Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Some Serious Takes on Gary Sick, Etc.

For those of you who haven't kept up, Gary Sick is one of those sickos who's been most responsible for that October Surprise conspiracy theory; the one which alleges that Reagan cut some sort of deal with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until after the election. It's a patently absurd allegation and here are what some of the more serious people are saying............. 1) "The New Republic" - According to "Wikipedia", Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or was under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the time-frame Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources.............2) "The Village Voice" - Again, according to "Wikipedia", "Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke, Snepp asserted that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be in Portland, Oregon, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting.............3) The U.S. House of Representatives - Also from "Wikipedia", " The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,[18] who claimed to be a CIA agent."............4) The United States Senate - Also from "Wikipedia", The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".............5) The "Washington Post" (direct), In an interesting footnote to the October Surprise myth, Jamshid Hashami, who first came to public attention 1i 1991 by "claiming to have helped Ronald Reagan's 1980 Presidential campaign negotiate to delay the release of U.S. hostages in Iran after the election,...pleaded guilty (in London in December 1998) to swindling (Reston, VA corporation) Octogon and other businesses In Europe, Asia, and the United States out of millions of dollars through a series of elaborate scams".............6) Strong (I&NS 8.2 direct), a classic example of ... the paranoid political conspiracy exposé.... Unsubstantiated hints of exotic government sponsored assassinations are part of a larger pattern involving a double standard in evidence evaluation. Honegger makes "extensive use of Richard Brenneke" and, in general, the book can be dismissed as the work of a common conspiracy theorist gone off the deep end of history.............7) Newsweek (direct), NEWSWEEK has found, after a long investigation including interviews with government officials and other knowledgeable sources around the world, that the key claims of the purported eyewitnesses and accusers simply do not hold up. What the evidence does show is the murky history of a conspiracy theory run wild.......What has kept the October Surprise conspiracy theory alive is a chain of "super-sources." Self-proclaimed eyewitnesses, many with suspect credibility, have spun a tangled--and often contradictory--tale about an arms-for-hostages deal that seemed to foreshadow the later Iran-contra scandal.............So, just how damned ridiculous IS this theory (gee, let's see, Gary Sick and these other lunatics versus Lee Hamiliton, The "Village Voice", "Newsweek", "The New Republic", and the "Washington Post", that's a really tough one - NOT!!)? This theory is so damned ridiculous that even Oliver Stone won't make a movie about it. Youza, huh?

15 comments:

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Circumstantial evidence is admissable Will.

How come the great protector of America, Ronald Reagan, never bombed hell out of Iran after the hostages were released the day he took office?


I'm just saying dude.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It gets curiouser and curiouser.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Will: ...seemed to foreshadow the later Iran-contra scandal...

It's the same scandal. Those from the Reagan campaign who arranged to have the hostages held until after the election promised arms in return.

Ronald Reagan should have been sent to prison. At least now he's rotting in hell.

Les Carpenter said...

Perhaps the hostages were released the day after Regan took office because the Great Ayatollah knew Reagan actually had the balls to bomb the hell out of Iran if he didn't release them.

Once he did Regan had no reason to bomb the hell out of the country.

Just sayin Dude. Or as they say in Chess, check.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

That's not a quote from me, wd. As I stated in the parentheses, the words come directly from "Newsweek"; an article by John Barry entitled, "The Making of Myth". Face it, dude, practically everybody associated with this cockamamie story has been thoroughly discredited/impeached, and you look like a complete and total lunatic.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Truth/Les, my friend Marcus thinks that the release date of the hostages was strictly a way to stick it to Carter, and I tend to agree (though, yes, Les, a little fear of Reagan may have entered into it, too).

Chakam Conservative said...

Of course Iran released the hostages knowing that Reagan wouldn't be a pussy like Carter.

The hostages were released the day Reagan took office because the cowards weren't that keen on really meeting their god.

Should Reagan have still sent a couple bombs their way, as a quick look into what would happen if they tried that shit again? Sure. Most definitely.

But he didn't and he is no longer President and that's about it.

Les Carpenter said...

What more could anyone have stuck Carter with? He was soon to be gone regardless.

Reagan simply scared the sh*t out of the Ayatollah. And besides, keeping the hostages would have served no useful purpose after Carter proved his ineptitude with his failed rescue mission.

This is and always was a straw-man construct. Only the most die hard leftists see any need to keep up the charade.

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

They held our embassy and it's people hostage for a year and a half. That wasn't reason to bomb hell out of them Les?


Stick it to Carter? They should have sent him a nice persian rug for his handling of the crisis.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Those from the Reagan campaign who arranged to have the hostages held until after the election promised arms in return."

However, there were no such individuals in the Reagan campaign or involved with it. So you are talking about actions that didn't happen by individuals who did not exist.

Will: Some people never let complete lack of evidence and resounding widespread disproof stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Chakam Conservative said...

Of course the Iranian savages were scared of Reagan. Have you never seen the brilliant 1951 epic, "Bedtime for Bonzo"? I mean, it scared me. And I'm fearless.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I kind of liked the way that Reagan smacked around Gadaffi. It was definitely one of his better moves, I think.

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Reagan made the fierce and mighty Grenadians pay also Will.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yeah, that was another tin-can (a la Gerry Cooney style).

Les Carpenter said...

"Should Reagan have still sent a couple bombs their way, as a quick look into what would happen if they tried that shit again? Sure. Most definitely."

Why, the hostages all came home, eventually, following Carter's botched rescue attempt.

The Persian people by the way are not savages, I know many. It is their theocratic, dictatorial, and ignorant government that were the "so called savages." Specific references are appropriate in descriptive narratives such as the one employed.

It is better never to assume. If you get the drift.