PDA

View Full Version : For all you Reagan lovers.......



Qtec
05-09-2010, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Russian Report: The 1980 'October Surprise' Was Indeed A Deal Made By The Republicans.
By Susie Madrak Saturday May 08, 2010 7:00am

Is there anything the military-industrial-political complex in this country won't stoop to? Seriously. It's not that we didn't know this happened; it's that the people who do these things always get away with it:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>A Russian government report, which corroborated allegations that Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign interfered with President Jimmy Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980, was apparently kept from the Democratic chairman of a congressional task force that investigated the charges a dozen years later.
</span>
Lee Hamilton, then a congressman from Indiana in charge of the task force, told me in a recent interview, “I don’t recall seeing it,” although he was the one who had requested Moscow’s cooperation in the first place and the extraordinary Russian report was addressed to him.

The Russian report, which was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow on Jan. 11, 1993, contradicted the task force’s findings – which were released two days later – of “no credible evidence” showing that Republicans contacted Iranian intermediaries behind President Carter’s back regarding 52 American hostages held by Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government, the so-called October Surprise case.

I was surprised by Hamilton’s unfamiliarity with the Russian report, so I e-mailed him a PDF copy. I then contacted the task force’s former chief counsel, attorney Lawrence Barcella, who acknowledged in an e-mail that he doesn’t “recall whether I showed [Hamilton] the Russian report or not.”

In other words, the Russian report – possibly representing Moscow’s first post-Cold War collaboration with the United States on an intelligence mystery – was not only kept from the American public but apparently from the chairman of the task force responsible for the investigation.

The revelation further suggests that the congressional investigation was shoddy and incomplete, thus reopening the question of whether Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980 was, in part, set in motion by a dirty trick that extended the 444-day captivity of the hostages who were freed immediately after Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981.

The coincidence between Reagan’s inauguration and the hostage release was curious to some but served mostly to establish in the minds of Americans that Reagan was a tough leader who instilled fear in U.S. adversaries. However, if the timing actually resulted from a clandestine arms-for-hostage deal, it would mean that Reagan’s presidency began with an act of deception, as well as an act of treachery.

The Russian report also implicates other prominent Republicans in the Iranian contacts, including the late William Casey (who was Reagan’s campaign director in 1980), George H.W. Bush (who was Reagan’s vice presidential running mate), and Robert Gates (who in 1980 had been a CIA officer on the National Security Council before becoming executive assistant to Carter’s CIA Director Stansfield Turner).

Casey, who served as Reagan’s first CIA director, died in 1987 before the 1980 allegations came under scrutiny. Bush, who was President during the task force’s 1992 inquiry, angrily denied the accusations at two news conferences but was never questioned under oath. Gates, who was CIA director in 1992 and is now President Barack Obama's Defense Secretary, also has brushed off the suspicions </div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/russian-report-1980-october-surprise)

If the POTUS is negotiating with the enemy for the release of hostages and you go behind his back and make a secret deal with same enemy, which is the opposite of what the President is trying to do, is that not treason?

Q

LWW
05-09-2010, 05:55 AM
Do you ever read this stuff?

You cut the link off, oddly, just before it goes completely insane.

To give it any credibility, even after you cut through the numerous "IF'S", one must believe that the Russians and Iranians preferred hawkish Reagan over pacifist Carter in 1989 ... and that then in 1993 the Clinton administration aided in covering it up to protect Reagan and Bush.

Here's a homework assignment ... find a link to the actual report and then let's review what it actually says.

What's that?

Your "SOURCE" didn't give you the actual report?

They just told you what it said?

And you believed it on faith?

How interesting.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-09-2010, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Russian Report: The 1980 'October Surprise' Was Indeed A Deal Made By The Republicans.
By Susie Madrak Saturday May 08, 2010 7:00am

Is there anything the military-industrial-political complex in this country won't stoop to? Seriously. It's not that we didn't know this happened; it's that the people who do these things always get away with it:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>A Russian government report, which corroborated allegations that Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign interfered with President Jimmy Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980, was apparently kept from the Democratic chairman of a congressional task force that investigated the charges a dozen years later.
</span>
Lee Hamilton, then a congressman from Indiana in charge of the task force, told me in a recent interview, “I don’t recall seeing it,” although he was the one who had requested Moscow’s cooperation in the first place and the extraordinary Russian report was addressed to him.

The Russian report, which was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow on Jan. 11, 1993, contradicted the task force’s findings – which were released two days later – of “no credible evidence” showing that Republicans contacted Iranian intermediaries behind President Carter’s back regarding 52 American hostages held by Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government, the so-called October Surprise case.

I was surprised by Hamilton’s unfamiliarity with the Russian report, so I e-mailed him a PDF copy. I then contacted the task force’s former chief counsel, attorney Lawrence Barcella, who acknowledged in an e-mail that he doesn’t “recall whether I showed [Hamilton] the Russian report or not.”

In other words, the Russian report – possibly representing Moscow’s first post-Cold War collaboration with the United States on an intelligence mystery – was not only kept from the American public but apparently from the chairman of the task force responsible for the investigation.

The revelation further suggests that the congressional investigation was shoddy and incomplete, thus reopening the question of whether Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980 was, in part, set in motion by a dirty trick that extended the 444-day captivity of the hostages who were freed immediately after Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981.

The coincidence between Reagan’s inauguration and the hostage release was curious to some but served mostly to establish in the minds of Americans that Reagan was a tough leader who instilled fear in U.S. adversaries. However, if the timing actually resulted from a clandestine arms-for-hostage deal, it would mean that Reagan’s presidency began with an act of deception, as well as an act of treachery.

The Russian report also implicates other prominent Republicans in the Iranian contacts, including the late William Casey (who was Reagan’s campaign director in 1980), George H.W. Bush (who was Reagan’s vice presidential running mate), and Robert Gates (who in 1980 had been a CIA officer on the National Security Council before becoming executive assistant to Carter’s CIA Director Stansfield Turner).

Casey, who served as Reagan’s first CIA director, died in 1987 before the 1980 allegations came under scrutiny. Bush, who was President during the task force’s 1992 inquiry, angrily denied the accusations at two news conferences but was never questioned under oath. Gates, who was CIA director in 1992 and is now President Barack Obama's Defense Secretary, also has brushed off the suspicions </div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/russian-report-1980-october-surprise)

If the POTUS is negotiating with the enemy for the release of hostages and you go behind his back and make a secret deal with same enemy, which is the opposite of what the President is trying to do, is that not treason?

Q </div></div>

Yes, it's treason, and Reagan was as big a liar as Bush. He lied about the deal with the Contras.

In fact, Republicans have propped up more inhumane dictators, and spread around more weapons to radicals around the world than we can count!

Crooks!

G.

LWW
05-09-2010, 11:44 AM
"If the POTUS is negotiating with the enemy for the release of hostages and you go behind his back and make a secret deal with same enemy, which is the opposite of what the President is trying to do, is that not treason?

Q"

Not that this will register ... but you are accusing Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, and others of treason.

LWW

Qtec
05-09-2010, 07:59 PM
No I am not! Can't you read English? I'm accusing Reagan and as usual to want to change the subject. EVERY thread you reply to its always the same, "...but Clinton,.. but Obama".
You do EXACTLY what you chastise others for doing.

Q

LWW
05-09-2010, 08:06 PM
Almost ... you are accusing Reagan without any evidence while giving the others a pass even though the evidence of them negotiating with foreign powers is unquestioned.

Truth vs truthiness.

LWW

Qtec
05-10-2010, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Almost ... you are accusing Reagan <u>without any evidence </u>while giving the others a pass even though the evidence of them negotiating with foreign powers is unquestioned.

Truth vs truthiness.

LWW </div></div>

See my first post.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>A Russian government report, which corroborated allegations that Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign interfered with President Jimmy Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980, was apparently kept from the Democratic chairman of a congressional task force that investigated the charges a dozen years later.</span> </div></div>

Q

LWW
05-10-2010, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Almost ... you are accusing Reagan <u>without any evidence </u>while giving the others a pass even though the evidence of them negotiating with foreign powers is unquestioned.

Truth vs truthiness.

LWW </div></div>

See my first post.

Q </div></div>

See my reply.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a homework assignment ... find a link to the actual report and then let's review what it actually says.

What's that?

Your "SOURCE" didn't give you the actual report?

They just told you what it said?

And you believed it on faith?

How interesting.

LWW </div></div>

So ... have you ever seen the report?

What's that?

You haven't?

I already knew that.

Just because someone says there's a 7 ft pink bunny in my carrots outside doesn't mean here's a 7 ft pink bunny in my carrots outside.

Bottom line ... you don't know what the report actually says and neither do I.

What we do know is that the author, who implies they have seen it, doesn't wany you or I to see it.

That makes me skeptical.

You, OTOH, could care less it seems since the story is something you are inclined to agree.

Also, OTOH, my post on Teddy Kennedy's treason actually links to the data ... as does my post on Ms Pelosi.

Truth vs truthiness.

LWW

llotter
05-10-2010, 09:50 AM
Unfortunately, Q's posts are seldom worth reading and never worth responding to. A very sad case of stupidity with no known cure.

LWW
05-10-2010, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unfortunately, Q's posts are seldom worth reading and never worth responding to. A very sad case of stupidity with no known cure. </div></div>

Truth cures many things.

LWW

pooltchr
05-10-2010, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unfortunately, Q's posts are seldom worth reading and never worth responding to. A very sad case of stupidity with no known cure. </div></div>

Truth cures many things.

LWW </div></div>

Only if you are willing to embrace it!

Steve

Qtec
05-10-2010, 10:57 AM
The report PDF file. link (http://www.consortiumnews.com/Russian-Surprise.pdf)

More links in this article. link (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russianreport1980.html)

More details. link (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/050610.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Russian assistance was requested on Oct. 21, 1992, by the House task force chairman, Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind. The Russian report asserted that the allegations of secret Republican negotiations with Iran were true. But the Russian report was never released by the task force, whose public findings reached the opposite conclusion.

Reporter Robert Parry found the Russian report among files belonging to the House task force in December 1994 and made these copies on a copier in a Capitol Hill storage room. For easier reading, we have typed out the contents of the Russian report, without the Embassy's coding and introduction, in a separate file. The actual cable is below -- or view as a higher resolution PDF file. </div></div>

How does it feel to be such a dork?

Q

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No I am not! Can't you read English? I'm accusing Reagan and as usual to want to change the subject. EVERY thread you reply to its always the same, "...but Clinton,.. but Obama".
You do EXACTLY what you chastise others for doing.

Q
</div></div>

Yes he does, and that includes all of his attacks against others, of which he himself is far more guilty of than anyone here.

WE have another one famous for the same lack of self-analysis around here, but he is above the rest of us... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif So much more intelligent, LMAO!

pooltchr
05-11-2010, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WE have another one famous for the same lack of self-analysis around here, but <span style="color: #FF0000">thinks s</span>he is above the rest of us... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif So much more intelligent, LMAO! </div></div>

There, I fixed that for ya.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WE have another one famous for the same lack of self-analysis around here, but <span style="color: #FF0000">thinks s</span>he is above the rest of us... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif So much more intelligent, LMAO! </div></div>

There, I fixed that for ya.

Steve </div></div>

Oh, that was just precious. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

LWW
05-11-2010, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WE have another one famous for the same lack of self-analysis around here, but <span style="color: #FF0000">thinks s</span>he is above the rest of us... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif So much more intelligent, LMAO! </div></div>

There, I fixed that for ya.

Steve </div></div>

Oh, that was just precious. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Thanks dearie.

LWW

pooltchr
05-11-2010, 10:51 AM
She loves ya, Larry! She really does!!!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WE have another one famous for the same lack of self-analysis around here, but <span style="color: #FF0000">thinks s</span>he is above the rest of us... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif So much more intelligent, LMAO! </div></div>

There, I fixed that for ya.

Steve </div></div>

Oh, that was just precious. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Thanks dearie.

LWW </div></div>

You ought to know, you do plenty of it.

LWW
05-11-2010, 10:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She loves ya, Larry! She really does!!!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve </div></div>

I'm becoming a believer.

LWW

Qtec
05-12-2010, 12:57 AM
Knock Knock, anybody home?
Did you miss my post or are you just going to ignore it like LWW?

Q

Qtec
05-12-2010, 01:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you ever read this stuff?

You cut the link off, oddly, just before it goes completely insane.

To give it any credibility, even after you cut through the numerous "IF'S", one must believe that the Russians and Iranians preferred hawkish Reagan over pacifist Carter in 1989 ... and that then in 1993 the Clinton administration aided in covering it up to protect Reagan and Bush.

Here's a homework assignment ... find a link to the actual report and then let's review what it actually says.

What's that?

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Your "SOURCE" didn't give you the actual report?</span>

They just told you what it said?

And you believed it on faith?

How interesting.

LWW </div></div>

Maybe I imagined it but<span style='font-size: 20pt'> I thought I gave you a link to the actual report!</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>So ... have you ever seen the report?</span>

What's that?

You haven't?

I already knew that.
</div></div>

Didn't I give you a link to the actual report in a PDF file? PDF file (http://www.consortiumnews.com/Russian-Surprise.pdf)
Oh..............yes I did! Actually, I gave you 3 links in one post, here it is. Try reading it this time.

LINK (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=306430#Post306430)

Unlike you, I don't post gossip.

BTW, you never answered my question,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How does it feel to be such a dork? </div></div>


Q....LOL

LWW
05-12-2010, 05:04 AM
Did you even read the file?

"Asked about the source of the material, which as far as we can tell seems to be based largely on material that has appeared in the western media Kuznetzov said only that it had been prepared by the committee. Documents and sources used by the committee have neither been identified nor provided."

Put into plain English ... the Soviets read western newspapers and regurgitated the same crap back to those who wanted to believe it.

The Bush going to Paris was proven wrong a long time ago. Phase 2 of the myth then had Bush piloting an SR-71 Blackbird and making a solo transatlantic round trip flight at mach 3 which gave him just enough time to actually attend a meeting when his schedule showed him as asleep on a USAF base.

You were played ... again ... and simply can't admit it.

LWW

pooltchr
05-12-2010, 07:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Knock Knock, anybody home?
Did you miss my post or are you just going to ignore it like LWW?

Q </div></div>

At the risk of crushing your ego, I should tell you that I actually ignore a lot of your posts. And in this thread, I don't think I even responded to you at all...sorry I don't hang on every article you cut and paste here...I find it more interesting to discuss thing with people who actually have their own opinions on subjects.

Steve

LWW
05-12-2010, 09:10 AM
B-b-b-but he just proved that the Soviets received western newspapers!

What more proof of Reagan's treason could you want beyond the fact that the soviets backed up the western moonbat end media by repeating their mythology back to them.

Once it's on "UFO-BLOGGER" it will be considered incontrovertible.

LWW