Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Giuliani Tries to Use the 1980 October Surprise as Ammunition for His Campaign

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 09:53 PM
Original message
I find this infuriating.

In a recent speech Rudy Giuliani brought up the theme, as he does whenever he opens his mouth, about how tough Republicans are compared to Democrats. This particular speech dwelt on a comparison of the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis by Presidents Carter and Reagan. The point of Giulianis speech which Im sure hell repeat a hundred times between now and the end of his campaign was that Jimmy Carter the Democrat was weak and Ronald Reagan the Republican was strong, and thats why President Carter was unable to secure the release of our hostages for over a year, while Reagan was able to secure their release within an hour of his inauguration.

I cant find a link to the exact speech, but no matter because Giuliani apparently is spouting this garbage wherever he goes these days. Heres a typical example of how Giuliani dramatizes how Reagan secured the release of our hostages within two minutes of being sworn in as President:

Remember, they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes, and in two minutes they released the hostages.

Uhhhhh ok, I didnt know that the Iranians attended Reagans inauguration, but Im sure Rudy would know. Or maybe hes just speaking metaphorically or something. Anyhow, lets consider a few things:


The Iranian hostage crisis

You might recall that that the Iranian hostage crisis began on November 4, 1979, when an angry Iranian crowd seized the American embassy in Tehran and kidnapped approximately 90 Americans, 52 which they held as hostages until the Iranians released them on January 20, 1981, about two minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. But actually, the roots of the crisis go back much further than that, so lets go back to 1953:

In 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles convinced President Eisenhower to accede to a CIA plot to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohmmad Mosaddeq. Reasons included Mosaddeqs recent nationalization of Irans oil industry and fear that his leftist leanings would make him susceptible to Communist influence. The CIA-led coup was successful, and Mosaddeq was replaced by the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled Iran with an iron fist for the next 26 years, to the great detriment of the Iranian people. That coup has been a major factor in anti-American feeling in Iran and in the Middle East in general, ever since.

In January 1979 the Iranian people finally deposed the Shah, and he fled the country. In October of that year Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah into the United States to be treated for cancer. That was perhaps the straw that broke the camels back, which angered the Iranians and led them to seize the American embassy and take hostage the Americans within it.

President Carter attempted to deal with the crisis in many ways: He applied economic pressure by stopping the import of oil from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the U.S.; he tried several diplomatic initiatives, dealing with emissaries from several other countries; and when all that failed he ordered a daring rescue mission, which failed when a helicopter crashed in an Iranian desert.


Back to Rudys stupid claim

I think theres one point on which we can all agree with Rudy: After 444 days of captivity during Jimmy Carters Presidency, the release of the American hostages within two minutes of the inauguration of Ronald Reagan was no coincidence. If any further proof is needed, the fact that the hostages had been sitting for several hour in a plane, which took off for the U.S. a couple minutes after Reagan was sworn in, should end all speculation on that score. Anyhow, Alex Higgins has a response to Giulianis comments that would make good material for a Saturday Night Live skit:

Trying to enter this fantasy takes some mental effort. Picture the Ayatollah Khomeini toying with President Jimmy Carter and laughing at him. Suddenly, newly-elected Reagan comes on the TV screen as the new president. The mocking mullahs wet themselves as they stare into his hard-man eyes and immediately agree to release all hostages, saying they are very sorry and wont do it again and please be nice to us, Mr. Reagan, sir. That is the image Giuliani was presumably trying to get across. He is apparently quite serious, and no one else at the debate called him on it.

In any event, after Carter lost his election bid for a second term, he continued to vigorously work towards the release of the hostages an effort that apparently ended in success. Higgins explains:

Carter hoped desperately to salvage his reputation by bringing the hostages home before he left the White House. As inauguration day came closer, he became practically an insomniac the hostages dominated his waking thoughts, and he stayed awake to have them. In the end he was reduced to hoping they might be released in the final minutes of his presidency. On Inauguration Day itself, at 6:35 in the morning, Carters chief negotiator, Warren Christopher, rang him from Algiers to say that a deal with the Iranians had been concluded, with Iran being granted none of its major demands. The 52 remaining hostages were coming home.


