It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As for “setting a bad precedent” by “negotiating with terrorists,” the GOP’s very serious concern comes three decades too late: Their hallowed icon, Ronald Reagan, firmly established that precedent in a still-murky tangle of secret dealings with Iran, only some of which came to light in the Iran-contra scandal. While Obama was actually involved in prisoner-of-war negotiations — a quite different matter, as several commentators have tried to explain — Reagan clearly was not.
Not only did Reagan deal with terrorists as president, as revealed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the preponderance of evidence now supports the charge that his campaign negotiated with Iranian hostage-takers while he was running for president in 1980, to delay the release of hostages before the election, which could have helped Carter win reelection — what was known as “The October Surprise.” Given that Reagan wasn’t president then, but was negotiating to thwart a president’s attempt to get hostages released, this is not simply questionable behavior, it is arguably an act of treason.
When his own hand-picked “Tower Commission” confirmed the basic facts of the Iran-contra scandal, Reagan went on national TV and said, “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”
There is ample evidence that vice presidential candidate and former CIA director George H.W. Bush secretly met with representatives of the Iranian government in Paris in 1980. At the time, Iran was fighting a desperate war with Iraq and needed weapons to continue. Because of the hostage crisis, Congress banned any Americans from doing business with Iran or selling them weapons. Bush promised the Iranians that, if elected, he would give them an ample supply, provided Iran did not release the hostages before the election. It was not ironic, as Ochenski writes, that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. It was by design.
originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
They're pretty well spot on. Still doesn't change what Obama did, though I will say that I will applaud pointing out hypocrisy.
On the other hand, instead of pointing out "so, Reagan also did this...there is a very disturbing pattern here", I see "well your side did it too", which is just pitiful, partisan, and why we can't get anywhere.
Speaking of which, Reagan did this, now Obama. Along with several other things, it's really pretty clear that both parties are the same pig with different colored lipstick, at least in my eyes.
After all, the October Surprise negotiations were allegedly undertaken (a) by private citizens (b) to delay the release of American hostages, and the preponderance of evidence now strongly suggests that this is exactly what happened. At the very least, Reagan/Bush officials colluded to block investigations into the October Surprise, when they should have welcomed it if they had nothing to hide. At most, they were guilty of treason. Any way you slice it, there was an extremely wide-ranging scandal — or set of scandals — involved in Reagan’s negotiations with terrorists, which has been virtually erased from public memory. What Obama is accused of now is utterly trivial in comparison.
originally posted by: FyreByrd
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd
Did Obama get Congresses approval to go ahead with the prison swap?
Or did he bypass congress and do it regardless.
Isn't that breaking the law that Obama, himself, signed?
Your point? In the context of this thread?