Re: Guiliani is a nitwit

On May 5, 1:02 pm, mooseboys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 4, 4:41 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> mooseboys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I just saw a moment during the debate as I was flicking through the
channels, looking for a Girls Gone Wild ad. The only thing I caught
Guiliani saying was, "And after looking into Ronald Reagan's eyes for
two minutes, they released the hostages right away."

I understand posturing during campiagns, but to ignore a well-known
fact is a disturbing thing: Reagan made a deal (see Iran-Contra) to
release the hostages.

Iran-contra came FIVE YEARS after the hostages were released in January
1980, didn't you know that?

Is all your knowledge of history that faulty?

It's not faulty. The Iran-Contra investigation about the shennigans
the "cowboys" were doing in the basement came in 1986, and
thereafter. And during the investigation, it was made public the fact
that Reagan made a deal with the Iranians for release of the
hostages. They were given arms in exchange for the release of the
hostages. And not only that, part of the agreement was that they, the
hostages, be released on Inauguration Day, and not sooner.
Now, that's a known fact.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you're mixing up your conspiracy
theories. Not even confirmed black helocopter types think that the
Iran-Contra affair had anything to do with the 1979-1980 hostage
situation.

For one thing, if somehow Reagan had decided to approach the Iranians
in 1980, the Iranians would have to have been morons to go along with
it. What were they going to do, make a deal with someone who was in
power, and then give up their only bargaining chip as soon as he came
into office? Once the hostages were freed, what reason would there be
to go through with the sale of arms? There was some talk that Reagan
had told the Iranians that the US would invade their country if the
hostages weren't freed by the time he took office, but obviously
that's a lot different than selling them arms. The opposite, in fact.

No, I'm afraid you're confusing historical events. The Iran-Contra
affair involved selling arms to the Iranians and diverting the funds
to the Contras in Nicaragua, which was a scandal because Congress had
passed a low outlawing the funding of the Contras in that way - but
the law was passed in around 1982, several years after the embassy
hostages had been freed. There was some talk that part of the deal was
that Iran would tell some of the Shia militias in Lebanon to let some
of the US hostages freed, but it never came out whether that was
really part of it or not.

I know it's disappointing to find out that a slam-dunk conspiracy
theory turns out to be merely a bungling of historical dates on your
part, but buck up. I'm sure you'll find some other dastardly event to
become righteously indignant about real soon.

.

Loading