Reagan had nothing to do with the release of the embassy hostages. It would've happened anyway (much like the fall of the soviet union). And no he didn't cause any delay in their release. Politico. The Iran Contra Arms Scandal stands on its own as a piece of GOP shite. It didn't happen until Reagan's second term and he was so befuddled he may have had nothing to do with it. It did involve hostages. wiki I wonder if 30 years from now they'll be worshiping at Trump's alter?
Reagan didn't conspire with Iran. The deal had already been made to release the hostages, but Iran waited until Reagan was prez as a FU to Carter.
And there is good evidence Reagan actively colluded to prevent those efforts including illegally offering arms which he later got caught sending.
I don't know how true this is. I always thought the Carter administration was responsbile for negotiating the deal, but Iran waited until the day of Reagan's innaguration as a huge middle finger to Carter. Your point still stands about Reagan being a shitbag. I think the whole Iran-Contra scandal was by far one of the worst things Reagan's administration was unequivocally guilty of. You might be confusing the hostages involved in that scheme, but those were in Lebanon, not Iran. Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Iran-Contra, which involved hostages in Lebanon long after Carter left. Honest mistake, given that the name is Iran-Contra.
IIRC, the thing about the hostages being released on the day Reagan became president was largely coincidental though President Carter was pushing hard to get them released while he was still president. The thing about the hostages actually not leaving Iranian air space until just an hour or so after Reagan was sworn in though was due to a delay by the Iranians as a clear F U to President Carter. The only thing I've ever heard regarding Ronald Reagan and the release of the Iranian hostages was that there were worries within the Iranian government that President Reagan might take drastic military action against Iran if they were still held when he was president.
I don't have a list of sources I would consider unbiased at present for this issue. In general I've always been partial to the news magazine "The Economist".
Since when are you one to utilize binary thought? Same as the Democrats when it came to those emails, I guess.
I guess I just don't understand what your point is. I don't understand this either. I get that you're going with the, "well the other guys do it too" argument, but I'm not seeing the equivalency. What do emails have to do with the current leaks?
First point is that we can hardly trust our own intelligence agencies. They have lied to us in the past, and continue to violate our rights and rather flippantly at that. They do not have the American peoples' best interest in mind. Doesn't mean I trust Trump or Putin, but it does mean I'm skeptical of any attempts at connecting the two, especially considering how the whole "Russians hacked the election" story has played out. Second point is just to illustrate that Trump is hardly the only one to go from being "a fan of leaks" to suddenly being against them when it was something against them. Because the Democrats were all about what a hero Assange was when it came to exposing what the Republicans were up to, but when it came to the email scandal, suddenly he was an enemy of the state and Clinton was asking why they couldn't just do a drone strike against him. You know, the person all the people whining about how evil Trump is apparently wish would have won.
I believe there's a Deep State in the US. They're in intelligence, the military and big business. They're the people who run what Eisenhower called the Military/Industrial Complex. Add to that the new Security/Industrial Complex. Somebody's making big bucks from all this, and they aren't about to let Anyone cross them. With their massive information-gathering tentacles, they naturally have most congresshumanoids and many a president by the short hairs.
Why can't we trust our intelligence agencies? Because they stacked the deck to invade Iraq working for the Bush administration? I'm a little nonplussed the FBI had transcripts of Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador while Flynn was seaside in the Dominican Republic. Seems pretty comprehensive. Who in the Obama administration was "all about a hero Assange was"? If you mean people here, then yes, I and others were in favor of wikileaks publishing the NSA data. It was very entertaining. The DNC emails weren't a leak, they were hacked, stolen by the Russians. They weren't damning or entertaining, but they tend to show Assange is a tool of Putin. I don't hear any of us whining about Assange. Personally I think he's unsavory at best. What are you talking about?
Personally I think there's a stupid state in the US. They're currently in power. It doesn't lend much credence to the existence of a deep state.
Well, we'll see. If Donald significantly downsizes the military and redistributes wealth (and who in congress would enable him to do that?) then I'd be ready to agree with you. The whole point of a deep state is to ensure continuity of lucrative policies. It can also be ideological (not in the US). Example: Until last year there was a deep state in Turkey --- basically the military. Governments came and went, freely elected, but when things started to wander, the military stepped in. They were the guardians of the Kemalist project (and for all I know lining their own pockets at the same time.) I put all this in the past tense because apparently last year's failed coup has enabled Erdogan to clean house thoroughly and crown himself dictator. The Stooopid State in the US is for show (see Dubbya, see Donald).
The Donald may be a patsy of the rich, but I kinda doubt it. He's nouveau riche. Tres gauche. 'Tish! that's French... The stupid state isn't just for show: we're it. Although Obama made an above average effort to rise above it, but was blocked by congress the last 6 years. Stupid reigns supreme. Stupid is as stupid does.
I'm not arguing against that notion. But you'll notice that throughout all the antics we've seen, both above-mentioned complexes have constantly done very well indeed. Including under Obama, who developed the Security/Industrial Compley far beyond anything Dubbya had done. Obama may have made an "above average" effort. But what's average? Very low. To me Obama was a coward who missed his big chance, choosing instead to place clapped-out Clintonites (Summers and Geithner) in charge of the economy. And he tried to "reason", "find consensus" with the Republicans. How stupid do you have to be to sincerely believe such a thing is possible? 'Specially if you're black. Yeah, Obama looks very good indeed now that Donald is pres. Everything is relative after all.
So should we have both parties trying to power grab at the expense of America instead of one? Obama wasn't just President of Black America, no more than Rubio would be President of Latino/Hispanic/Chicano Americans or Faith Spotted Owl would be to Native Americans nor Nikki Haley be just for Muslim Americans. While Hilary or another white Democrat may not have met nearly as much resistance, there still would have been obstruction nonetheless. The one thing I'm especially glad Obama did come off the fence from was on gay marriage, because he was way more mealy-mouthed on this issue on the campaign trail than I liked. It should've happened sooner than 2015, but better late than never.
So did I hear right that when Harward was offered the National Security Advisor job, he was like, "nnnnnnnnanaaaah."
There's one example of how they lied to the American public. It certainly isn't the only one, though. Democrats. I didn't say Obama or anyone specifically in his administration. Democrats were all about how awesome Assange was when he was releasing info on Bush and his cronies. Then when they had the tables turned on them, suddenly Wikileaks was evil. So the claim is, anyway. Hardly a case of "the Russians hacked the election" though, even if it's true.
Oh, are you going to pull a garamet and claim that if I don't post a link to something that everyone and his uncle should know about that it suddenly didn't happen? Are you honestly going to pretend you don't know about or remember something that significant?