Tweet
Carter just had an interview last month in which has said he continue to believe Reagan did indeed arange the October Surprise to assure his election and that selling arms to Iran was Reagan's pay back to the mullahs. It isn't crazy and in all likelihood is exactly what happened.
It is wiki, but their are links to the sources:
Senate Investigation
The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages" [3].
[edit]
House of Representatives Investigation
The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded that there was insufficient evidence that representatives from the Ronald Reagan’s election campaign had met with or had any contact with the Iranian government. The report also expressed the belief that several witness had committed perjury during their sworn statements to them, among whom Richard Brenneke, a CIA agent accused of perjury [4]. However, Richard Brenneke was acquitted of all charges [5]
[edit]
The Village Voice
Retired CIA agent Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992, and concluded that almost every single statement Sick made, and all the witnesses he had used turned out to be false or lying. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. According to Snepp, not one of Sick’s sources had any direct knowledge of the alleged plot. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone, who refused to turn it into a movie. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke Snepp discovered that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be staying at a motel in Seattle, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting [6]
[edit]
Newsweek
Newsweek magazine also ran an investigation, and they too found most if not all the charges made to be groundless. Specifically, Newsweek found little evidence that the United States had transferred arms to Iran prior to Iran Contra, was able to account for George Bush’s whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Paris meeting, and found little corroboration when Sick’s witnesses were interviewed separately. Newsweek also alleged that the story was being heavily pushed within the LaRouche Movement [7]
[edit]
The New Republic
Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of the New Republic Magazine, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the timeframe Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources [8].
The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages" [3].
[edit]
House of Representatives Investigation
The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded that there was insufficient evidence that representatives from the Ronald Reagan’s election campaign had met with or had any contact with the Iranian government. The report also expressed the belief that several witness had committed perjury during their sworn statements to them, among whom Richard Brenneke, a CIA agent accused of perjury [4]. However, Richard Brenneke was acquitted of all charges [5]
[edit]
The Village Voice
Retired CIA agent Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992, and concluded that almost every single statement Sick made, and all the witnesses he had used turned out to be false or lying. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. According to Snepp, not one of Sick’s sources had any direct knowledge of the alleged plot. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone, who refused to turn it into a movie. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke Snepp discovered that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be staying at a motel in Seattle, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting [6]
[edit]
Newsweek
Newsweek magazine also ran an investigation, and they too found most if not all the charges made to be groundless. Specifically, Newsweek found little evidence that the United States had transferred arms to Iran prior to Iran Contra, was able to account for George Bush’s whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Paris meeting, and found little corroboration when Sick’s witnesses were interviewed separately. Newsweek also alleged that the story was being heavily pushed within the LaRouche Movement [7]
[edit]
The New Republic
Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of the New Republic Magazine, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the timeframe Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources [8].
Further more JFK's handling of the Cuban missile crisis was top notch.
Oh PLEASE! We had nukes in Turkey. The Soviets put nukes in Cuba and suddenly we are the on the brink of WW3? Because Kennedy has to become a hothead and announce everything to the public? Any competent President would have handled it privately, doing an exchange of removing missiles without making everyone think the world was going to end.
f he hadn't been shot then likely we would never have gotten so deeply involved in Vietnam (JFK and his main advisors didn't want the US to get in any deeper while Johnson's camp wanted to go whole hog) and the race issue would have likely been dealt with sooner without the race riots. In short he was on his way to being one of the best Presidents ever.
This post death deification of Kennedy is utterly absurd. The only thing missing is he puts on a cloak and flys around as Superman.
Yeah, JFK's aides didn't want to go any further in Vietnam, but LBJ's did... even though the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara served for Kennedy and LBJ. Who else do you consult with over a war than your own SecDef? And is there any proof that JFK wanted to leave Vietnam at any point? Nope. Don't think that Kennedy didn't escalate the US presense in Vietnam either.
As for race relations. Kennedy did absolutely NOTHING on race while President. He made a few speeches, but was afraid of the Southern Democrats and made no moves at actually passing a Civil Rights Act. Introducing one without any advancement was seen as enough. It was only under a huge mandate after Kennedy's death did LBJ have the political capital (and his experience with Congress) to undertake such an affair, a year after Kennedy's death.
The amusing part is the idea that Kennedy had such political capital to leave Vietnam without being seen as weak on Communism (which doomed LBJ) and fix the 'race issue' when there were massive questions as to whether he'd even be relected!
In reality, Kennedy was perhaps one of our worst Presidents and was woefully unprepared for the job. If he lived, he would have been seen as a low point after the great job done by Eisenhower.
). I dont know if its true but I heard Nixon was negotiating with Vietnam even while LBJ was in office.
Comment