General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRonald Reagan Gave Iran 1,500 Missiles for Hostages. Obama Trades Five Guys? GOP Heads Explode.
SAT MAY 31, 2014 AT 08:33 PM PDT
Ronald Reagan Gave Iran 1,500 Missiles for Hostages. Obama Trades Five Guys? GOP Heads Explode.
by David Harris Gershon
I don't want to hear another word about GOP lawmakers chest-thumping and foaming-at-the-mouth about the fact that Obama traded, without the requisite 30-day notice to Congress, five indefinitely detained prisoners for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
You know why? Because history:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/
In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought President Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East.
[...]
The arms-for-hostages proposal divided the administration. Longtime policy adversaries Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz opposed the deal, but Reagan, McFarlane and CIA director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed. By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called "a hostage bazaar."
So GOP lawmakers are apoplectic about Obama not giving Congress the 30-day notice required by law before transferring any detainee from Guantanamo Bay, men who have mostly been detained without charge?
But will raise President Reagan upon a pillar, a man who gave Iran over 1,500 missiles for the release of U.S. hostages?
I have one response: shut up and sit down. Class is in session.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/31/1303494/-GOP-Hero-Reagan-Gave-Iran-1-500-Missiles-for-Hostages-Obama-Trades-Five-Guys-GOP-Heads-Explode
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)except the RW on capitol hill. I think most folks would have been just a good handing over 20 or 30 of them, perhaps even the whole lot....
I hope the RW proceeds with their indignation. It will only increase their irrelevance.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)every week, they need something new to keep the outrage adrenalin pumping in the base.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Zoonart
(11,896 posts)Clearly, the President cannot win. If this young man had died in custody of the Taliban and the action to get him out had not been taken... the President would have been called indecisive, at best! They would have railed that this was an impeachable offense at worst.
The President acted to save the soldier's life and he is "capitulating to terrorists"... the cry goes up for impeachment.
Thank you Mr. President. Thank You for doing the right thing.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)when Obama brings one home.....well, what an outrage!
Historic NY
(37,458 posts)The NDAA has placed near-impossible restrictions, amounting to an effective prohibition, on the use of military funds to transfer detainees. The only possible Executive exception, or Waiver, is where it is in the United States national interest to enact a transfer.
GreatCaesarsGhost
(8,585 posts)The Wizard
(12,554 posts)unless it's under oath, and even then no one believes them.
mountain grammy
(26,663 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)and wouldn't survive a Supreme Court hearing.
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)Let's not be too hasty, let us wait until cooler heads prevail. What do $arah PayMe, or Joe The Plumber think of this? McCain is in his usual Sunday perch with Schieffer, he will insist upon invading somewhere. Emptying Gitmo is a good idea. Since the gop is against housing the prisoners on US soil, then send them home. It costs taxpayers a fortune to keep each one of them there. The reputation of the US went down the drain YEARS ago, when the half-wit from Texas was placed into the WH. Then the damage was compounded with his two "wars for awl" The oil was supposed to pay for the cost of the wars, remember?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)GOP outrage is usually faked up. This time is no exception.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The lack of wanting to know who the prisoners are is a fascinating study in how so many have such closed minds.
jmowreader
(50,580 posts)...and indiscriminately grabbing anybody that anyone said was a known Taliban leader.
Your next-door neighbor Muhammad borrowed your car and forgot to put gas in it? "Hello American Forces? My neighbor Muhammad is a terrorist. How do I know? He just is. Come get his ass."
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But they shouldn't have packed Gitmo to start with.
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The ratio is averaging 100 to 1.
5 to 1 is a bargain, especially as ally Qatar is doing the reception of the prisoners.
Just more stupid by the GOP, more equivalency by the media so as to have something to talk about on Endless Panels and Pundits.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)which means he did it out of the awesomeness of being Ronald Reagan, while obviously, Obama and a weakling and coward who did it out of fear.
George II
(67,782 posts)...even BEFORE he was elected, as long as they kept our hostages until after the election. Any "coincidence" that they were released at the very moment that Reagan's hand left the bible during his swearing in?
