Yo, your pants are on fire again.

In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.

Nothing was done by the Reagan team.

Sorry Mul. Wrong again. The Sandinistas were quite popular in Nicaragua. They were building schools and medical facilities. We funded the Contras who were blowing that stuff up and killing citizens.

So that is why they got voted out of power huh?

Sup...

http://cache.boston.com/globe/nation...s/day6/01b.jpg

The Sandinistas were murderous tyrants who intimidated or killed political opponents and were funded by the Soviet Union...They were Marxist/Leninists...and, wouldn't you know it, defended by the American Democrat party.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...fsln-rally.jpg

Wow, this is why Carter at every interview where the topic comes up tows the party line.

You just destroyed a half dozen conspiracy theories.

Any good links to go with this?

Dream on. While the facts may be more or less correct, the Iranians were scared spitless of Reagan. The guy I have worked with for the last 5 years worked in the Reagan White House. Iran would have been turned into a large glass parking lot and would have glowed for hundreds of years had they not been released.

You notice that they were released within minutes of Reagan taking the oath of office? That was done for a reason and the reason is that Ronnie gained possession of the nuke codes and was ready to use them.

They knew that Reagan had the balls that Carter lost years ago and would have nuked them on day 2 of his administration. By sundown on day 1 the hostages were in another country.

JoeA

Like all communists, the Sandinistas were ruthless toward dissenters; by 1983, their prisons held more political prisoners than those of any Western Hemisphere nation except Cuba. The Sandinistas also produced what every communist regime produces: a flood of refugees. It was estimated in 1986 that one-10th of Nicaragua's population had fled from Sandinista repression.

JewishWorldReview

Not completely. There were factions on both sides in this, I was there and saw it. We supported one side and the others had their own support network. Each side had their supporters and both had good and bad issues.

It was not as "black and white" as you describe it above. Then you add a jungle, lots of M-16's and AK-47's and it can get sporty real fast.

JoeA

So do you agree with what was said or what?

:confused:

Thus, in perfect Khmer Rouge style, the Sandinistas inflicted a ruthless forcible relocation of tens of thousands of Indians from their land. Like Stalin, they used state-created famine as a weapon against these "enemies of the people."

The Sandinista army committed myriad atrocities against the Indian population, killing and imprisoning approximately 15,000 innocent people. The crimes included not only mass murders of innocent natives themselves, but a calculated liquidation of their entire leadership – as the Soviet army had perpetrated against the Poles in Katyn in 1943.



Ex-Communist David Horowitz's FrontPageMagazine

Not sure if the facts are accurate, so cannot agree or disagree. When StevePaa puts a link or supports his argument then we can all see if its accurate.

I am 100% sure of the info I posted as I know the man who worked with Reagan very well.

JoeA

Ya, like the Soviet Union.

Do not talk about it much but we really liked the "lend lease" program with the Ruski's while I was flying in CenAmerica at this time. They would have several large freighters docked all the time.

We would go to the docks and pick up a case of Stoli Vodka. They sold a 2 liter bottle for just over a buck. They loved American money and we got some very good deals there.

Then we always refueled in Mexico on the way back to CONUS. When we returned to the plane there would always be a 2 liter bottle of Kahlua on each pilots seat, courtesy of the local "hefe" at the airport. Course the Jack Daniels we gave him on the way down helped things along!

Driving home after landing in the states we would hit the 7-11 for some milk and life was good. Got addicted to Black Russians for years after that.

Joe A

Looks like you developed a sweet tooth...I sure wish the American left could shake their sweet tooth to communism.

JoeA.
We all remember that day. There even was a rumor that Reagan had forestalled the release until he was inaugerated.

Most plausible reason for waiting was just pure spite from Khomeini against Carter.

I was in grad school when the Shah was overthrown. The Iranian students celebrated and gave us all an earful about the Shah. They had not said a word before for fear of retaliation at home

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

You can not really believe this? Reagan would have been just as stymied. Nuke Iran and kill our own people. Your boss is in fantasy land.

Carter was ready to risk killing part or all of them on a shakey rescue mission that should never have landed in foreign soil, so why in the world do you think that Reagon would have been "stymied"...

Reagan would have chewed them up and spit them out. Fantasy land is a bit closer to your house IMHO.

JoeA

Joe
Reagan may have done something more forceful than Carter. The military is tasked with developing these plans and assessing risks. Carter's decision seemed to be good at the time.

So how would Reagan have rescued the hostages?

The implication from your boss for the use of nuclear option is ludicrous.

Reagan would never have considered the nuclear option. He would not want to go down in history like that.

Like Teddy Roosevelt said, walk softly and carry a big stick. The nukes were his big stick and he used the threat of being able to use them very well.

You cannot say that what Reagan would do unless you were working with him at the time. You already said that you were still in school at that time so I doubt that you had any personal contact with Reagan then or later. I have seen my guy with Reagan both at the White House and again before his death, so thats a bit stronger testament to where he comes from.

I have to stop posting on threads like this for a while. I keep getting private emails from Pelican saying that I should QUIT and not sure if it means posting or what.

Anyway, will let you guys hash it out among yourselves...

JoeA

EDIT: have heard from several others on the forum that they have also gotten this message and that its a server error. Have made a post on the OT board to see how many of us are getting this but this is interesting.

Well, I read this morning that Delay has been told off by the House Ethics Committee (bipartisan) more than any other sitting member.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Joeaksa - You have a PM.

Imagine a country forcibly relocating indians from their land. Sounds to me like that would be grounds for a preemptive dose of democracy...

Yes, I had no personal contact with him, but no sane person would consider nuclear war for such a situation. The only reference to a winnable nuclear option was in reference to USSR and when that came out the public went nuts, and the WH quickly retracted that kind of talk.

There was a barracks bombed in Lebanon during Reagan's term as I recall, and he didn't go off on anybody. He was no dummy.

In reference to my earlier comment about emails from Pelican. It now seems that at least 4 other people are getting messages saying to QUIT from Pelican. While it may be a server error as we were told so far everyone I have heard from who is getting this message was not sure about it either...

Will make a post and see how many people are getting this message.

Joe A

Yeah mul, swept under the rug :rolleyes:


Ex-Clinton aide's fate in jury's hands

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/25/fundraiser.trial/index.html

Jury Clears Ex-Clinton Aide

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/27/politics/main698306.shtml

The press was sooo quiet huh?

I can't believe you don't remember the trial...I do....

CC -
You remember the trial because you havn't drank the Kool-aid yet...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1127954605.jpg

So you must side with the Jews, that the Palestinians should vacate the lands that the Jews have inhabited for thousands of years...correct?

Just watching Meet the Press as well as our local talking heads.

How many people still feel that the Delay situation is not political?

How many people know that the DA could not get a grand jury to indict Delay after 5 attempts at doing so? 5 different groups of people refused to agree that there was enough evidence to procecute. Most DA's would realize that the case was not strong enough but not Ronnie Earle.

Finally on the 6th hand picked grand jury did they indict Delay and DA Ronnie Earle finally got to move ahead on the case he has been working on for years.

Will be fun to see how this one turns out, especially after Peloisi has just been caught doing the same thing that Delay did...

JoeA

Grand juror: DeLay evidence is there


'Stacks of papers' support indictment, foreman says; U.S. Rep. says there's no case


07:47 PM CDT on Saturday, October 1, 2005


By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Grand jurors were presented a load of evidence, including testimony and phone records, that led them to believe Rep. Tom DeLay should be tried on a conspiracy charge, the leader of the Travis County grand jury that indicted the congressman said Friday.

"It was not one of those sugarcoated deals that we handed to [District Attorney] Ronnie Earle," William M. Gibson said.

He added: "Mr. Earle has stacks and stacks of papers – evidence of telephone calls from Mr. DeLay and everybody."

Mr. DeLay has said that Mr. Earle has no evidence to prove that he tried to subvert Texas election laws. The Sugar Land Republican's lawyers did not return calls seeking comments on Mr. Gibson's description of the grand jury proceedings.

The indictment stems from the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee created by Mr. DeLay. The group, known as TRMPAC, is accused of trying to circumvent Texas laws that make it illegal to use corporate or union money in political campaigns.

Labeling it a money laundering scheme, Mr. Earle says that TRMPAC took $190,000 in corporate donations and routed it – along with the names of seven Statehouse candidates – to the Republican National Committee in September 2002. The RNC then sent out $190,000 in contributions to those same seven candidates, who couldn't legally have accepted corporate money.

At the heart of the conspiracy charge against Mr. DeLay is whether he knew about the transaction. Experts on Texas law say that knowledge alone might be all that is needed for a conviction under state law.

Mr. DeLay, who stepped down as House majority leader when the indictment was issued Wednesday, and his lawyers say he knew nothing about the money exchange at the time it happened and that the indictment is a political vendetta against him.

But in the first public acknowledgements of what evidence against Mr. DeLay might exist, Mr. Gibson, a 76-year-old former sheriff's deputy and state insurance investigator, said there were ample indications of the congressman's involvement.

He said that Mr. DeLay provided the district attorney with a written statement that was given to the grand jury to consider but that Mr. DeLay declined to sign a sworn document or testify under oath.

Mr. DeLay "just gave a statement saying he did nothing. And he didn't know how that money got back down here and all that stuff," Mr. Gibson said. "We believe different from other paperwork we got."

He added, "I am very much convinced that he had" knowledge of the transaction.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1001 05dntexdelay.20c896f8.html

And Joe, I've heard from the neocons about these 5 previous grand juries who chose to not indict, but I've yet to see proof of this. I've asked repeatedly as well on another board, to no avail.

