@Revtim (Revtim) posted a new topic, subject "Did Reagan-Bush delay the release of the hostages in Iran?". It read:

   Did the Reagan-Bush campaign of 1980 have secret dealings with Iran to delay the release of the 52 American hostages? (aka the “October Surprise”)
    
    It seems possible to me, especially in light of the Iran-contra.

To which @Stoid (Stoid) replied

    Well, * yeah *.

@Guinastasia (Guinastasia) replied

    You know, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
    
    AFter all, his administration didn't hesitate to sell arms to terrorists to gain hostage release.

Then @xenophon41 (xenophon41) said

    Um, you guys realize of course that “it's possible,” “they did other sneaky stuff later on” and “it was a factor which hurt Carter in the 1980 election” don't constitute a rational argument. Right?
    
    Is there any compelling evidence showing that such a deal was ever made, or ever even _possible_ for Reagan-Bush to have made? Or is this just mean speculation in the same vein as those murder and treason allegations against Clinton?

To which @Zenster (Zenster) replied

    Why the f&@k else were the hostages released at nearly the same moment that Regan was delivering his acceptance speech?
    
    May the bastard fry in H-E-Double Toohpicks. He richly earned the brain rot he so deservedly suffers from today.

After which, @Guinastasia (Guinastasia) added

    I'm just saying I wouldn't be suprised.  
    But it's unlikely we'll ever know. I don't know the whole story-if someone could clue me in, I'd appreciate it.
    
    And Reagan WAS well-known for blaming his problems on Carter. Even things that Carter had nothing to do with.

@milroyj (milroyj) replied

    Hey, at least Reagan/Bush didn't murder Vince Foster :rolleyes:

Then @lucwarm (lucwarm) said

    > *Originally posted by Zenster *  
    >  **Why the f&@k else were the hostages released at nearly the same moment that Regan was delivering his acceptance speech?
    > 
    > **
    
    Assuming that Reagan somehow delayed the release to win the election, wouldn't it have been sufficient to delay until mid-November? Or do you think that Reagan also wanted “credit”?
    
    In any event, another plausible explanation is that the change in power in the U.S. allowed for improved negotiations – do you know anything about the negotiations at that time?
    
    I agree that many (most?) politicians are Machiavellian enough that they would be willing to pull an “October Surprise” to win a presidential election if they thought they could get away with it.
    
    But motive alone is not enough to convince me – what evidence is there?

After which, @Freedom (Freedom) added

    It's good to see that the right-side of the aisle doesn't have a monopoly on the conpiracy theories.  
      
    Can anyone give even one piece of evidence to support this?
    
    The only debate I see, is whether this thread belongs in IMHO or the Pit.

Then @Revtim (Revtim) said

    > *Originally posted by xenophon41 *  
    >  **Um, you guys realize of course that “it's possible,” “they did other sneaky stuff later on” and “it was a factor which hurt Carter in the 1980 election” don't constitute a rational argument. Right?  
    >  **
    
    I only said “it's possible”, I didn't say “it's possible, so they probably did it.”
    
    > **Or is this just mean speculation in the same vein as those murder and treason allegations against Clinton? **
    
    It seems to me that Iran/contra makes it more likely to be true than the murder allegations against Clinton. For the situations to be analagous in my eyes, Clinton would have had to have been proven to be involved with more murders later on.

So @Freedom (Freedom) replied

    > For the situations to be analagous in my eyes, Clinton would have had to have been proven to be involved with more murders later on.
    
    So I guess you believe Clinton raped a bunch of women since we found out later on that he was banging the help.

To which @DMC (DMC) replied

    There is actually quite a bit of evidence supporting this conspiracy. Unfortunately, most of it is circumstantial (at least what's available to the public). There are two facts in the case that are no longer disputed by either party: the hostages were released almost immediately upon Reagan's swearing in. The Reagan administration supplied arms to Iran after the release. Those two alone should at least raise an eyebrow or two. You also have to take into consideration that Brenneke was acquitted, when he was put on trial for perjury against the goverment. There is also the fact that it should be fairly able to prove that Bush was never in Paris, if that is indeed fact. Don't we keep records of where our Veeps are on any given day? Why has he not offered any such proof?
    
    Could be a big coverup, could just be a lot of coincidences.
    
    Here are a few links for your perusal.
    
