Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (187370)	9/27/2001 5:21:44 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Scott: It was not Reagan alone. Don't forget, he wasn't just an actor. He had successfully served two terms as Governor of California before his bid on the presidency. Covert operations go on all the time. I think Jimmy Carter is a really good person. If I recall correctly he wasn't very popular as president. He used to give these uninspired radio speeches. Nevertheless, had he been able to secure the release of the hostages, he might have won the popular vote. I do believe that there were those who made certain that would not happen.

To: Srexley who wrote (187370)	9/27/2001 6:41:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Re your questions on the hostage release to the new Reagan/Bush administration: I'll give my two cents worth... 1) "Do people really think he did that?" >>> Well, I dunno.... The timing was fairly suspicious, though. (Wasn't the hostage release on inauguration day for the new admin?) The rumors - which were fairly widespread during that time - claimed that V.P. elect George Bush (former CIA Director, he) attended a secret meeting with representatives of the Iranian government in Paris... after the US presidential election in October; at which meeting the release was negotiated. Supposedly, to occur at a time which would be of maximum embarrassment for the old Carter administration: inauguration day. Also supposedly, the information about the Paris meetings was leaked from Iranian and French, not US sources. Rumors also claimed that the Reagan/Bush campaign had contact with the Iranians through intermediaries before the election. If this was true, it would have been illegal on possibly two counts: 1) Illegal for private citizens to conduct US diplomacy, and 2) If, in fact, these alleged negotiations (at which, supposedly, arms were traded for the hostages) resulted in the actual DELAY of the hostage releases for mere Political purposes... than this would clearly have been Treason. 2) How does someone assume the foreign policy reigns from a sitting president? >>> Pretty easily, apparently (If you are the President and V.P. just elected in a landslide.... I think the key word here is "lame duck". Carter was a very lame duck even before the results of the election were known. 3) "Please explain how Reagan took the reigns of foriegn diplomacy from a sitting president" >>> See the answer for #2 above. Also, remember, after the failed helicopter rescue attempt from Carter - and apparently even before - Khomeni really hated Carter. He wanted to do everything he could to further embarrass him... and, just perhaps, from the Iranian point-of-view, it was time to cool off the conflict a little, and take the Iranian "student movement" down a peg or two. Nothing lasts forever. Reagan had been campaigning by "beating the war drums" more than a bit... so, from the Iranian point-of-view it might have been an opportune time to finesse the conflict, and move on. And, if they could secure some critically needed parts for all those US jets we had supplied them, without losing any face before their domestic constituency, then maybe the deal makes sense for the Iranians. The only troubling questions for we Americans are: Did the Reagan negotiations occur before the inauguration (pretty obviously they did, because of the release date), or did they occur even before the election (straight Treason if that were true)? Also: is it a really good idea to sell enemy/hostage takers advanced weaponry? (Please note that after getting the Iranian air force back up and flying, and reputedly selling Stingers to them in the Ollie North deal... we later sold arms to the Iraqis [in an effort to replace the Soviet Union as their big arms merchant], and then we encouraged Saddam in his war with the Iranians [to try to "limit the spread of Iranian fundamentalism" from the Gulf states]. We, of course, later had to fight Saddam, thus bringing this whole mess full circle, and alienating most parties. The fact that - at Saudi request - the first President Bush left Saddam alive to fight another day against us... perhaps against the Second President Bush, only adds a sort of historical piquancy to the whole situation.) It's all about the oil, guys... specifically: "Big Oil". We have ignored, even befriended, dictatorial regimes, denied democratic aspirations of peoples (remember the CIA over-throwing the elected government of Iran in '53 to put the Shah back in power?), ignored religious intolerance, all to assure that oil remained flowing at favorable prices. The second half of the twentieth century was about two over-riding things: the Cold War, and Oil.