jimsweb.net

I like Antoine de Saint-Exupery's quote best.

Who knew that just a few years later, we would learn that the freedom of the hostages was brokered by high ranking officials in the, then soon-to-be, Reagan administration.  All of this to get arms to the contras.  

Yeah, Jeanine. You must remember that even Ronald Reagan himself denied that anything "hoakie" was going on in the basement of the White House when he testified at the Iran-Contra conspiracy investigation. Well actually, he testified that he couldn't remember. Which was perfectly plausible now that we know he was probably suffering from the early onset of Alzheimer's disease. But according to Oliver North's testimony, SOMETHING was definitely going on and he didn't deny it.

I'd say this is a pretty good example of revisionist history, Jimr. If not, please explain to me what Ollie North's testimony was all about. Thank you.

For the record, the National Security Council's offices are on the second floor of the West Wing (not in the "basement of the White House"), and the Iran-Contra deal worked rather the other way around.  

As part of our trying to produce a draw in the Iraq-Iran War, Lieutenant Colonel North brokered a deal to sell TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran by taking them out of the pipeline bound for Israel (who agreed to the deal) and selling them to Iran for an impressive profit.  This presented Colonel North with a bit of a problem as the White House can't really show a profit resulting from clandestine armed sales (there's not a budget line-item for such things), so he hit on the idea of channeling the profits to the Contrarevolutionarios, who were fighting the communist Sandanistas in Nicaragua at the time.  

The American hostages in Iran were released upon President Reagan's inauguration in return for the release of some $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets.  The timing of the release was insisted upon by the Iranians.  

And people wonder why I often refer to President Carter as the worse president since F. D. Roosevelt.

I have learned NEVER to argue with EW's "facts". He always has an armada of facts lined up in his arsenal which he uses as weapons in a debate. Sometimes he uses them to obfuscate the point of the debate, which in this case is exactly what I think he did. Either that or I missed the point of your blog which I think was aimed at taking a significant moment in history and using it to glorify the great accomplishments of our "hero" president, Ronald Reagan. And I think Jeanine read it the same way as I did.

Why is it that when someone holds facts that render a left leaning argument ridiculous and/or too expensive and/or unconstitutional, they "obfuscate the point of the debate?"

But when someone is using emotional pleas with heart wrenching anecdotal evidence to counter the "this is going cost a barge load of hundred dollar bills" (or some similar logical, fact based argument) they are making valid points that cannot be trumped?

I apologize to you Jimr for inserting partisan politics into this discussion. And I'll try not to get de-railed again. I was following Jeanine's lead here. Her initial comment took me into the realm of partisan politics. I must remember who's blog I am responding to. I do tend to get carried away! Sorry

Wow!  Way to take something I said in snark and read something into it that wasn't there Jim.

I did not make it partisan or try to play your post off as being about Ronald Reagan.  

I was sarcastically pointing out that the Iran Hostage Crisis led our country down a path that no one expected at the time.