Hmmm So why did Iran wait until Reagan was inaugurated before releasing the hostages?

This is a very important question. Moreover, since Rudy repeatedly brings it up to fuel his campaign by using it to prove how strong Republicans are and how weak Democrats are, it is a question that deserves a lot of thought.

In trying to answer this question, I think that there are four points on which all reasonable persons can agree:

1) The release of the hostages by the Iranians didnt occur in a vacuum rather, it must have been based on an agreement that the Iranians reached with representatives of the United States, more specifically with a U.S. presidential administration (or potential administration), and more specifically yet, with either the Carter-Mondale or the Reagan-Bush administration.

2) The timing of the hostage release, just a couple of minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President, was no coincidence. It was specifically designed to give Ronald Reagan credit for the hostage release that Jimmy Carter had worked so long and hard for, and therefore it was designed to make Reagan look good or Carter look bad or both.

3) Therefore, common sense would tell us, in trying to determine whether the Iranian agreement was made with the Carter-Mondale or the Reagan-Bush administration, that it was obviously the Reagan-Bush administration.

4) Lastly, it should be obvious that the deal was not reached in the two minute window following Reagans swearing in as President.

So Rudy is correct on all points except for the last one. Ronald Reagan does indeed deserve the credit for arranging the hostage release. And come to think of it, Rudy is not wrong about the fourth point either. He never said that the deal was made within two minutes of Reagans swearing in. And surely hes not stupid enough to think it either. So Rudy was right! Why am I calling him stupid?

But wait! The Reagan-Bush team had no authority to make a deal with the Iranians while Jimmy Carter was President especially since they never spoke to Carter about it, and since the deal was obviously made while Carter himself was attempting to secure the release of hostages using his authority as President. So it would have been illegal for the Reagan/Bush team to do that. Furthermore, by prevailing upon the Iranians to wait until Reagan took office before releasing the hostages, the Reagan Bush team would have extended the misery of the hostages. And if their deal was made specifically to stop the release of the hostages prior to the 1980 election (so as to improve their chances of winning the election), that would have extended the captivity of the hostages by several months. In that case, their deal would have been especially reprehensible. In fact, it might be considered treasonous.


Evidence that the Reagan/Bush team made a deal with the Iranians to withhold release of the hostages until after the 1980 election

Investigative journalist Robert Parry conducted extensive investigations into this issue and produced documentary that suggested that the Reagan Bush team did in fact negotiate with the Iranians to postpone the release of the hostages. The evidence included more than two dozen witnesses to the negotiations and documentary evidence of shipments of U.S. arms to Iran. The subject of Parrys allegations is often referred to as the October Surprise Conspiracy because the Reagan-Bush team had long warned that Carter would pull an October Surprise by announcing the release of the hostages right before the 1980 election.

Not surprisingly, Parrys investigation and allegations led to the gearing up of the Republican attack machine and two articles, one by The New Republic and one by Newsweek , which debunked the story by finding an alibi for William Casey (the Reagan-Bush campaign chairman) for the period in late July of 1980 during which some witnesses had placed him at a meeting in Madrid. Those stories essentially killed the story in official Washington circles, sending it into the realm of conspiracy theories perhaps forever.

But the so-called debunking of the October Surprise allegations appears to have been based on a fraud. Parry spoke with participants at the conference that had been established for Caseys alibi, and they all agreed that Casey was not there, thus debunking the alibi. So we have several conference participants versus a single alibi. No matter. Neither the New Republic nor Newsweek ever issued a retraction, so their original stories continued to provide plenty of fuel for Republicans.

Nevertheless a special House Task Force was finally created in 1992. To chair the committee the Democrats picked Lee Hamilton (Yes, the same one who co-chaired the 9-11 Commission), who was well known for his bi-partisanship, mild manners, and willingness to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when faced with wrong-doing.

