From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:37:33 GMT

Michael Edelman writes
> 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. [...]

  Hold on... I never postulated a scenario, and I'm not necessarily a proponent  
of the "October Surprise" theory.  Whether or not Carter might have won the  
election was irrelevant to my original argument; please don't read more into it  
than I wrote.

  I was just responding to an apparently popular view that we should stop  
investigating possible links between the Iran Hostage crisis and subsequent  
U.S. arms shipments to Iran.  The only points I brought up were:

	1.  The first arms shipment to Iran was made six weeks after Reagan  
	    took office.

	2.  Reagan won the 1980 election, in part, because of the public's
	    perception that he would be more militant in his dealings with  
	    Iran.

The first has basically been accepted as a historical fact.  The second is  
subject to debate, but your quote...

	> 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."

..suggests that you agree with this point as well.  Is there no apparent  
conflict between these two points?

  I'm not mad at anyone because Carter lost in 1980.  I don't necessarily think  
the world would be a better place had he won.  But I'm still not satisfied by  
Reagan's justification for the arms deals; the reasoning sounds like it was  
done after the fact.  And it bothers me that the public is allowed to know who  
the "moderate" Iranian contacts were, but not when they were made.

  BTW... I agree that there are some who are pushing the "October Surprise"  
theory in order to damage the Republicans and save some of Carter's face.   
Personally, I think this approach is pointless; you can't convince people that  
the opinions they have held for 12 years were the result of manipulation.  I'm  
only interested in finding out the true story for the sake of history, and so  
that those responsible can be brought to justice.  (Those that are still alive,  
that is...  :-)

  That being said, let's continue our hypothetical discussion...

> 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.

  I don't know, Michael.  I work for the U.S. government, and I have yet to see  
any idea that can come to fruition in six weeks.  It took me six months to get  
this computer from the time I ordered it!  :-)

  Seriously... I assume that the White House's procurement resources are a  
little more efficient than those at my disposal.  But we're talking about a  
pretty massive cover-up... shipping large amounts of arms, and hiding all of  
the paperwork (and money!) associated with them. 
 
> 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.

  Again, "national security" concerns prevent us from knowing when and how the  
contacts were made.  Sorry, but I'm not satisfied.  We've _known_ that there  
was a secret deal, of some sort, since 1987.  We just don't know the exact  
nature of it yet.  And that's the purpose of the investigation.

>       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.

  Perhaps it was a slow leak... seven years, to be exact!  :-)

>>They [Iran] 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.  [...]
> 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 propaganda gains. [...]

  Your explanation is certainly plausible.  But the question still remains--  
why the arms shipments?  Why support a "moderate" opposition when Reagan was  
supposedly able to deal effectively with the existing Iranian government?

  Incidentally, the rationale of aiding the Iranian moderates was not offered  
until several weeks after the Iran/Contra scandal broke.  The original  
justification, if I recall, was that the Reagan administration was led to  
believe that these "moderates" could help win the release of other western  
hostages in the Middle East.  I agree that this was not technically an "arms  
for hostages" deal, but it is still questionable.
  
> 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.

  Politicians are often accused of many things by various screamers and  
shouters, but Reagan has yet to be officially charged with anything treasonous.

>                    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.

  Let's remember that the policies of the executive are supposed to reflect the  
policies of Congress.  I don't think it absurd for members of Congress to be in  
contact with foreign nationals, so that they can base these policies on  
information rather than the lack of it.  However, I'm not aware of any specific  
cases.  Could you cite any?

Regards,

Steve

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11826 talk.politics.misc:42534 alt.politics.bush:3291 alt.politics.clinton:3337