Of course Lindsey Graham will be out there whining and sniveling, along with Rove and all Faux talking/EXPLODING heads this morning. John McCain already chimed in last night with some inane babbling.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,773 posts)"Inane babbling." Symptomatic of a Swine Flu epidemic within the Republican Party.
George II
(67,782 posts)..."Sorry Ass Republican Syndrome"!
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,773 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)for those ignorant and disingenuous creeps. nt
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,773 posts)speeches ala SarahPalin as legitimate arguments in support of their RW world view. They don't require, nor desire reasoned discussion, for in that context the BS of the RW is clearly revealed.
...I thought you were talking about the missiles Reagan/Bush/Casey got Israel to give Iran as part of The October Surprise...of course that was to 'hold on' to hostages - only to be released when it would help them win the '80 election. I think it's time for Democrats to 'open up' on Republican treason like the '80 thing, but also the '68 Peace Talks sabotage and the stealing of both the '00 and '04 elections.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Why the hell aren't at least some high level democrats, hell JUST ONE-- out there telling the truth about the past??
And also,why aren't they saying that if Obama had done nothing and the guy died the republican terrorists would be accusing him of murder??
Why don't 'they' put ME on one of those dumb fuck Sunday morning TV shows? Shit, man. I'll tell them.
This is a no brainer. If the truth about anything gets put out enough no republican or blue dog fake democrat will ever win another election.
Don't answer me. I know the answers.
CBHagman
(16,992 posts)...when I looked at the first headlines about GOP objections to the Taliban prisoner release.
Igel
(35,383 posts)Other Gitmo detainees have been released under similar terms.
Most vanish. Fortunately, that's what most do. They just vanish, and if they return to the battlefield they either remain undistinguished or they die anonymously. Any damage they cause is unattributable to the release of the detainees.
In a few cases they didn't vanish, and it was a minor political problem. You don't want those released to come back and kill US soldiers or any civilians. Fortunately for *, the detainees that were involved in this were released as part of a large-scale release of those judged not so dangerous at a time when there was a lot of support in some sectors for releasing as many as possible. That the release-and-monitor program was so leaky should have been obvious, but the novelty of the program provided some political cover. That was a decade ago. It provides no cover.
All that has to happen is for one of those 5 former detainees to be named as implicated in the death of civilians, US soldiers, or other non-US NATO forces and there'll be hell to pay. One side will say that the price of Bergdahl's freedom was the death of others. The other side will say, "Who knew?" That it was done in a way that is apparently dictated by urgency doesn't reduce the fact that it was done in a way that also minimized transparency and the painful discussion that would have happened.
BootinUp
(47,209 posts)They would rather he had been killed.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)We are supposed to be better than Republicans, not justify our actions by saying we are the same as them. How can we claim the moral high ground when every time our leader is criticized whe are quick to point out that he is simply copying some fucking Republican? Every time we are challenged we promptly retreat from the high ground and dive down in the muck with our opponent.
How about a simple, "Oh for God's sake grow up. Swapping prisoners of war is a perfectly routine process," and then ignoring them when they try to make something of it.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)lastlib
(23,356 posts)has zero standing to complain about any such dealings. They can just fuck off and die. Sooner better than later.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)A much better argument is, "The Republicans are wrong to criticize us, because what we are doing is the right thing to do."
Do you see the difference in position there? Do you see how the latter position is one of self assurance and pride, while the former is a crouching defensive posture?
And why must we always express ourselves in terms of disdain and contempt for our opponent? Why can we never simply state the value of what we stand for as positive expression? We reject, in fact, the suggestion that we express positives about ourselves and insist that we must be more and more focused on using our voices exclusively to condemn the opposition.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Response to kpete (Original post)
bigtree This message was self-deleted by its author.
Turbineguy
(37,392 posts)if he had been a republican he would have got nothing from the other side in exchange.
malaise
(269,256 posts)Apparently not
tclambert
(11,087 posts)You didn't, did you? Blasphemer!
if Obama would turn out to be Jesus Christ incarnate , the Repugs would probably criticize him for not coming sooner ; or feeding and caring for the multitudes instead of letting them go hungry .
