7 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst President of our lifetime

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Plus don’t forget that a rescue mission that would have made it so there were no hostages to be returned, failed. Was it Carter’s fault that the mission failed due to the result of what was basically a traffic accident in the parking lot? No it wasn’t. But he took the fall for it.

Carter is responsible. His disregard for all things military - as reflected in his anemic military budget - helped insure that there weren't properly trained helicopter pilots to conduct such a mission.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Gary Sick’s “October Surprise” story and book was a fraudulent hoax. A 1992 Senate investigation and a 1993 House investigation both exonerated Reagan of this hoax.

Plus: “Based on a review of exclusive documentation it appears that none of [Gary] Sick's key informants had any original knowledge of the October Surprise counterplot, an alleged Reagan campaign attempt in 1980 to head off a preelection release of the 52 American hostages then being held in Tehran. Only by swapping rumors and tacking with the latest ones--a process that the Voice has traced in detail--were they able to create an impression that they knew of this event firsthand.”

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992...24-october.htm

Was the sale of arms to Iran also false?

One does not have to look to hard to read between the lines.

Iran had kept hostages 444 days and Reagan turns around and rewards them with arms sales?
Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

We may never know what Casey did but we do know that he was not where the official report said he was:



There are other signs that Republicans went to some length to conceal Casey’s clandestine travels in 1980.
In 1991-92, as October Surprise investigators tried to nail down Casey’s whereabouts on key dates, their efforts were frustrated by Casey’s family, which had received many of Casey’s personal records from the CIA after his death from a cancerous brain tumor on May 6, 1987. Casey had become Reagan’s first CIA director in 1981, was implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal when it broke open in fall 1986, and collapsed shortly before he was scheduled to testify.
Casey’s family grudgingly turned over his personal records to congressional investigators, but Casey’s 1980 passport was missing along with several pages from his personal calendar for that year.
From the Bush library files, there’s no indication that the White House told investigators about Williamson’s information regarding a Casey trip to Madrid. Nor did anyone in power do anything to stop the Washington press corps’ rush to judgment, which condemned Jamshid Hashemi as a liar and a perjurer.
Instead, the media stampede was allowed to surge forward, trampling anyone still foolish or brave enough to stand in the way – and making a mess of U.S. history in the process.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Was the sale of arms to Iran also false?

One does not have to look to hard to read between the lines.

Iran had kept hostages 444 days and Reagan turns around and rewards them with arms sales?
Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

You said you are a man of science; yet you dispute the findings of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) who say October Surprise is a preposterous hoax?

[WTF]

I B , why do you think Reagan sold arms to Iran?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You said you are a man of science; yet you dispute the findings of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) who say October Surprise is a preposterous hoax?

Could you provide a link....why would scientist be reviewing this?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

I B , why do you think Reagan sold arms to Iran?

As you state the case, no. Now if you wish to restate your premise, you might jibe closer to the known facts of the case.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Could you provide a link....why would scientist be reviewing this?

See post at #165. And you quoted it at #167.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

Or , Mr T could have cut a deal with Iran before the election because an October suprise would have probably gotten Carter re-elected.

Suprise....Reagan shipped arms to Iran through guess what country?

Now if that is true, who were the Iranians more scared of Don Knotts or Mr T?

.

I thought I made it clear that if it were true Barney Fife had the Iranians shaking in thier boots.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As you state the case, no. Now if you wish to restate your premise, you might jibe closer to the known facts of the case.

My next question was and pardon me but I should have said, if my first premise is not true, then why did Ronnie sell arms to Iran?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

See post at #165. And you quoted it at #167.

Well help me out, I have not fount any scienctific refrences in that link. That is not to say they are not there but I found none. If you intention was to get me to at the very least skim the material, I applaud your cunning!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

I thought I made it clear that if it were true Barney Fife had the Iranians shaking in thier boots.




My next question was and pardon me but I should have said, if my first premise is not true, then why did Ronnie sell arms to Iran?

The Eric Holder defense is:

"While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause, no conclusive evidence has been found showing that he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras. To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well help me out, I have not fount any scienctific refrences in that link. That is not to say they are not there but I found none. If you intention was to get me to at the very least skim the material, I applaud your cunning!

@ http://www.fas.org/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Eric Holder defense is:

"While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause, no conclusive evidence has been found showing that he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras. To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

Sounds like Ronnie was getting blackmailed by the Iranians for arms. And according to North (whom , I would be suspect of believing) Ronnie knew about the Contra's too.

Now if Obama were to try and make a little do good with the Iranians now a days, what do you suppose you cats would say? What about amesty for the Mexicans? Shit maybe we do need Roonie to come back. We could have Clinton as his VP. Be like ''Weekend at Bernie's 2''.



In Reagan's account, McFarlane told Reagan that the Iranians, to demonstrate their seriousness, offered to persuade the Hezbollah terrorists to release the seven U.S. hostages.[26] McFarlane met with the Israeli intermediaries;[27] Reagan claims that he allowed this because he believed that establishing relations with a strategically located country, and preventing the Soviet Union from doing the same, was a beneficial move.[25] Although Reagan claims that the arms sales were to a "moderate" faction of Iranians, the Walsh Iran/Contra Report states that the arms sales were "to Iran" itself,[28] which was under the control of the Ayatollah.
Oliver North wrote that "Ronald Reagan knew of and approved a great deal of what went on with both the Iranian initiative and private efforts on behalf of the contras and he received regular, detailed briefings on both.... I have no doubt that he was told about the use of residuals for the Contras, and that he approved it. Enthusiastically."[66]

[quote=I B Hankering;2001735]@ http://www.fas.org/[/quote]

I was hoping I was not slipping in my old age.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Carter is responsible. His disregard for all things military - as reflected in his anemic military budget - helped insure that there weren't properly trained helicopter pilots to conduct such a mission.

Military spending decreased every year from 1969 to 1976. In 1977 spending started to increase until 1986. It stayed steady until 1989. From 1990 until 2002 it mostly went down. It spiked up again in 2003.

The mission failure was caused by a brutal sandstorm, radio silence, and equipment failures related to the sandstorm. It was not Carter’s fault in any way except by virtue of him being President.

If anyone had blame it would be the planners. They sent a force that was too small. 8 started out. 2 aborted on the way to the rendezvous with the C-130s, and 1 had its primary hydraulics system fail at the site. With 6 aircraft as a mission minimum, the rescue was aborted. In my previous post I should have made it clear that the accident happened after the mission had been aborted.

The military’s pilots who were involved in the mission and the accident were the best trained we had. All had many, many years of experience and almost certainly were Viet Nam veterans. Why do I say that? Because that’s who you send on a mission like that.

Like with Obama, there are enough real issues with Carter. This was a case of bad luck, not a bad president.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Eric Holder defense is:

"While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause, no conclusive evidence has been found showing that he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras. To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

From the same link.
After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages. The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials. On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

From the same link.
After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages. The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials. On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."

Yea but I B was sly enough to divert the answer. He did not answer the obvious question I asked but instead hung his hat on the one thing Reagan may not have been in the loop on, though North sure said he was.


Reagan traded arms for hostages. Lied about it and then came clean when confronted with the evidence. Nobody was able to prove that the GOP withheld the release of the American hostages but it sure the fuc was in their best interest if they wanted to defeat Jimmy Carter. The Iranians influenced out 1980 election and Reagan rewarded them with arms. The question has always been, was it negotiated before hand.


The present Republican field of Presidential candidates always invoke old Ronnie, which one of them would say they will sell arms to Iran and grant amnesty to illegal's and get elected today? Which one would tout raising the SS tax rate? The tax on a gallon of gasoline? The people that worship Reagan really do not have a clue as to just wtf he did. Barrack Obama is way more like Reagan than any of these clowns are and the right leaning posters in this forum are to ignorant on this subject to even know wtf their hero's history is.