casey in 89/90??


I can't take any investigation into this seriously when the question coud be definitely answered by accounting for Casey's whereabouts. From what I remember, neither inquiry did, which seems pretty lame and not all that "inquiring" to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:27 AM

38. Yes they did.

The Chair of the Committee, Lee Hamilton, said Casey was in California when he supposedly was in Madrid for the 'surprise' meeting.

But you are good company: Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche continue to claim that the October Surprise conspiracy actually happened. Swedish prime minister Olof Palme's 1986 murder, on suspicion of which a Swedish extremist with LaRouche connections was initially arrested and released, has been attributed by LaRouche and former CIA agent Richard Brenneke to the P2 Masonic Lodge, which was involved, along with Gladio, in Italy's strategy of tension. According to this theory, Palme was murdered because he was against the deal between Iran and the Contras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_theory

No matter how many investigations take place and lead to dead ends some people just love conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:21 PM

39. Ah.. The famous "Bohemian Grove alibi"...

Yeah, that certainly could be the truth... To me, not the most convincing of alibis... Considering...

"But by the time that Congress undertook to investigate the October Surprise allegations, William Casey had long since passed away. Congressional investigators were unable to locate his passport for the period in question, and some relevant pages from his desk calendar were also missing. Investigators needed to determine which weekend Casey had been at the Bohemian Grove encampment, which lasts more than two weeks each summer. If Casey had been at the Grove July 26 and 27 of 1980, it would debunk an important element of the October Surprise allegations. But if Casey had been at the Grove the first weekend in August, it wouldn't prove the allegation, but the question would remain open. Investigators obtained records from the Bohemian Grove encampment, and Parsonage camp members were interviewed.

The House Task Force put Casey at the Grove the weekend of July 26 and 27, and the task force Chairman Lee Hamilton cited that alibi in his op-ed piece in the Sunday, January 24, 1993 New York Times titled "Case Closed." Hamilton wrote, "The task force did not locate Mr Casey's 1980 passport, and one of the three Casey 1980 calendars the task force did obtain - a looseleaf version - was missing a few crucial pages. But the absence of these materials did not prevent us from determining the whereabouts of Mr. Casey and others on dates when meetings were claimed to have occurred. Credible witnesses and corroborating documents showed Mr. Casey to be in California..." (Taking an opposite view on the op-ed page, former Carter administration official Gary Sick wrote, "...the report says Mr. Casey could not have attended a Madrid meeting the weekend of July 26-27 because he was at the Bohemian Grove outside San Francisco. Yet the committee's own evidence places him at the Grove the following weekend, from Aug. 1 to Aug. 3"

http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/bohemian/casey.html (article based on portions of Sick/Parry


My take:

The inquiry asks us to believe that Casey was at BH at a certain date. We do not have insight into what testimony (the talk is of "stubs", diaries, and witnesses) led them to that conclusion. There are two possible dates for Casey's BH sojourn, only one of which negates the Madrid meeting scenario (the question of whether there is any reason to believe that those took place is a different, albeit maybe more important one). Given the location of the testimony under discussion, skeptical (as well as paranoid) minds may not be convinced. On the other hand,, this might also just be one of those cosmic coincidences that seem to fuel most conspiratorial thinking.

I'd certainly enjoy the opportunity to have a look at the substance of the alibi itself. Wonder if it would convince me... Or if it would all be based on familiar names, friends of the family. I can't really make up my mind definitively without doing that. The Reagan campaign staff always seemed very creepy to me, more like an anti-Carter intel op than a regular campaign. Of course, creepiness is not evidence, so it all comes down to one weekend at the Grove, or not...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:38 PM

43. And some people just love to believe that the top-most power-players do not communicate with each

other, nor hold meetings to which the hoi-polloi are not privy, nor ever enter into nefarious and illegal schemes.

BCCI, anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:34 PM

25. I thought so, & there was evidence they did.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:37 PM

26. I have always believed there was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:53 PM

27. Yes. Repukes have been getting away with treason since

at least 1968, when Nixon did the same thing with Viet Nam. I think if somewhere along the line one of the traitors (Nixon, Reagan, GHWB, Cheney, GWB) had been hung for his crime, the behavior would have stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:08 PM

29. Yes.

Just like Nixon promised the North Vietnamese a better deal if they walked away from the Paris Peace Talks until after the election. No doubt part of his Secret Plan to End the War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:23 PM

30. Probably.

Two things that lead me to believe it:

1. The highly unlikely coincidence that the hostages were released exactly on Reagan's inauguration day, as though somebody was holding up their end of a deal. Too big a coincidence to be an accident and such precise timing was unnecessary just to express disapproval of Carter.

2. The Iran/Contra scandal that later developed either as another part of the deal in #1 or as a new deal between old deal makers who maintained back channel contacts.

I've also wondered if the Benghazi thing was another October Surprise (in September) done by operatives paid by big money RW backers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:14 AM

37. yes, 'as if' reagan released the hostages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:53 AM

32. Yes, which is why it was treason. He was not President when he did it.

The conservative's argument that "it is not illegal when the President does it" does not apply. He should have been impeached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:56 AM

33. Yes (See Iran-Contra). This is what happens when the powerful are above the law. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:53 AM

35. Lyndon LaRouche and his followers started what came to be known as the "October Surprise" allegation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:25 PM

40. Not really.


Yes, Lyndon and his outfit were pushing their particular version of this story very early on. But, I was under the impression that the House Investigation into Debategate is what brought up the October Surprise allegations. As far as I know, Lyndon wasn't exactly running congress back then (although he might have believed that he did so).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:13 AM

36. they did what they could to belittle Carter. they hated him. God forbid we have an honest politician

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:31 PM

41. I don't know what it is about Carter. I idealize him, like he was the true thing.


Although I do know better than that... Operation Cyclone alone is evidence enough to the contrary... But I'm certainly still under the impression that there was a Kennedy-esque effort to keep him out of the game after his first term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:15 PM

46. Evidence is largely circumstantial at best

Probably the best indicator is the presence, or lack thereof, of William Casey, an ex CIA head honcho. He wasn't seen much during Reagan's first campaign, and Casey was Reagan's campaign chief! It was known that Casey loved cloak-and-dagger stuff and disliked doing the "regular channels" thing. Too many, this set the stage for Iran-Contra years later. Whatever the truth is it died with William Casey years ago and I doubt you'll ever get any former Reagan official who was in-the-know to fess up about it.

I have read an article or two about William Casey making a trip to Madrid, Spain in 1980 and that there didn't seem to be any logical reason for his trip. I will emphasize that I have read these articles in online sources that may not be all that reliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freethought (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:40 PM

56. Thoreau...

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread