RadioFreeLiberal.com

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234699688/

Reagan Allies Schemed to Delay U.S. Hostages’ Freedom to Sabotage Carter, Alleged Witness Says
Officials passed word to Tehran not to free the hostages before Election Day 1980, according to one politician who says he was witness to the plan

Libertas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:35 pm https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234699688/

Reagan had no need to sabotage Carter as Carter didn't have a chance at reelection.

But, let's say the bullshit story brought up once again by your bullshit source is 100pct true. Which of course it isn't.
Wouldn't that show just exactly how incompetent and unqualified Carter was as president.
This story has as much truth and credibility as the one that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor.
BTW, last week I heard this bullshit brought up on one of the Sirius Left Shows but can't remember which one.

FDR allowed Pearl Harbor attack.

https://fee.org/articles/the-day-of-dec ... rl-harbor/

If you believe one bullshit story you need to believe them all

Pretty hard not to believe the story when the Iranians delivered the hostages AS Reagan was being Inaugurated. Kinda hard to see it as a coincidence.

gounion wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:03 pm Pretty hard not to believe the story when the Iranians delivered the hostages AS Reagan was being Inaugurated. Kinda hard to see it as a coincidence.

Yeah, unless you (board con, not you) value party over country like cons.

And like I just said on FB about the other famous gop

To believe Donald Trump you have to believe he paid Michael Cohen back $130,000 and didn’t ask him what it was for, not in 1 million years.

Libertas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:05 pm Yeah, unless you (board con, not you) value party over country like cons.

And like I just said on FB about the other famous gop

So if 20 years from now an 80 year old comes out and with "information" that Clinton really was involved in drug trafficking while governor of Arkansas, which is another bullshit story, with nobody to verify his story you are going to believe it.

Do you believe the bullshit story that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Of course not. So why would you or anyone else believe the bullshit story about Reagan

Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:44 pm So if 20 years from now an 80 year old comes out and with "information" that Clinton really was involved in drug trafficking while governor of Arkansas, which is another bullshit story, with nobody to verify his story you are going to believe it.

Do you believe the bullshit story that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Of course not. So why would you or anyone else believe the bullshit story about Reagan

Because the hostages were released just as Reagan was inaugurated, and then he sold arms to them. Sounds like a deal to me. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

gounion wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:56 pm Because the hostages were released just as Reagan was inaugurated, and then he sold arms to them. Sounds like a deal to me. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

So you believe the FDR story and that Clinton was involved in the drug trade

Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:58 pm So you believe the FDR story and that Clinton was involved in the drug trade

No, because there's no proof of either of those.

But again, it was quite strange to begin with that they release the hostages the very minute that Reagan was being sworn in. As I recall, they did it in split screen.

Sure sounds like a deal to me.

Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:58 pm So you believe the FDR story and that Clinton was involved in the drug trade

From the same hicks who insist the Great Depression was caused by FDR, even though it started NEARLY FOUR YEARS before he took office.

bengal59 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:05 pm From the same hicks who insist the Great Depression was caused by FDR, even though it started NEARLY FOUR YEARS before he took office.

Please show me anything that proves your ridiculous statement.

gounion wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:01 pm No, because there's no proof of either of those.

But again, it was quite strange to begin with that they release the hostages the very minute that Reagan was being sworn in. As I recall, they did it in split screen.

Sure sounds like a deal to me.

So you believe it was true which in turn would show what an incompetent and unqualified president Carter was.

Glennfs wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:14 am So you believe it was true which in turn would show what an incompetent and unqualified president Carter was.

I think it's quite plausible. Again, two points of FACT: They were released at the very same minute he was being sworn in, and he sold them weapons.

Which to me is horrible, since they used those weapons on Americans, but hey, I guess you conservatives have different morals, don't you?

I'm not sure what would motivate Ben Barnes to lie. The guy is in his eighties, doesn't seem like he's pursuing fame, money, or a return to politics. As to why he came forward now, he says it is because Carter was in hospice. The things he says about John Connally appear to check out.

You can debate the arms for hostages deal all you want, but there's no doubt whatsoever that he did secretly send arms to our enemies. Had it been a declared war, that's treason in anyone's version of the constitution. Still, it's traitorous conduct, even if inside the law. You people idolized a scab and a traitor, but then you're still doing it with drumpf so it's no surprise.

Iran Contra is pretty much accepted fact at this point. But it raises the question, how did the Reagan admin and Bill Casey develop contacts within the Iranian regime to begin those arms sales later on? Perhaps because, as Barnes said, they began some clandestine meetings with them during the 1980 campaign. Some validity to the so-called "October Surprise". During the Iran Iraq war neither side was in the choir of the angels, and yet the Reagan admin was selling arms to both the Ayatollahs and Saddam Hussein, likely prolonging the war. BOTH sides would use those weapons to later kill American soldiers, the Iraqis in 1991. Cynical to the core. And the Iranian arms sales were going to fund the Contras, who were killing and attacking civilians in Nicaragua.

Perhaps Carter might have lost in 1980 no matter what, but that doesn't make illegal deals legal.

ZoWie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:25 am You can debate the arms for hostages deal all you want, but there's no doubt whatsoever that he did secretly send arms to our enemies. Had it been a declared war, that's treason in anyone's version of the constitution. Still, it's traitorous conduct, even if inside the law. You people idolized a scab and a traitor, but then you're still doing it with drumpf so it's no surprise.

Yes he absolutely did, the democratic party sided with the communists over our president. Then president Reagan like our founding fathers risked his life, reputation and personal fortune to clandestinely fight the communists.
A true American Hero

Glennfs wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:15 pm Yes he absolutely did, the democratic party sided with the communists over our president. Then president Reagan like our founding fathers risked his life, reputation and personal fortune to clandestinely fight the communists.
A true American Hero

Reagan also sold WMDs to Saddam and trained Bin Laden on the fine art of terrorism. Both of which came back to bite us in the butt.

Some hero.

So the cons refuse to accept the truth, again.

Useless traitors.

gounion wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:27 pm Reagan also sold WMDs to Saddam and trained Bin Laden on the fine art of terrorism. Both of which came back to bite us in the butt.

Some hero.

A couple of thoughts about your liberal bullshit beliefs.
According to liberal source Slate it was the Carter administration who first started working with Bin Laden, and Reagan expanded.
However neither actually worked with Bin Laden they were actually working with the Islamic organization which were fighting the communists.
Notice we had no problems with Bin Laden or Saddam until decades after Reagan left office. Meaning it was the presidents which came after Reagan who were to blame.
Let's not forget that we had Bin Laden literally in our gun sites but Clinton refused to give the order to take him down.
As for the rest of your 20/20 hindsight it is your hatred of Reagan and anything not extreme left that makes you blind to the great president he was.
Top 10 according to Cspan scholars and historians. But of course you being anti scholar ignore that truth

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 ... osama.html

Glennfs wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:42 pm A couple of thoughts about your liberal bullshit beliefs.
According to liberal source Slate it was the Carter administration who first started working with Bin Laden, and Reagan expanded.
However neither actually worked with Bin Laden they were actually working with the Islamic organization which were fighting the communists.
Notice we had no problems with Bin Laden or Saddam until decades after Reagan left office. Meaning it was the presidents which came after Reagan who were to blame.
Let's not forget that we had Bin Laden literally in our gun sites but Clinton refused to give the order to take him down.
As for the rest of your 20/20 hindsight it is your hatred of Reagan and anything not extreme left that makes you blind to the great president he was.
Top 10 according to Cspan scholars and historians. But of course you being anti scholar ignore that truth

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 ... osama.html

Ah yes. Clinton tried to take down Bin Laden, and your side screamed "No war for Monica!" Clinton tried to warn Bush about Bin Laden, but he ignored him. His daddy was in meetings with the Bin Ladens as the towers were hit.

Reagan gave us Bin Laden. And you're fine with that.

gounion wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:14 am Ah yes. Clinton tried to take down Bin Laden, and your side screamed "No war for Monica!" Clinton tried to warn Bush about Bin Laden, but he ignored him. His daddy was in meetings with the Bin Ladens as the towers were hit.

Reagan gave us Bin Laden. And you're fine with that.

Reagan did not give us Bin Laden but you go ahead and trash an American icon like Reagan because you love our country so much.

Glennfs wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:42 am Reagan did not give us Bin Laden but you go ahead and trash an American icon like Reagan because you love our country so much.

Oh? It's okay for you to trash Americans icons. You can trash FDR all the time. And he's rated far above whatever Reagan was EVER rated. He's the greatest President of the modern era.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

Republicans always cry about their version of “freedom of speech.” But you can’t critique one of their icons. If you do you’re a commie loving bastard, you’re unAmerican and don’t belong in their version of America. But they’re allowed to criticize Dem presidents and leaders and they’re super open minded.

Glennfs wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:15 pm Yes he absolutely did, the democratic party sided with the communists over our president. Then president Reagan like our founding fathers risked his life, reputation and personal fortune to clandestinely fight the communists.
A true American Hero

That is the most blatant piece of misinformation that I have seen on this board in years.

He got us involved in the Middle East to secure the oil for the oligarchs that put him in power. He made a secret deal with a mortal enemy who was holding our citizens hostage. If I had done that, they'd have convicted me of treason.

It's all documented history. Iran-Contra was on TV for months, and it's all right there on tape. The resulting mess, when combined with the Afghanistan disaster, caused Bin Laden to go rogue, and you know what came of that. I'm not going to let you explain away 3000 dead in New York, and the ongoing trauma of 9/11, and the oil shortages, and the mess that passes for an economy now, as Democratic misconduct. It all started with your boy in the 1980s.