While acknowledging that the original alibi, which placed Casey in London on July 28, 1980, was bogus, the Committee proceeded to find another alibi, this one placing Casey in Bohemian Grove, California, during the weekend of July 26th.

When documentary evidence was later found showing that Casey was not in Bohemian Grove the weekend of July 26th, but instead was there the following weekend (of August 2nd), the House Task Force refused to let go. To counter that, they claimed proof that Casey couldnt have been in Bohemian Grove during the weekend of August 2nd, by finding his phone number on a list of phone calls made to New York that weekend. They had no evidence that he answered a phone call in New York, just a phone number on a list (sigh). Thus the Task Force concluded, despite the documentary evidence to the contrary, that Casey was in Bohemian Grove on July 26th, therefore he couldnt have attended the meeting in Madrid, and therefore the October Surprise witnesses who placed him there were liars again. And this was the version of the story that was sent to the printers as the House Task Force report of January 13, 1993, which purportedly debunked the October Surprise Conspiracy theory for all time.


More evidence surfaces prior to the official release of the House Task Force report

But shortly after the House Task Force shipped their report off to the printers, a cable report based on KGB sources arrived from Moscow that supported the October Surprise Conspiracy. As described in Robert Parrys book, Secrecy and Privilege Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, the report said that:

CIA officials and other Republicans had met secretly with Iranian officials in Europe during the 1980 Presidential campaign The Russians asserted that the Reagan-Bush team had disrupted Carters hostage negotiations, the exact opposite of the Task Force conclusion

William Casey, in 1980, met three times with the Iranian leadership, the report said. The meetings took place in Madrid and Paris. At the Paris meeting in 1980, Robert Gates and former CIA Director George Bush also took part, the Russian report said. In Madrid and Paris, the representatives of Ronald Reagan and the Iranian leadership discussed the question of possibly delaying the release of 52 hostages from the staff of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

The Russian report wasnt the only barrier confronting the House Task Force as they prepared to release their report. One Democratic Task Force member, Congressman Mervyn Dymally, submitted a dissent complaining of a host of factors that combined to lead the Task Force to exonerate the Reagan-Bush team on extremely shaky grounds. Hamilton threatened Dymally (See Dissent denied section) that if he didnt withdraw his dissent I will have to come down hard on you. After Dymally refused to withdraw his dissent, Hamilton, as chairman of one of Dymallys committees, fired some of his staff. Dymally then withdrew his dissent in order to prevent further firings of his staff.


Parry tries once again to resurrect the investigation

In a final attempt to investigate the issue, Parry obtained access to some of the House Task Force documents, which he examined in an abandoned ladies room in the Rayburn House Office Building. To Parrys great surprise, he found among those documents material that had been classified top secret, including the Russian report, which supported the October Surprise allegations.

Parry wrote up a report on his findings and tried to get it published in a newspaper or magazine. But it was too late. The story had already been debunked, and anyhow, Washington journalism was much too busy with trying to nail Bill Clinton on a minor real estate deal to bother with anything so trivial as a plot to steal a Presidential election by extending the period of captivity of American hostages.


The October Surprise Conspiracy in perspective

Some things are just too hot and controversial to talk about.

Its bad enough that Jimmy Carters bid for reelection was thwarted by a cynical, illegal, and probably treasonous meddling with his attempts to secure the release of American hostages; its bad enough that our hostages misery was consequently prolonged by several months; its bad enough that even getting elected wasnt good enough for the Reagan-Bush team that they had to prolong the hostage release until after they took office in order to ensure that they would get credit for it; and its bad enough that a Congressional committee (under the chairmanship of Lee Hamilton) whitewashed the whole affair for God knows what reasons.

Now, in addition to all that, a Republican candidate for President of the United States is still trying to benefit from the whole sordid affair, by using it to make an ex-Democratic President look weak and an ex-Republican President look strong.