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts).....so much; and him being of partial African ancestry makes it even worse in the minds of more than a few(especially Teabagger types).
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)new about the GOP this is really getting old
4lbs
(6,866 posts)They were likely used against Iraq in their 1980s war.
I doubt trading 5 detainees will cause any deaths in 30 years.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)(and don't forget that McFarlane, North, & Poindexter then funneled the profits of the sale to the Contras, in violation of the law)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)credibility!
The GOP is a vicious pack of America-hating thugs. Secede, already, a--holes!*
*And take our compromised DINOS with you!!!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They act like the war isn't over until the other side is completely wiped from the face of the earth.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)September 10, 2013
It is important to remember times in history when the United States supplied dictators with weapons that are condemned today.
The time is December 1983 near the middle of President Ronald Reagan's first term. Iran and Iraq are at war, and Iran is gaining the upper hand in the military struggle. In an effort to stave off Iranian Islamic dominance in the region President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to broker a secret deal with Saddam Hussein. In the secret 90-minute meeting Rumsfeld arranged for Saddam Hussein to acquire sarin nerve gas, anthrax, bubonic plague, along with others. He also arranged for Iraq to receive billions of dollars in loans to pay for these weapons.
How would Rumsfeld be able to do this? From the years 1977 to 1985 Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of a major pharmaceutical corporation known as Searle & Company which, coincidentally enough, was sold to Monsanto in 1985.
Records also show that then CIA Director William Casey personally involved himself in assisting funneling cluster bombs to Iraq through a foreign shell company.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ronald-reagan-gave-saddam-hussein-chemical-weapons-to-fight-iran
alp227
(32,073 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)care about this exchange.
TBF
(32,118 posts)I haven't been up on this story but read a little this morning in USA today & on wiki:
Release on May 31, 2014
On May 31, 2014, U.S. officials from the White House and Pentagon announced that Bergdahl had been released by his captors and recovered by U.S. special operations forces in eastern Afghanistan. The release was brokered by the American, Qatar and Afghanistan governments with the Taliban, in exchange for five Guantanamo Bay detainees transferred to Qatari custody for at least one year. Though law states that the President must inform Congress at least 30 days in advance of any transfers at Guantanamo Bay, no notice was given. On 10:30 a.m. (ET) May 31, 2014, Bergdahl was handed over by 18 Taliban members in eastern Afghanistan, near Khost on the Pakistani border, in what was described as a "peaceful handover".
Bergdahl was treated by U.S. military medical staff at an undisclosed base in east Afghanistan. He was then transferred to Bagram Airfield, before being flown to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany for specialist medical treatment and is expected to return home to Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas for further recovery.
President Obama and U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel thanked Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Emir of Qatar, and the government of Afghanistan for their assistance in the rescue of Bergdahl.
The Taliban detainees known as the "Taliban five"[54] who were transferred from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to custody in Doha, Qatar are Mohammad Fazl, Khairullah Khairkhwa, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Norullah Noori, and Mohammad Nabi Omari. They are the Taliban army chief of staff, a Taliban deputy minister of intelligence, a former Taliban interior minister and two other senior Taliban figures
I'm not seeing what is so horrible here. A peaceful exchange of prisoners and if they are clearing Guantanamo in order to close it this could be a very good thing indeed.
What am I missing?
cynzke
(1,254 posts)that points out what the GOP tolerated by their God/Regan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/benghazi-beirut-bombing_b_5353757.html
Javaman
(62,534 posts)IronLionZion
(45,615 posts)from enemy captivity. If the released taliban are so bad, then charge them with something. Or get them with missile strikes. But its just idiotic to keep them for so many years in prison without any sort of due process.
The most disgusting amount of BS being spewed forth by the GOP propaganda machine is that the 5 talibs were simply freed and returned back in Afghanistan because Dems are pathethic little weaklings. The truth is they are to be held in prison in Qatar for no less than a year from now, but Sargeant Berghdahl is back in US hands already.
The official US military policy has always been no one gets left behind.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Response to kpete (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed