You want a 'dealing with terrorists' conspiracy - try this on for size

From a piece on liberal Alternet today:

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.

I become so tired of ******'s short attention span and lack of historical knowledge.

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.”

All of the above quotes contain facts that are easily verified:

www.scoop.co.nz... A three part series on the incident.

missoulian.com...

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.

And I'll link to a counter story that states 'it's just a conspiracy theory":

www.danielpipes.org...

Nothing can debunk the fact of Reagan's arms sales to Iran nor his diverting of those funds to the Nicaraguan Contras.

The truth is out there - as the X-files would tell us - you just have to widen your scope. History is important.

History is very important if one takes the time to actually Find It! One has to look very hard, stay away from the main stream News and invest their time looking. I find 2 different kinds of History out there. One that is Created and true while what one finds Today is only just the cover story.

Peace

And one of the news stations brought in Ollie North to comment on why it is wrong. He should know.

Thanks for bringing this to the light. Learn something new everyday.

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?

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.

Wow! Ol' GHWB sure had a lot of pull with Iran! I wonder if Reagan new about the 'deal'? It almost sounds like he's admitting he did it, regretted it, but it was beyond his control. You'd almost wonder if the rumor about the president not being 'Top Dog' is true....

a reply to: roadgravel

Whats with the News anyway? Never have anything interesting to say, bring up either the same stuff; different specialist or have 20 of them Stupid Specialists when the Actions on!

Where do they get these people anyways? Never Fails! Something Just In and somehow someone Knows; How it went down, replays and X 2 with another who is doing the same thing. Only on the left. Why do people even Watch the News on TV?

Best News one can get is going out on the town, other side of the tracks or your local hang-out! Thanks for reminding US what one hears on TV!

Peace

I have always found it slightly humorous that the hostage takers almost seemed eager to get rid of the hostages, as they did it right after the new president was sworn in. They wanted their goodies badly. I think Obama has taken a lot of crap considering virtually anything he does is met with disdain, no matter that the other party has had leaders do these same things in the past. They act like Obama is the absolute worst and the first person to do everything. He is no worse than many other presidents, of either party.

a reply to: nugget1

One has to wonder what Puppet Masters are pulling who's strings! Anyone actually know if Signing an Ex Order leaves Him out of the Loop? Instead of The Pres doing it like it sounds, Our Terrorist Corporation Puppet Masters sign it into Law so it Excludes Him being part of the US, while in Office.

Only other way out is Death! Don't recall any Pres ever being Charged, questions maybe. Like Who's gonna mess with the Real Players?

Peace

a reply to: infoseeker26754

I like the CNN aviation expert in the beginning of the MH370 event. They stated the person covered travel and had flown on a 777.

Most people do not know the difference and will believe what they get told. Extra research is too much trouble.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

And after He took Office, 6 mo's later the poor guy looked like He Wished he never won. No mater How much make-up, blush or hair color one uses, you can tell by the Eyes! Must have read that Book! Opp's must have been Told the Truth and hit Him Hard!

Good part is though, even if your one of the 1% or at least top 10% out there. It comes with a Heavy Price, Stress and all you know either want your Money or Power! And us Poor People say We have it Bad!

Peace

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?

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.

I guess my take on this is. I believe Obama's intentions were good - just bringing home a POW serviceman. In the Reagan/Bush October Surprise scenerio, the intention was to obstruct the negoiations of a sitting President.

At the time the Reagan/Bush cabal (and I believe Reagan was a figure head directed by others) began their negiotions with terrorists they were private citizens acting without any sanction except, alledgedly, by disgruntaled segments of the CIA (Papa Bushes folk). And that's not only unethical but treasonous.

a reply to: FyreByrd

And yet it could be said that only a fool doesnt learn from history.........

Apparently this administration has not.......

a reply to: roadgravel





Was going to actually Add that as an clue, yet held back since only a few actually would notice. It Topped my day! Laughtmy @ss for days! It was like No One Knew Anything yet tried to cover the story so fast one had to laugh.

How can the News know something everybody else did not even have a clue? Plus the very fact since 9-11 anything that flies is marked, tagged and just one bit off track. Someone makes a call. Cell phones, even if you turn off your gps it's still on!

If that EYE most claim is there, It happened to Look the other Way! Only thing that is left would be Who was on the plane at the time. Interesting things do happen, one could only Hope it was the Rapture and they's Living the Good Life!

Would be common sense really, somehow the News; all of them just don't Have Any! Yet they do have a storehouse of people willing to Talk! And people actually Listen without even questioning what just happened!

CNN is Comic Central Networking if you ask me! Enjoy your 1/4 day left!

Peace

a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm going to contradict myself here because I see something clearly. In the Bergdahl case he cannot be considered a POW because a War was never declared.

It doesn't change the meat of either matter but it's a distinction that, I think, is important. This war without end with no legally declared war is the problem. But that is another topic.


To get back on topic I want to share the final paragraph from the orginally referenced background piece:

www.alternet.org...

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.

a reply to: FyreByrd

S&F for you, well thought out post.

People forget history, and this was swept under the rug like it never happened. How very convenient that all these politicians that are bashing Obama forget their own party's history, and the things Reagan did while in office.

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?

That your premise is wrong.

People aren't upset about Obama negotiating with terrorists. Sure, some will pipe up, but it is articles like this that blur and obfuscate the truth.

Obama broke the law.

a reply to: beezzer

Again I will ask you, what is your point within the context of this post.

Reagan set the precedence (and broke the law) in much more selfish fashion.

Since when does the right care anything for the Rule of Law - only when it suits them. I'm not convinced that President Obama broke any laws. Were is your support for that statement.