For Gods sake isnt it time that our corporate news media starts talking about this? Rudy Giuliani brought it up, and apparently he intends to keep on bringing it up. Why doesnt someone ask him, if hes so willing to give credit to Ronald Reagan for securing the release of our hostages, to explain to the American people how he thinks Reagan did that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amy6627 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. WONDERFUL POST! k&r N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberaldemocrat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. I created a bumper sticker proclaiming Republicans weak on defense.
You can see it in my journal as I just added it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/liberaldemocr...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Is Giuliani that FUCKING STUPID?
I guess the answer is obviously "yes".

Thank you very much, Tfc, for reviewing the history for all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. He and his handlers must be. And what's worse, they think we are.
Of course they probably can't imagine anyone with a higher IQ than their average. K & R for the awesome post.

I wish our politicians would respond with statements like this, contradicting Giuliani with the truth that everyone knows but no one talks about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The market for this kind of nonsense has collapsed,
and Rudy doesn't know it, any more than he knew he shouldn't place NYC's terrorism control center in the place terrorists had already tried to destroy once.

Let 'em talk, is how I'm feeling right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. Thank you -- I'd love to see this be the subject of a special comment on Countdown
It seems like it's just the sort of thing Keith would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. Needless to say, Giuliani is counting on a great big pass from our corporate news media
I think that this might be prime material for a special comment from Keith if Giuliani keeps up with this kind of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
22. Hell yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. The media cannot do that, because the
only and obvious answer is that many felonies were committed, up to and including treason by the Reagan team in their "negotiations" BEFORE they were the representatives of the United States.

That's why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matsubara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Sorry, but the October Surprise represented a huge failure on Carter's part.
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 10:34 PM by Matsubara
Carter blew it when he sent in those helicopters, which crashed, and then followed up, with nothing.


Carter would have probably been able to salvage the election, had he immediately followed up the loss of those copters with another, more overwhelming attack and rescue attempt. Even if we lost some of the hostages, he could not have been called "weak".

In a perfect world, Carter's attampts to end the crisis would have been the right thing to do, but he should have known that his adversaries were cutthroat and would stop at nothing to get him out of offfice.


So yeah, Reagan and Bush schemed with the Iranians to get the hostages out when it was convenient for them. That's what republicans do. It's too bad Carter didn't screw up those plans by mounting a massive offensive to get them out.

In case you've forgotten, the overwhelming public sentiment at the time was summed up by the song "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran..." But Carter let the crisis drag on endlessly.


Regardless of any dirty deeds by Reagan/Bush , it was a huge failure on Carter's part. I despised Reagan, but Carter GAVE him the presidency through his consistent weakness and failure to lead. Being president requires more than just being "nice", even if you're a democrat with high ideals.


At least Clinton shone in that respect. He knew how to LEAD.



Oh, but I forgot to mention, Ghouliani's use of the incident to bolster his own campaign is pretty pathetic. I mean, Giuliani had what do do with it? Oh yeah, nothing!

Stick to using your own record as mayor, Rudy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I think that the way Carter handled it was far superior to starting a war with Iran
Carter approached the crisis through multiple methods, as I note in the OP. Had not Reagan and Bush interfered, the hostages would have been released while Carter was still President. On the other hand, had Carter started a war with Iran, who knows how many Americans and innocent Iranian civilians would have died and ended up with permanent seriously disabling injuries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matsubara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. It needn't have become a full-scale invasion a la Iraq.
The fact is, had Carter been more forceful in dealing with Iran, it's very likely that he would have won re-election, and our country would be a very different place today. Reagan did irreperable damage to our government, our national psyche, our foreign policy, and our economy. To me, even the costs of a limited war with Iran would have been worth the much greater costs we have paid down the line - IE decimation of American manufacturing, Iran/Contra, two unnecessary wars with Iraq.


Yes, Carter tried multiple tactics, which was fine for a time. But beyond six months, he should have exercised any reasonable military option available. Giving the presidency over to a succession of ultra right-wing thugs was not worth whatver lives might have been saved by avoiding war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Carter's only mistake was that he didn't expect treason from Americans. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matsubara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. He was supposed to be the President, not a Pollyanna. These are Republicans we're talking about.
He should have known from history, from McCarthy to Nixon that they have ZERO respect for the constitution or the will of the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
assclown_bush Donating Member (573 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #12
32. Matsubara, I agree with you. It is feasible that Reagan was a traitor AND Carter was weak.
I think President Carter is a noble humanitarian. He has done wonderful things since he left office and he has become a figure of international gravitas. Yet, his handling of the Iran-hostage crisis was, indeed, weak. He should have used more force in gaining the release of the hostages and he should have known that Reagan/Bush were working a sub-rosa (and illegal) deal with the Iranians. He should have known about the treasonous act since he was the sitting president and he should have exposed them for treason.
I salivate at the thought of Reagan/Bush in 1979 being charged with treason and instead of winning the presidency, being sentenced for their crimes. A silly fantasy, I know, but one can dream of how different the world would be if all the cherries had not lined up in favor of Reagan/Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
40. It sounds to me like you're recommending Democratic presidents become more like right wing thugs
so that they can win elections and prevent right wing thugs from getting into office.

I can't agree with the idea of starting unnecessary wars just so we look "strong" and have a better chance of re-election. That's not leadership in my view. Leadership is explaining to the country why unnecessary wars are unnecessary.

And I don't know what you mean by saying that Carter should have been more "forceful". He was plenty forceful, short of getting into a war. And it worked. The hostages were returned, and they would have been whether or not Reagan and Bush interfered. He was doing what was best for our country, without giving undue consideration to the politics of the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Any idea what military officers were in charge of organizing and
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 11:19 PM by NCevilDUer
carrying out the failed raid?

Carter cannot be blamed for the failure of that raid, and ANY followup would have resulted in the immediate massacre of every one of the hostages. EVERY FUCKING ONE.

Think he didn't know that? You think he actually could have been reelected after causing the deaths of 54 embassy personnel? Not to mention the hundreds, or thousands, that would have died in the subsequent conflict? He would have wound up despised as Johnson was for his war, regardless of any other good he might have done, which would have resulted in the immediate repudiation of the Democratic party and the election of...Ronald Reagan! Just as Johnson's demise led to Nixon.

He was between the rock and the hard place, and he rightfully chose the option which caused the least harm, which killed the fewest people. And then went on to be the best ex-president the Democrats have yet produced. What would his legacy be if he had yielded to the passions of the moment and started a war? Nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I'm pretty sure Ollie North was involved...
...yes, that Ollie North.

See, for example:

http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/104

(sorry I'm not sure of the source but, I am sure of North's involvement in the rescue mission and this gives some details).

Yes, it's another case of the rabid right wing playing for keeps. They will do anything to advance their partisan / class warfare / corporatist / elitist agenda. ANYTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
42. Indeed he was between a rock and a hard place
It's very easy to sit here and say that "he wasn't strong" enough, blah blah blah. Tell that to tens of thousands of people who didn't get killed or mangled in the war that Carter had the good sense to keep us out of. Just imagine what would have happened had Bush, Cheney, or Giuliani been involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. The problems with Iran today
are a direct consequence of Reagan's Iran election games. It is actually an indication of the kind of criminal they are, not anything to be glorified.

Also, everybody at the time was not wearing khomeini targets. The Vietnam Vets I knew were already calling it nothing but an oil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Strange about all those helicopters crashing . . . !!!!
Patti Reagan told us the truth about the "October Surprise" . . . that she was there and understood that the deal had been made before the election.

Basically, the "October Surprise" was treason by Republicans.


Re the helicopters . . . stop and think for a minute.

There seemed to be an inordinate amount of bad luck on those rescue missions

Did Carter manufacture the helicopters?

Was Carter there?

Who created the "attack" plans....?

Wake up!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matsubara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. I'm not disputing any of that. Reagan and Bush were sleazebags...
...but Carter still gave him the presidency.

I know it means a lot to some people to rehabilitate Carter's reputation, and he surely has done a lot of good since leaving office, but I personally think it's important that his failure helped pave the way for Reaganomics, which is still ruining and increasingly polarizing our country into haves and have-nots today. Carter's term was the nail in the coffin of liberalism, because a LOT of people bought the line of bull that Reagan was selling hook, line and sinker. While Reagan's people were very caredul to make sure Reagan looked and sounded good for the cameras, and supplied him with plenty of cute sound bites, Carter was wearing fussy cardigans and giving dour speeches about turning down the thermostat. Zero image consciousness.

And strangely enough, dem candidates still refuse to learn, except for Bill Clinton. He actually seemed to get it.

I could not believe that Kerry hired Carter's guy Shrum, who has never even won an election to my knowledge...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
47. It was a Chopper pilot not following orders.
The C-130's with fuel for the final leg of the mission landed and the chopper pilots were ordered to ground-taxi to the refueling point. One pilot became frustrated with the slow progress in the sand and lifted off. He became disoriented from the dust being kicked up by his rotor wash and flew into the refueling plane, touching off a fire and explosion.
It was all down hill from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Great post. Giuliani should read Robert Parry to learn about the October Surprise.
Apparently...

Poppy Bush and William Casey, aided and abetted by current arch-conservatives that include Laurence Silberman, Donald Gregg and Robert Gates, cut a big deal with the Iranians. The Israelis started shipping weapons to Iran and the U.S. started to replace Israeli stockpiles. Many of the same characters show up in Iran-Contra.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
29. Thank you -- the fact that so many of the same characters were involved in Iran Contra
Edited on Mon Jul-09-07 09:47 AM by Time for change
appears to suggest that Iran Contra was a continuation of the unwarranted and crimiinal (and possibly treasonous) meddling in the hostage negotiations prior the Reagan-Bush team taking office.

And of course the investigation of Iran Contra, though it got much further and received more media attention than the October Surprise investigation, was also left unfinished -- which is highly unfortunate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCappedBandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. Excellent post. Bookmarked! K+R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
18. Having worked on the Iran Hostage Rescue program,
Edited on Mon Jul-09-07 04:57 AM by formercia
worked with others close to the leadership on the Desert One mission, IMHO, there was no chance for another attempt because all the equipment, list of agents inside Iran and the Op Plan was captured by the Iranians at Desert One.

There were plans for a follow-on mission but there was no serious effort made to implement it.

I think there was a conscious decision made inside the Agency to screw President Carter.

Jimmy Carter did the best job he could to bring the hostages home but the boys fucked him.

I had the best intel source on the mission. I dated the mission commander's ex mistress.

Here's my take on what Rudy is trying to say: I'm one of the boys and we fucked Carter good. Anyone who doesn't do it our way is going to get screwed too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. Very interesting information
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that many CIA were against Carter was because they resented what they felt were limitations placed on their activities as a result of Carter's emphasis on human rights. Would you agree with that?

It is very unfortunate that our CIA would be complicit in such nefarious or treasonous activities as to obstruct the efforts of a president to obtain the release of American hostages.

I wonder if many CIA operatives today, given what they have had to put up with over the past 6 and a half years, might long for the good old Jimmy Carter days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. The Ops side is a different planet
Building fiefdoms and justifying promotions is based on budgets and operations load. The work load was very light under Carter. Things completely changed when Ronnie RayGun, Poppy and Bill Casey came along. All of the pie in the sky projects that the remaining old Viet Nam and Laos hands had tucked away came out of the wood work. They saw a great chance to make it big.

All they did was fuck things up.

The CIA should be in the intelligence business. The paramilitary SOG and other bullshit ops do nothing but get them in trouble.

I bet there's a lot of old hands that wish they had dumped that bunch out of a helo on to the Ho Chi Minh Trail and let the Pathet Lao have a go at them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
21. President Carter was screwed by the boys
Edited on Mon Jul-09-07 07:46 AM by formercia
in revenge for appointing Admiral Turner DCI. Turner purged the Agency of many of the hard core cold warriors and killed a lot of programs that were unethical if not illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #21
34. a related thread....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
--snip--

In August 1977, CIA Director Stansfield Turner ordered 823 positions within the covert Directorate of Operations eliminated, firing most of the Agency's hard men such as Ted Blonde Ghost Shackley, Thomas Clines, and Edwin Wilson. Their response was to take their deadly talents and wares into the private sector. That same year, Armitage left his DIA post in Iran, where he worked with Richard Secord and the Shahs Secret Police, SAVAK, and was reassigned to State Department cover in Thailand.

In a bid to reestablish their independence, Right-wing Agency operators turned to new sources of cash and foreign patronage, particularly the Saudis, for the resources needed to shake off strictures imposed by President Carter and the Democratic Congress.

--snip--


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
43. For that alone Carter should be considered one of our best presidents ever
I know he had faults.

But the crap about him being "weak" is just right wing talking points. It's very disappointing to me that so many people have fallen for it, even some DUers.

It takes a great deal of courage to even try to slow down, let alone put an end to our militaristic culture and the military industrial complex that takes advantage of it. I would just love to have a President who would face them down. But then, I'm sure that s/he would be branded as "weak" for doing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Junior worries about how History will treat him
Jimmy Carter will be remembered as a Hero for standing up to the thugs.

They crushed him like they did thousands of others, but he started the ball rolling. Had he not, we would not be discussing the subject here and the World would be a totally different place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. That is the way I look at it --He's a hero to me
I'm sorry to say though that not enough Americans look at it like that.

Someday though, when the world is more enlightened than it is today, that's the way history will remember him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #48
55. JFK and RFK tried to stand up to them
but they didn't realize what they were dealing with and paid the price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Yes, and I think that people are still paying that kind of price
Here's something I wrote last year, dealing only with a four year time span of the current Bush administration:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Some people felt that I was a bit :tinfoilhat: for writing that, but a more common reaction was to point out incidents that I missed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
23. Arms for hostages
I think everybody is missing the main point: Reagan traded arms for hostages.

That is a sign of extreme stupidity and weakness, not strength. He traded arms and military spare parts to our arch-enemy, the Ayatollah, in order to score a cheap political victory.

A modern day parallel would have Ghouliani arming Al Qaeda in exchange for leaving Baghdad.

I would love to see Ghouliani try and spread that BS after the primary season if we had a Dem nominee strong enough to confront him on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connonym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Yup, conspiring with the enemy
I think that's the point. *WHY* would the Iranians prefer a Reagan presidency over a Carter presidency? I don't think it's very :tinfoilhat: to question the motivation there.

Who manipulated whom? Seems to me that Reagan looks like the puppet in this picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. I like it.
Edited on Mon Jul-09-07 08:32 AM by formercia
Trading arms for whatever by Rudi wouldn't surprise me. Both he and Ollie North are Knights of Malta. They have their own agenda.


While we're at it. I hear our illustrious SecDef was on that October Surprise trip with Poppy and Bill Casey to negotiate with the Iranians. I guess they were trying to break-in Junior Crusader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Yes, that is another major issue -- well said
Perhaps I should have discussed that in some detail in the OP, but I felt that it was already getting pretty long, and I didn't want it to be so long that people wouldn't take the time to read it. That that is a very important point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
53. I don't think you have to worry about your post being too long
You are a gifted writer. You grabbed my attention, and had me totally engrossed in each word penned. Put that together with your knowledge of history, and analytical skills - WOW! I rarely look at the DU Journals, probably because there is already so much to read, but I did go look at yours, and after writing this, will go back and read more.

About Giuliani, this guy is really grabbing at anything to make himself stand out amid the crowd. Rudy's a pro at self-aggrandizement. I guess spinning the Hostage Crisis is so unique, in his mind, it's bound to make him a winner.

He's looking for a different and unused angle because I'm sure he and his handlers finally got the message that he can't win on "911", "911", "911", "911","911", "911", "911", "911","911", "911", "911", "911","911", "911", "911", "911", alone - most likely I didn't repeat "911", "911", "911", "911" enough to prove he is our hero and most qualified for POTUS :puke:

My bet, he won't use the hostage crisis for long, because the criminals who sold those arms to our avowed enemy back then, are the same criminals wanting a confrontation with Iran today. I could be wrong, but these war-for-profit men certainly don't want to remind the American people of their deceptive practices "Arming and conspiring with our enemies - is the tough Republican way." Especially when they're all acting so big, tough and strong wanting to go over and kick some ass with the lives of taxpayers and voters. Oh, what a tangle web they weave ...

Thank you for this articulate thread -
:)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Thank you for your kind words
That's a good point about why the Republicans may want to drop this issue real quick. It seems kind of idiotic that Giuliani brought it up in the first place. Hopefully someone will call him on it before they drop it, and ideally the Dems can use this as an opening to clear up a few things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
26. Absolutely K&R!
We need to scream this from the rooftops! REAGAN WAS A TRAITOR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
28. Abbie Hoffman suspiciously died after exposing Oct. Surprise
Abbie Hoffman was a well-known 1960s "yippie" and activist all through the 70s and 80s. In Oct. 1988 he was driving from New England to Chicago to deliver a manuscript to Playboy magazine about the October Surprise when he was involved in a suspicious car accident. He managed to get on a plane and still deliver the manuscript--with broken ribs and a broken ankle.

In April 1989 he died of a huge overdose of Phenobarbitol--called "suicide"--3 months into the new presidency of GHWBush.

"cliff's notes" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Hoffman

some details about treasonous October Surprise, & GHWBush's involvement in it "beyond all shadow of any doubt" (brief excerpt from "The Octopus, Secret Government, and the Death of Danny Casolaro") (registration required): http://www.american-buddha.com/wilcher.octopus.htm

The excerpt also highlights the "mysterious" deaths of 3 others who worked to expose Bush Sr's shadow govt.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
51. I never heard that one
I wouldn't put anything past these thugs. This is just another one to add to the list:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
30. Oct. Surprise was an act of treason, therefore it is very fittiing
that repuke Ghouliani should bring that out as something to brag about. It is also quite telling that there really is NOTHING that the denture-wearing scumbucket CAN point to as a rethuglican "achievement."

Why do repugnicans hate America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
46. It was Treason.
The boys didn't think of it that way. They viewed President Carter as someone who was upsetting their apple cart and they were just taking power back.

There is no Statute of Limitations on Treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
assclown_bush Donating Member (573 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
31. Excellent post. Kick and recommend. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
33. Terrorists looked into Rudy's eyes and knew they could get away with murder!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
35. What's this thing with GOP-ers and looking in the eyes?
Very timely compilation of good info - I been jonesing for this since I heard the stupid git uttering them idiocies at the debate. Much appreciated! Bookmarked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Thank you -- They don't have much else to talk about
so they have to revert to this kind of crap -- like "looking into their eyes".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
37. and Siegel's offing was a premier example of strong leadership
tell that Birdcage reject that if he wants to use examples, don't use criminal behavior
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
52. Siegel's offing?
What are you referring to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. mobster Bugsy Siegel's assassination
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
45. oh, the good old days
brings back memories
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
49. KanR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DianaForRussFeingold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
50. K&R I'm glad Rudy brought that up and I'm sure the media will want to ask
how Reagan negotiated with the Iranians to secure the release of the hostages before he took office??? Hmmm.... Hey Rudy, don't ya think there may have been a quid pro quo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar 30th 2017, 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC