It's speculated (e.g., the documents haven't been declassified yet)
that during the 1980 Presidential Election, Reagan was talking to the Iranians and urging them to refuse any and all deals from Carter to release the hostages, because he wanted to keep Carter looking weak and improve his own chances for election. That's why the hostages were released 5 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated, and why the Reagan Administration had no qualms about breaking US law and selling weapons to Iran a few years later.
Similarly, it is now known
(the tapes have been released) that during the 1968 Presidential election, Nixon was urging the South Vietnamese to refuse all efforts at a peaceful settlement to the war to weaken Humphrey's campaign and improve Nixon's own. Johnson himself called Nixon's actions "treason", but ultimately decided to not say anything publicly to avoid disrupting the election with the appearance of partisan interference.
—R.J.
The article you linked to clearly debunks that conspiracy theory.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.I'm just posting over my off site response to the state of the union:
The State of The Union was beautiful, too bad this is America so none of what was spoken of will get gone. Nothing more than pretty words. I would love to see a reformed health-care bill and support for education, rewarding good teacher and exiling the bad ones, but once again this is America and America is never going to move in that direction as long as the political climate is how it is. They tell us we're all friends now, it's lie. Here's to another year of the right and the left driving this nation into the floor.
- Cheers*
edited 27th Jan '11 3:02:43 PM by americanbadass
[[User Banned]]_ My Pm box ix still open though, I think?The "debunking" is all in your mind.
—R.J.
Honegger is also a 9/11 "Truther". Sick was proven to have been lying by The Village Voice
(hardly people likely to cover up wrongdoing by Reagan). Bani-Sadr doesn't strike me as particularly trustworthy either.
There's no point in arguing these sorts of things with R Jung, apparemtly Republican Block Ops guys zip line into his home and piss in his cornflakes every morning, and then tactically exfil before he turns around. Now that's skill.
But seriously, I don't think Rjung has ever made a post I've read that didn't involve him implicating something was the fault of the Republican party.
Or they're generals. Generals have their smile glands removed unless it's a photo-op in which case two hundred hours of make up is used to provide the illusion of smiling.
edited 27th Jan '11 6:29:53 PM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.No, it shouldn't. Do you really think the military should be allowed to do something a supermajority of the American population disagrees with? Really? Even if it does mean a tiny hit to morale, it's worth it so that the military isn't going against the will of the people.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.^
Coming from my lifestyle and community, it seems really presumptuous for people to expect Generals to give a shit what people who aren't higher rank than them think.
Gates, Petraeus, Mullen, all the big names in the DOD supported the repeal.(Not to mention most of the Secretaries of each branch) I wanted them to do it because they thought it was the best course of action, not have the entire DOD pressured into doing it by outside interests, that isn't something that sits well with me.
No, he is an outside interest, he's not involved in any real dealings with the military unless he suddenly gets a wild hair up his ass to change something. He has technical authority, but he isn't one of the people who gets any of our shit done.
You need to understand, to folks in the military, Presidents come and go. What he says goes, and we will obey, but yeah, we really will kick, scream, and disagree while we do it. As far as we're concerned, the people who actually deserve the power to change things stop after the Sec Def. Our Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries, Sec Def, and Generals are the folks we look to as the highest authority.
I'm not saying any troops are going to just refuse to recognize the authority of the Commander and Chief because we don't like what he has to say, but you need to have a bit of empathy and realize we're about as pissed off as anybody would if they were at their job and one day your corporations CEO who's never done anything to directly affect your job just suddenly decides to come out of his lofty perch in a high-rise office and changes something because he can. To the one million or so members of the US Military, he's just some guy in a suit who might know a good deal about lots of things that a president needs to know, but he isn't one of us, and doesn't know fuck all about the military.
edited 27th Jan '11 8:47:59 PM by Barkey
From where I'm sitting, the Republicans haven't implemented a single major policy initiative that actually improved the country in the last 30 years. Why shouldn't I be annoyed?
—R.J.
edited 28th Jan '11 11:39:00 PM by rjung

Oh, you didn't know about the Iran-Contra Scandal?
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.