Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Reagan, not yet President, make a secret deal with Iran to delay release of US hostages?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Humanities » World History Group Donate to DU
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 07:56 PM
Original message
Did Reagan, not yet President, make a secret deal with Iran to delay release of US hostages?
Should the resolution of a problem be to the credit of someone whose sole contribution was to delay the resolution of the problem?
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. No one will ever know until they find documented evidence to back up the theory
To answer your question, history is written by the victors or in varying perspectives.

Reagan's legacy is viewed differently depending upon the people writing the history.

Personally it was wrong, if true.

Machiavelli would have been proud of Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. Don't think Reagan did it
Baker and Bush (senior) would have been the likely pair. Bush disappeared from the campaign trail for a few days where he was rumored to have gone to Europe to broker this deal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. If Al Capone didn't actually pull the trigger, then was he not to blame? e.o.m.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Depends on how much he knew
I suspect he was extremely strategic in his dealings, leaving the tactics to his underlings. I suspect he didn't know all of the details, but then again he probably wasn't innocent either in that he knew people were manipulating things in an illegal way to his advantage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. What kinds of underlings should a President appoint to important positions?
Media reporting might have created the impression that supplying the Ayatollah Khomeini regime in Iran with American weapons was primarily motivated by a desire, by an already installed Reagan White House, to obtain untraceable funds for weapons for Contras of Nicaragua.

However, shouldn't historians and the general American public be interested in knowing whether or not the Reagan team, before Ronald Reagan won a Presidential election, had already promised weapons to Khomeini subject to the condition that American hostages in Iran not be released until after Reagan's inauguration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. There is a difference...
Edited on Mon Mar-19-07 07:42 PM by Lithos
Between the Reagan Whitehouse and Reagan himself. Not defending Reagan, but he never struck me as a "detail" person which these types of things describe. Rather, I think he was the type to make a demand then basically move on while the details were figured out by his underlings. The one who thought that the means justified the end, so he employed people who would due just that.

So, back to the original point, do I think he knew of the details? No, I am sure - he was never that bright. Was he the one who created the situation which brought together the principals and created the atmosphere, yes. Do I think he self-rationalized a lot of the crap that was going on, yes. Did he know of what was going on? No, that was someone else's job - in this case the realm of both Bush Sr., Baker, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

L-
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. That suggests that the first Bush didn't deserve an opportunity to run for President...
except by starting his own party or running as an independent without a party.

Did he know of what was going on? No, that was someone else's job - in this case the realm of both Bush Sr., Baker, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Deserve?
Wrong word to use in this context. Bush Sr. was the price Reagan had to pay to be President. As such, Bush Sr. had manipulated his way into the Presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-21-07 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Addendum
If what you are trying to say is if Bush should have been in jail rather than being President, then yes that is probably a very true statement. However, that is a separate issue different from how power politics work and "deserving" from some sort of moral legitimacy is a rare quality in politics, not withstanding the fact that many who really "deserve" the mantle (or are really qualified to do it) are never going to be in a position to pursue it.

Looking back - Reagan didn't deserve it following his disastrous performance as Governor of California, Nixon didn't deserve it following his performance with McCarthy and his corruption from the early days; Bush from his days manipulating things for the CIA to benefit corporations; Bush Jr for his obvious incompetence, corrupt performance as Governor of Texas, and the extreme cronyism; etc. From the Republican standpoint, the last "deserving" president was probably Eisenhower and before that Roosevelt, though you could make a case for the latter's own political connivance and under-handed dealings.

L-
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Sat Jul 12th 2014, 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Humanities » World History Group 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