I've also searched for credible evidence that this is true, I can't find it. Do you have a link Joe?

Not quite true. Reagan understood the PR benefit of taking action, so a few days after the Beruit barracks bombing, he had US forces attack Grenada -- a country with no involvement, whatsoever. This was the inspiration for the movie "Wag the Dog."

This thread has sure wandered a long ways away from DeLay/Frist/Abramoff, hasn't it? I guess some can't take the heat.

CC, let me look for it. If Tim Russert and his gang did not have issue with it then its got to be somewhere.

I do not disagree that there may be evidence of wrong doing, or even that he did do something wrong, its just very interesting that most everyone says that this is not political but no one mentions that it took 6 grand juries to indict. Thats not a good sign for Earle.

JoeA

BTW, when I was talking about neocons, I want to make it clear I was not referring to you. Just wanted to make that clear.

I just find it surprising they would bring the same evidence to 6 grand juries. If this is true, maybe he had additional proof each time, but to me, I want to know if this is even true.

It doesn't make much sense. A grand jury is a group of unknown civilians called for jury duty to look at evidence.....it makes no sense that this one would indict over nothing...what, were they paid off or something? See what I mean, why it sounds kooky to me?

Thats why I did not like it either. Usually a DA brings something to a grand jury and if they do not like it then its dropped. If Earle did do this 6 times then there is something more going on here...

Joe A

It was not easy, as no one wants to report on it but here it is in the third paragraph:

http://urbangrounds.com/2005/09/28/ronnie-earle-indicted/

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Travis County DA Ronnie Earle (D) Indicted

For malicious abuse of power and egregious partisan hackery
AUSTIN, TX—For the third time in recent memory, the partisan fanatic posing as my county’s District Attorney, Ronnie Earle, has abused the power of his elected office to exact baseless political retribution against his opposition.

Ronnie Earle’s 1994 indictment against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) was quickly dismissed and his charges in the 1980s against former Attorney General Jim Mattox (D)—another political foe of Earle—fell apart at trial.

Ronnie Earle convened five Grand Juries in an attempt to indict Tom Delay. None of these previous five Grand Juries could so much as indict a ham sandwich, much less Tom Delay. Not to be deterred, Mr. Earle convened a sixth Grand Jury (and I was wondering why my taxes where so high here in Travis County last year). Mr. Earle was finally able to find a Grand Jury who would hand down the indictment that he was begging for. With the entire Grand Jury process so slanted here in Travis County (Austin), I’m amazed that it took them 6 Grand Juries.

But even then, the grand jury only came through with a vaguely worded indictment for the last-resort charge of “conspiracy”.

***

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From the National Review:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

"Targeting DeLay"

The editors of National Review weigh in on Ronnie Earle's indictment of Tom DeLay:

Following the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, conservatives are left wondering what to make of the charges. The answer is simple. The charges are absurd and should be thrown out of court.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has charged DeLay with conspiracy to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. The alleged violation involved a money swap between the now-defunct Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which DeLay helped found but never managed, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent a check for $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent checks totaling approximately the same amount to Texas House candidates in October of 2002. Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.

Earle is wrong. Before campaign-finance reform, this kind of soft-money for hard-money swap was perfectly legal and happened all the time. In October of 2002, the Texas Democratic party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC.

Also, as former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, “Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?” Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and he’s convinced a grand jury to play along with him.


In addition, DeLay denies that he had anything to do with the (legal) transaction at issue. It strains credulity to think, as Earle apparently alleges, that the House Majority Leader was involved in the day-to-day mailing of checks by this PAC.

Actually NO Joe, this thing is falling apart at the seems already...NOBODY is getting behind this but the most wacked out Democrat politician like Nancy Pelosi (who BTW has some nerve given her fund-raising violations) and some in the LSM who hope-beyond-hope that they got a big fish this time.

Ronnie Earle is gonna hang on this one.

I'm sorry Joe, but that's not sufficient for me...a blog, opinion page....

you know what I mean? Just because a blogger says that doesn't mean it's true.

Dates of these grand juries, what was presented, etc.....hell, even an interview with one of the previous jurors....

I'm deferring judgment until trial.....I want to actually see the evidence, not rely on suspicions, feelings....

LOL!

DeLay wasn't indicted by Earle.

Stop the wailing and rending of garments. Let the courts decide.

I'm thinking these people here think there's some sort of "payoff" conspiracy....like they paid off the grand jury or something. How likely is that?

Our local neocons would claim alien abduction if it helped them rationalize the indictment.

Earle got indictments of 15 politicians -- 11 of whom were Democrats. But don't look for a rational response from the usual apologists here. Somehow, they'll find a way to invoke Clinton in 3 posts or less...