    CJR
    
    Another link
    
    Here is a nice little link about our charles81@example.net. If you changed a few words and switched the roles of the parties involved, it would look a lot like some recent bickering involving a cigar.

Then @minty_green (minty green) said

    And doesn't anyone remember the message Reagan inscribed in the Bible he sent to the Ayatollah along with the Stinger missiles?
    
    > Dear AK:
    > 
    > Well here it is, the final installment on our deal to let you keep those hostages you had until the day of my first inauguration. Thanks so much for releasing them at the exact same time I was sworn in, since it enabled me to take all credit for their release, instead of old peanut head. I know you really wanted to give them up while the guy you despised was still in office, so I'm very appreciative of your kind decision to wait not only until after I won the election, but after I'd been sworn in. Whew! You never know when those sneaky Democrats on the Supreme Court could have invalidated that election.
    > 
    > I'd also like to thank you for waiting so patiently before I got around to sending these weapons. It was very kind of you to wait until well into my second term, especially since you could have had no guarantee that I would be re-elected to ever come through with these. I knew you Arabs were sneaky, but I never knew you were so patient! Must be one of those Mohammed things, huh? And hey, do whatever you feel like with those hostages you've got in Lebanon. This shipment has nothing to do with those idiots, and the press has been really supportive of me doing nothing about getting them home.
    > 
    > Anyway, you enjoy these missiles and spare parts! If you ever find yourself with a bunch of spare Americans on your hands again, you know who to call!
    > 
    > Ron
    > 
    > P.S.–Any chance you could “keep” the Lt. Col. who's along on the flight? He's a real gung-ho idiot, and I swear he's going to get us all caught.

@Lemur866 (Lemur866) replied

    Wow. The hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated, so **he must have conspired to delay their release.** Hmmmm…
    
    Or, how about this scenario. The ayatollahs knew that continuing to keep the hostages was becoming increasingly dangerous. There had already been one military mission to free them. So, having already gotten enough PR value from the hostages, they decided to free them. But when? Hmmmm…how about when the American president they had conflicts with was no longer in office.
    
    Kind of like how we'll remove all sanctions on Cuba when Castro steps down. We don't want to have to validate Castro, so it would be impossible politically when he's still dictator of Cuba. But once he's gone it's the perfect time, regardless of whether human rights etc improve in Cuba.
    
    This “October Surprise” conspiracy theory has about as much credibility as the “FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming” theory. Any time a politician might have a motive for commiting some horrible atrocity, then they MUST have done it, right?

Then @Revtim (Revtim) said

    > *Originally posted by Freedom *  
    >  **
    >
    >> For the situations to be analagous in my eyes, Clinton would have had to have been proven to be involved with more murders later on.
    > 
    > So I guess you believe Clinton raped a bunch of women since we found out later on that he was banging the help.  
    >  **
    
    If Clinton were accused of rape, say on Jan 1st, then he was proved to have committed a rape on, say, October 1st, then I would believe it more **likely** that had committed the Jan 1st rape once I learned of the October 1st rape.
    
    You seem to be reading statements like “I think he did it” when I'm only making statements about “less likely” or “more likely”. Chill out, and try not to jump to conclusions. I don't know if Reagan did it. I never stated he did it. I don't have enough information. You'll note I started this thread as a question, and not a statement. That is because I'm **looking** for information.

Then @DMC (DMC) said

    Lemur866,
    
    If that was the only fact, then I'd agree with you. There are at least two facts, as I mentioned above. Individually, they mean nothing. Together, they could still mean nothing, but they do look a bit strange.
    
    Reagan: “Hmm, you kidnapped 52 of our citizens and returned them on the day I took office. Mind if I give you some weapons? Let's try and keep it hush-hush.”

After which, @Guinastasia (Guinastasia) added

    Iran Contra was about a different set of hostages.
    
    I said it wouldn't suprise me, considering the many underhanded and disgusting things the Reagan administration did do. I didn't say that he did it necessarily.
    
    For one thing, I don't believe Reagan would be smart enough to do such a thing.

To which @Zebra (Zebra) replied

    **Lemur866**
    
    A far better explaination for the release when Reagan took office has nothing to do with Reagan. When Reagan took office is when **Carter** left office. The Iranians **hated** Carter and wanted one last snub. The entire deal to release the hostages was worked by Carter and went down during his ‘lame duck' portion of his presidency.
    
    You may recall that after the hostages were taken Carter froze the Iranian assets in American banks and did the full embargo route. Now before this the Iranians had US Military equipment and due to a war with Iraq they desperatly need spare parts. Carter and his team set up a complicated transfer of the Iranian funds in stages between various national banks in exchange for movement of the hostages out of Iran. That is why the hostages were released. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan in the least.

To which @astorian (astorian) replied

    Astonishing how the term “October Surprise” has been turned on its head, to make REAGAN look bad!
    
    The very term “October Surprise” was INVENTED by Reagan aides, and referred to the possibility they feared most: that Jimmy Carter would find SOME way, ANY way, to free the hostages in late October, just in time to get a big bounce in the polls and win re-election.
    
    They had good reason to fear Carter would pull such a stunt. After all, Carter had pulled one stunt after another while fighting off Ted Kennedy in the primaries. Whenever it appeared that Ted Kennedy was going to win a state, word would leak from the WHite House that the hostages were about to be released… Carter would win the primary… and… SURPRISE! The hostages stayed in Iran.
    
    Reagan and his advisors were convinced that Carter would try to play a similar game, and undoubtedly tried hard to spy on the Carter team (maybe even planting some moles there), so they'd know if Carter had some such spring-the-hostages-a-few-days-before-the-election trick in mind.
    
    That's a FAR cry from saying Reagan kept the hostages in Iran. If anything, I suspect the IRanians released the hostages because they shared a silly misconception with American leftists: they thought Reagan was a trigger-happy maniac eager to start a war. The Iranians were AFRAID of Reagan, and released the hostages to avoid ticking off a man widely perceived as a warmonger.
    
    That Reagan was NOT trigger-happy, and that he would prove willing to do business with Iran, is something the ayatollahs couldn't possibly have known in 1980.

@Darwin_s_Finch (Darwin's Finch) replied

    A somewhat comprehensive article on the situation can be found here.
    
    The last paragraph reads:
    
    > On November 4, a majority of voters expressed their displeasure by rejecting the president's bid for reelection. Reagan's victory put additional pressure on Khomeini, who could hardly expect the incoming administration to offer as favorable deal as the outgoing Carter administration. After Carter's defeat, he demonstrated that he was still president for the next ten weeks, and that he had an agenda to pursue regardless of the election results. News from Iran continued to be encouraging as Khomeini gave permission to the militants holding the Americans to turn them over to the Tehran government. Prime Minister Mohammed Ali Rajai appointed a commission to work out the terms for the release of the hostages, using Algeria as Iran's intermediary with Washington. The negotiations were long and complex. While the Tehran government wanted Washington to return the shah's wealth, the president did not have the legal power to do so. December 21, Iran demanded $24 billion for the captives to be deposited into Algeria, which was reduced on January 6 to $20 billion, and another reduction a week later to $8 billion. On Carter's last morning in office, the Iranians agreed to a deal that gave them $8 billion worth of Iranian assets that had been frozen, $5 billion of which was set aside to pay off Iran's debts to American and European banks, in return for the release of the hostages, who flew out of Tehran that day.
    
    It seems to me that it was Carter who engineered the release of the hostages, and the fact that they were released just as Reagan was sworn in has little to do with anything Reagan actually _did_ (beyond winning the election, of course), or with any spite reaction on the part of the Iranian government.
    
    Personally, I don't see any charles81@example.net.

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )


{'source': 'discourse', 'url': 'https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-reagan-bush-delay-the-release-of-the-hostages-in-iran/69895', 'title': 'Did Reagan-Bush delay the release of the hostages in Iran?', 'views': 3101, 'has_accepted_answer': False, 'word_count': 6409, 'like_count': 0, 'reply_count': 43, 'participant_count': 22, 'posts': 44, 'tags': '', 'author': '@Revtim (Revtim)', 'participants': "@Revtim (Revtim), @Stoid (Stoid), @Guinastasia (Guinastasia), @xenophon41 (xenophon41), @Zenster (Zenster), @milroyj (milroyj), @lucwarm (lucwarm), @Freedom (Freedom), @DMC (DMC), @minty_green (minty green), @Lemur866 (Lemur866), @Zebra (Zebra), @astorian (astorian), @Darwin_s_Finch (Darwin's Finch)", 'image_url': [None], 'created_at': '2001-06-23T18:46:54.000Z', 'last_posted_at': '2001-06-28T03:04:19.000Z'}