Quick history question re: October Surprise

[RoseMead]

I was reading some posts today on DU having to do with President Carter, and I started Googling for more information on some issues, including the "October Surprise" thing where the American hostages in Iran were supposedly purposely not released until after President Reagan took office.

I was surprised myself when I read the Wikipedia article on "October Surprise": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy

I had always understood that this conspiracy really happened, but according to Wikipedia, it didn't, and the whole thing was debunked some time ago. Needless to say, I now feel sheepish for promoting this piece of "history."

Can anyone here shed more light on this issue? Is Wikipedia correct here, and the whole "October Surprise" story was just garbage? Or is there more to the story not included in the Wikipedia article?

Just an inquiring mind, wanting to know... :)

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Well, it's never been "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt...

but many years later there was an article in, I think Rolling Stone, detailing then VP candidate Bush's disappearance for almost 24 hours, and some evidence (Secret Service logs?) that suggested he may have flown from London to the continent (Spain?) to negotiate with some Iranians re: delaying the release of the hostages- apparently the Carter administration was very close to negotiating a release, but after this alleged meeting between Bush and the Iranians, all negotiations ceased. Sorry for lack of details, but I'm going off 25 year old memories...

[blm]

3. Arafat said it happened and KGB even had files on it - it happened.

.

[RoseMead]

9. Good to know!

I'll check more into those sources. Thanks!

[blm]

2. It DID happen. The conventional wisdomists are professional liars.

http://consortiumnews.com/2005/russianreport1980.html

Parry knows this story better than any reporter out there - he BROKE many of the IranContra stories.

[RoseMead]

10. Thanks for the link

I'm starting to feel less sheepish by the moment.

[trotsky]

4. Sure seems awfully convenient they were released...

20 minutes after the empty-headed actor was sworn in, doesn't it?

There's insistence on both sides of this issue, but the key facts for me are:

A) Did Bush and others have the people and intelligence necessary to pull it off? CHECK.
B) Did the timing of events benefit them? CHECK.
C) Does it fit with later actions taken by Herbie Bush and his criminal gang? CHECK.

[RoseMead]

11. I remember the whole think stunk at the time

I was only in 8th grade at the time, and even I could tell that *something* was going on. I guess that's part of the reason I never questioned the story until now. And I'm not really questioning it much anymore, thanks to all the helpful answers I'm getting here. :)

[crickets]

5. And you stopped after one Wikipedia entry?

If you Googled "October Surprise" you know that there are many pages of results and many other sources aside from Wikipedia. Wikipedia may be a good starting point for data on many subjects, but it's hardly the be-all end-all of information, and bias may creep in due to the open source nature of the entries.

There are several links on the first page of Google results alone that can answer your questions.

An inquiring mind would keep reading.

ETA a couple of links to add to blm's:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920205-october-clips.htm
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/denied/octsurprise.htm

[RoseMead]

7. Well, no, I didn't stop there

I was just kind of shocked that the Wikipedia article seemed so dismissive of the incident, and listed several articles and investigations that concluded nothing happened. But I know better than to trust the Wikipedia exclusively. :)

[crickets]

12. Ah, thanks for the clarification

I think the issue here is Wikipedia. Nothing against Wikipedia; I like to use it as much as anyone, but it's just a starting point. Some entries are elaborately researched and cited. Other entries are strangely "dismissive" but that's up to the poster(s) who write and edit them. Info there can vary in quality as well as quantity as a result. But you knew that; apologies for not giving you the benefit of the doubt on it.

And I'm sorry if I jumped down your throat a bit. :hi:

[RoseMead]

13. No worries!

I've been around DU long enough to see some real smackdowns. lol

[Capn Sunshine]

15. There's been serious effort by Wingnuts on Wikipedia

To lay down all the RW spin ever spun as fact.
It's become pervasive.

[blm]

18. They have to because everything happening today is rooted in these past scandals

and the truth makes those links QUITE EVIDENT.

[unpossibles]

6. Wiki says the evidence was inconclusive

that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[RoseMead]

8. Yeah, but then they also cite several sources

that say it was untrue, and very little saying that it was true. The entire article seemed kind of dismissive, in my opinion. Which surprised me, since I had always been pretty much completely certain that it did happen.

[JHB]

14. Consider it was kind of the keystone of Reagan scandals...

...the one which, if it ever got out of Conspiracy Theory Never-NeverLand, would undermine the legitimacy of Reagan's entire presidency.

It was a lot like the Contra drug running "debunking": some (wilder, more easily debunkable) versions were debunked and used to claim the whole thing was disproven, but they never squarely addressed certain core points, or the evidence used to debunk those points turned out to be false itself.

[RoseMead]

16. That makes alot of sense n/t

[blm]

17. That's a standard operation for them. CIA drugrunning story would have brought

al that back into the open in 1996, but Clinton WH buried that story for Poppy Bush.

It sickens me that black community is largely unaware of the story and that Clinton sided with Poppy Bush over the truth about the targeting of black communities.

Brave BET documentary includes the Gary Webb investigative piece:

http://www.bet.com/BETShows/americangangster.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished