Is anybody talking about this? So... Given Jimmy Carter's recent admission to hospice care and the final days of his life, Ben Barnes, former Republican Governor of Texas has admitting that they conspired with a foreign adversary to prolong the captivity of American citizens for their political advantage. Is it safe to assume that this is a blatant violation of the Logan Act of 1799? Will this have any impact on how Reagan is remembered throughout history? What about Jimmy Carter's legacy? This part deserves emphasis: Fuck that guy. For real. This makes me hope that hell is real so that bitch can burn.
Yep, this has been known for a long time, but good to see confirmation. The Unholy Trinity - Nixon intentionally sabotaged the Paris Peace talks, extending the Vietnam war for years and costing at least another 25,000 American servicemen their lives. We have his chief aides notes that admit this as does the proxy he used to make the offer who wrote about it in her book. Reagan extends the hostage crisis and then sells parts for the Shah's old airfleet to keep Iran's air force in the air, and then turns around and bypasses a congressional block on funding the Contras. Bush Sr pardons everyone involved. And now Trump who has been dirty all along with Russian moneylaundering, clearly coordinated plans to have Russia assist him in the election, and now we are finding out that the FBI agent who reopened the case on Hillary a week before the election and also claimed that there was no contact between Trump and Russia was paid off by a Russian oligarch. GOP sells out America constantly for their own power.
Ronald Reagan proved you could put any bad actor in the position and repubs would vote for it. Then we got trump. The reality that it is even a close race shows us that the human race is predominantly vile and disgusting.
Yeah, Reagan was one of the worst presidents to happen to the US for about a century. Whether Reagan did these things with his cognitive abilities intact, or whether he was controlled like a puppet, is unclear. Maybe a mix of the two. But the Trump presidency was the natural outcome of the Reagan presidency.
It's a shame that we don't have many conservatives around these days, let alone the rarer breed of principled and thoughtful ones. Because I would be interested in hearing their take on this. Would it be denial? Or just "politics ain't bean bag"? Or what?
Yeah, I thought this was already widely known. Between this and the Iranians really wanting to stick it to Carter for letting the Shah into the US it's no wonder they agreed to it.
I think it was widely suspected but there was always a veneer of plausible deniability. It was just a coincidence that the hostage crisis lasted just until after Reagan got into office, people could say/think. Or less charitably, "that wimpy Carter couldn't get it done over the course of more than a year, but because Reagan is a real man, he scared those _________ (fill in ethnic/religious slur here) into doing the right thing almost immediately." Now that veneer is gone.
Since the New York Times source is paywalled Per Wikipedia John Connolly also sat in front of Kennedy in the motorcade when JFK was assasinated and was a victim of the so called magic bullet. So he's been a part of two infamous conspiracies. Being that Barnes waited four decades later and Connelly and Casey are no longer alive to corroborate or dispute it, color me skeptical.
I see that he's facing charges for corruption, but the idea that he played a role in re-opening the Clinton case in 2016 October is circumstantial at best. Unless (asking again) you have a good source connecting those dots.
Looking into it further you are probably right - it's circumstantial based on his role as head of cyber and counterintelligence in the New York office. His involvement in the reopening of the Clinton emails is conjectural at this point, yes.
Thanks for your fair assessment. It's unfortunate that idiots like @Diacanu get triggered at someone simply asking questions and fact-checking.
Every half-way principled conservative we've ever had on this board is either a progressive now, dead, or succumbed to the MAGA brainworms. It's a 5/5/90 split across the three
Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. But what makes more sense to you: Barnes actually did what he said, more or less, and is deciding to come clean only now out of a sense of guilt over his role in hurting Carter's legacy. Barnes is completely lying about participating in the October surprise, just happened to visit the various Middle Eastern countries that e said he did, and is telling these lies for reasons? What might those reasons be, incidentally?
Carter's bad legacy wasn't just because of the hostages. The country was also experiencing high inflation and major gas shortages plus Reagan wiped the floor with him at the one debate Carter allowed which was just a week before the election. The hostages was just one of many issues that plagued his Presidency and contributed to his loss. For the same reason liars always make things up: to draw attention to themselves and to be relevant. Waiting until so much time has passed and everyone involved is dead is any immediate red flag.
The hostage crisis wasn't just another issue. It was a pretty heavy blow to America's self-worth that this backwater country held Americans hostage, and the failed rescued attempt played well into the notion of Carter=Wimp. Yes, inflation was high and gas prices were high. But every nightly newscast led featured how many days the hostages had been held. If Carter had been able to negotiate the release of the hostages prior to the election, it would have been a major plus to his campaign. Would it have been good enough to enable him to win against the platform/charisma of Reagan? Maybe, maybe not. Yes, Reagan won that last debate at least in part because in part he cheated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debategate It's worth noting that you didn't answer the question of which made more sense. And the notion that Barnes was feeling like he was starved for attention so he just made up a story to draw attention to himself and to be relevant 4 decades later doesn't seem plausible. He could have drawn attention to himself immediately, or any time while the people who were still alive. So what if they contradicted him? They almost certainly couldn't prove him wrong. All they could do is deny it. In any case, he would get all the attention from his supposed lies that he wants.
I can personally speak on the societal repercussions of Regan’s interference. I turned 15 in 1979. I was already in high school and had older siblings. Many, many friends were receiving postcards telling them they needed to sign up for selective service. Cried many nights. Spent decades blaming Carter while praising Reagan. I fucking hate being lied to.
