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: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:57:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.223733.1898@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
 
>
        [...]
>
>  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?
 
The point is that my scenario is far more logical and in keeping with the
stated aims of the Iranian revolutionaries. The "Surprise" scenario
requires one to believe that (1) the Iranians had actually decided to
free the hostages and were planning to do; (2) there was active intereference;
(3) the Iranians didn't later squeal on Reagan as they did on the later arms
deal (they still deny the "surprise" scenario, and did so for the PBS
"Frontline" cameras.) (4) Reagan was actually able to cut deals with the
Iranians.
 
My scenario requires only that the Iranians sought to maximize the humiliation
of Carter and the US while avoiding the appearance of kowtowing to any overt
threat by Reagan- in other words, that they simply indulged in basic profit
maximizing ;-)
 
My scenario is simpler (essentia non sunt multiplicanda and all that) and only
requires that the Iranians act in a manner consistant with all their observed
actions. The "surprise" scenraio actually requires them to keep to a deal and
then to keep quiet about it afterwards- but as we saw in Iran-Contra and other
events their behavior towards the US was characterized by *not* sticking
to deals, and by disclosing the deals later on. So the "surprise" scenario
requires the Iranians to act in a manner contrary to all their other observed
behavior.
 
>  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.
>
You mean, your difficulty rests with the fact that exact dates were not given?
 
>  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.
 
Not some, all. History is being rewritten with Carter as the greatest of
the modern presidents- after his economic and international screwups and
humiliations- and Reagan's 10 year boom as a great failure. Reading the
newspapers of the 1980 and 84 elections yeild a very different picture from
the one pictured by the revisionists and "surprise" buffs.
 
>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
 
True indeed.
 
>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!  :-)
>
And it took me two years to get one of my projects *approved* ;-)
 
>  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.
 
We're talking about executive orders, direct negotitations and in general
working without the "help" of Congress. Look at Kennedy's negotiations with
Kruschev over Cuba. Secret meetings completely hidden from the press,
and the signing of secret protocols that were not uncovered - though they
were rumored- for over 20 years. And it happened pretty quickly, too.
 
>
>> 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.
 
No we *don't* know that there was a deal. The charge has been made, but never
substantiated. One of the principle "sources" who claimed to be a Mossad
agent turned out to be a low-level clerk given to flights of fancy who was
fired by them. Another was a con man. The Christic Institute, who pushed this,
"proved" there was a deal by citing books written by their own people...quoting
other people who proved their bona fides by quoting...the authors. It was
a big circle-jerk, so to speak.
 
>>       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!  :-)
>
There's not even that.
 
>>>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?
>
But they weren't, as we found out in later deals. The Iranians still had
and continued to take hostages in Lebanon where they were immune from US
military action, as the link was more discreet. We wanted to recover our
influence in the area that we lost when the Shah was deposed.
 
>  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.
 
It was arms for hostages, all right. The other talk was a way of getting
around the fact that we were doing something we said we'd never do- pay
ransom. The problem was that as long as the ransom was secret it didn't
have an affect on policy. Once it became known, we had to deny it was ransom
or other governments and insurrectionists and whatnot would realize that
yould could indeed get the US to pay ransom. What the publicity did was to
keep the hostages in Lebanon longer as we couldn't ransom them out anymore.
>
>> 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.
Read more postings ;-)
 
>
>>                    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?
 
There were scores. Don't you rememeber all those trips by Solarez and others
to Nicaragua, speaking out in favor of the Sandanistas and against Reagan's
policies and conducting their own foreign policy? Probably delayed the
vote that threw the Sandanistas out by a good four years.
 
IN the constitution there are specific roles reserved for COngress- ratifying
treaties- and the executive. Private citizens are specifically prohibited
from meddling my federal law.
>
>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>     |
>+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Likewise,
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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