From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.205706.27038@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
 
>     [...]
>
>  We all know that's what Reagan & Co. want us to believe.  But we have no real
>facts, do we?  The details of the operation remain hidden under the guise of
>National Security.  Do you believe that the contacts and plans for this
>operation were made in the first six weeks of Reagan's presidency?
>
As you say, you have no facts. Your argument seems to be that the scenario
you postulate is *consistent* with the observed events. I say it is also
consistent with a million other events. You have established a very restricted
sort of plausibility- which does not even constitute circumstantial evidence.
You need more than opportunity.
 
And your "mere six weeks"- that's a month and a half. 45 days. That's certainly
enough time to establish contact and make some preliminary deals. Actually,
it's far more time than that. Figure Reagan's staff was working on the idea
for a while before the transition- from November to January. Then they sounded
out some non-governmental intermediaries. There's no need to assume a secret
deal. Beyond that, there's no one who has actually testified to the existence
of the deal who can be verified as being in on it. Funny, given how leaky
every other conspiracy seems to be.
 
         [...]
>
>  Or, at least, the Iranians did not wish to put Reagan in the same position in
>which they put Carter.  Go figure.
 
         [...]
>
>> Before you can talk about a mythical "delay" you have to establish
>> why the Iranians would have considered releasing the hostages to an impotent
>> President like Carter in the first place- which you cannot do.
>
>  No, but I can venture a guess.  I suspect that the Iranians would prefer to
>deal with an "impotent" U.S. President than a more aggressive one like Reagan.
>They knew that their continued refusal to release the hostages was politically
>damaging to Carter; can you give me one good reason why they might have wanted
>Reagan to take over?
 
I think their motive were more based on short-term objectives- humiliating the
US. Releasing the hostages before the lection wouldn't have affected the
outcome, as Carter's fate had long before been sealed by economic mismanagement
and international incompetance. His one triumph- Camp David- had long been
forgotten, and was about as important in the election as Desert Storm is in
the current one- i.e., nil.
 
The Iranian strategy was to humiliate the US as long as possible. The action
was principly for internal effect in Iran, to establish the leadership and
solidify power, and secondly for prestige within the Arab world.
 
Reagan's administration made the continued holding of the hostages a more
risky affair, one that could possibly- in the eyes of the Iranians- nullify
all their propoganda gains. Reagan carried the threat of serious military
action- remember the joke? "What's 500 miles wide, flat, and glows in the
dark? Iran, 5 minutes after Reagan becomes president." That was a real
belief at the time, that Reagan would just use the maximum force as opposed
to Carter's military misadventure. Thus the Iranians wanted to hold the
hostages as long as possible, complete the full humiliation of Carter, who
was powerless to act following the election, but still release the hostages
*before* any ultimatum from Washington that would make it look as though
they were backing down under a threat.
 
>Regards,
>
>Steve
>--
 
You, too.
 
As a sidenote: Reagan has been accused of treasonous activity for supposedly
communicating with a foreign government and undermining our foreign policy
in direct contravention of the Constitution. There is no evidence for this,
just a contention. But during the Reagan administration a large number of
Senators and Congressmen and private citizens did communicate directly with
the governments of Cuba and Nicaragua as well as insurgency movements
sponsored by those states and by the ex-USSR, working on directly opposing
the policies of the excutive.
 
I'd say in the latter case we have far more evidence of treason, certainly.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush