No Surprise

This is another article in the series on conspiracy theories.

imageJNQ

We all know the bare bones of the Iranian Hostage story. Fifty-two American citizens were seized in November of 1979 when a group of militants and heavily armed students took over the American embassy in Iran. They were held for 444 days and released on January 20, 1981, minutes after Ronald Reagan concluded his inaugural address. Within weeks of the beginning of the Reagan presidency, arms began to flow from the US to Iran through Israel, giving rise to an enduring suspicion that Reagan’s campaign negotiated the release of the hostages and arranged for it to happen after the election was over, thus denying Jimmy Carter a long-sought diplomatic victory that might have aided his re-election.

Thousands of words have been written about this conspiracy theory, most notably the book October Surprise by Garry Sick, former member of the National Security Council.

While we can debate the pros and cons of the argument endlessly (and probably will continue to do so) I think a fascinating and lesser-known sub-plot to this story is the fate of Washington attorney Paul Wilcher. From a June 18, 2000 article, “Paul Wilcher and the ‘October Surprise’,” at Parents Against Corruption and Coverup (thepacc.org site no longer active, but you can look at the site from the Internet Archive here.):

On or about May 21, 1993, Washington attorney Paul Wilcher went to the Department of Justice and hand delivered a letter claiming holdover DOJ employees from the Reagan-Bush era were responsible for a number of government cover ups, unbeknownst to the Attorney General and President Clinton. The 100 page letter was addressed to Janet Reno. On or about June 11, Wilcher was interviewed regarding the contents of the letter. Later, after days of not hearing from him, worried friends contacted the police, who went to Wilcher’s apartment on June 23. His decomposing body was found [by police after pressure to investigate from White House press corps member Sarah McClendon] propped on a toilet…In January of 1996, PACC received an unsolicited copy of the Wilcher letter…the section on the ‘October Surprise’ is detailed, specific, and attributed to a Wilcher client with first hand knowledge, according to the letter.

Sarah McClendon

Sarah McClendon, a White House reporter, published an article on July 4, 1993, titled “The Death of My Friend Paul Wilcher,”

Wilcher, who felt his family had been beaten out of their estate by corrupt judicial processes in Chicago, came here to Washington, to find a new life. Then he heard about a man whom he believed to be a political prisoner, Gunther Russbacher, the man who says he is being persecuted because he flew former President George Bush to Paris to meet with leading Iranians and make a deal to supply Iran with weapons in exchange for that government keeping the 52 American hostages until after the November election so that former President Jimmy Carter would not get, a boost. by bringing home the American citizens held there. Instead the deal was they were to be delivered to Candidate Ronald Reagan. That agreement was kept as soon as Reagan inaugurated in 1981. Wilcher was working daily for Russbacher.

From a July 14, 1993, letter to Attorney General Janet Reno from Dr. Garby Leon:

McClendon has been told that preliminary autopsy results have found no natural cause of death, and no other cause of death to explain Wilcher’s demise. Given that Wilcher, in his 40s, was in apparent good health, this seems fairly astonishing. A much larger issue is also implied here: if critics of our government are found dead in their bathrooms from obscure causes, and the government itself doesn’t take steps to find out why, then our freedoms themselves are threatened – as well as the activities that protect those freedoms. If individual investigation and criticism of government activities is chilled or intimidated into silence, then democracy loses its most important protection.

Given the massive amount of documented evidence, it is a bit surprising that so many people dismiss out of hand even the possibility that Reagan might have been involved in a political deal with the Iranians. Personally I believe this is because (especially nowadays) America has a powerful need for heroes, and Reagan fulfills that role for many people on both sides of the political divide. As a result they are unwilling to consider anything that might cast the former president in a venal or corrupt light.

Correction: An earlier version of this article included a photo of David Koresh, incorrectly captioned as Paul Wilcher. We regret the error.

About filistro

Filistro is a Canadian writer and prairie dog who maintains burrows on both sides of the 49th parallel. Like all prairie dogs, she is keenly interested in politics and language. (Prairie dogs have been known to build organized towns the size of Maryland, and are the only furry mammal with a documented language.)
This entry was posted in Conspiracies and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to No Surprise

  1. Bart DePalma says:

    The predicate that Jimmy Carter would have negotiated the return of the hostages without Reagan has no basis:

    1) Carter already squandered the military option.

    2) Carter could not trade the Iranians anything without being impeached.

    3) The Iranians correctly had Carter pegged as a weak fool.

    Moreover, there are obvious problems with the theory of a weapons for hostages deal before the election (apart from being obviously lifted from Iran Contra):

    1) Reagan or Bush were not in a position to promise any weapons at that time as the polls broke for Reagan just before the election.

    2) Furthermore, Reagan had the reputation in the western media fed to Iran of being a warmonger and would be far more likely to send Iran weapons carried by SF, Marines and Rangers backed up by Navy bombers.

    Keeping the last item in mind, it would not surprise me at all if the Reagan team after getting into office made some sort of quid pro quo with Iran backed up by credible military and economic threats. Something definitely changed in Iran after the election.

    As a side note, when I entered the service with the 82d Airborne in 1983, we had full plan to occupy Iran, notionally to stop a Soviet invasion from the north. Of course, the plan would work even better without having to contend with Soviet tank divisions.

  2. filistro says:

    I never found a picture of Paul Wilcher in my research… but this one that appears with the article looks an awful lot like David Koresh, doesn’t it?

  3. fopplssiegeparty says:

    fili: Yes it does. That was my first impression.

  4. shortchain says:

    This one is completely plausible (the FSCCC says “5”!), although it does build on relatively inconsequential occurrences and connecting not-necessarily causal events, and the goal was lofty.

    But it requires no superpowers — Reagan’s administration did, in fact, sell arms to Iran. Iran did, in fact, release the hostages in a suspiciously timely manner. It didn’t require a cast of thousands, as the leadership of the hostage-takers and George H. W. Bush were, thanks to his history with the CIA, in a position to work the deal with very few people in the know.

    From the Iranian side, they had nothing to lose. They had to release the hostages eventually. Getting something for the release was simply gravy. Even if Reagan lost the election, they were out nothing — they still had the hostages and could deal with Carter later. Reagan had everything to gain. If Reagan reneged, the Iranians could blackmail his administration.

    This conspiracy theory has the best score to date. It’s more plausible than “operation paperclip”, which we know to be factual.

    (Always remembering that “plausible” is not a synonym for “true”.)

  5. dcpetterson says:

    Adding to the plausibility is the fact that Reagan’s turned out to be one of the most corrupt administrations in American histoty. Iran/Contra proved they were willing to perform the most illegal acts imaginable.

  6. Just Sayin' says:

    I always believed a deal was made, and since you brought it up I still do.

  7. Bart DePalma says:

    DC:

    Precisely what criminal law was broken in selling unusable weapons from the Army to be destroyed pile to Iran for triple the market value and freedom for our hostages? I agree with North that the double cross was a “neat idea.”

    You might want to read up on the Reagan intelligence operations. Bill Casey ran the best field intelligence operation since the WWII OSS, in which he participated.

  8. drfunguy says:

    “Moreover, there are obvious problems with the theory of a weapons for hostages deal before the election (apart from being obviously lifted from Iran Contra)”
    I don’t recall weapons ever being alleged as the coin being bartered. Can you provide a source?

  9. Bart DePalma says:

    drf:

    See the Sarah McClendon comments quoted in the Fili’s lead post.

  10. drfunguy says:

    thanks Bart.
    I always thought that the theory was the Iranians were trying to earn the good will of the incoming administration. Although the weapons aspect was actually fulfilled in the later scandal. So that might actually tend to support this conspiracy theory.

  11. shortchain says:

    Hey, everybody, Bart needs help on a legal issue (again).

    Bart, start with the Trading With the Enemy Act. Then, there was the Iran Arms Embargo, as enacted by Congress. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve heard that you can be charged for disobeying an act of Congress.

    Of course, the official policy of the Reagan administration also forbade such dealings, and, for a military officer of that administration to act contrary to the policy of his CIC would also be a criminal offense, punishable under the UCMJ, but Reagan, being in his dotage by that time, could have given approval for Iran-Contra, thinking he was being asked if he wanted to have Ollie help him with the crossword, so a courts martial would probably just have terminated Ollie’s career.

  12. Mule Rider says:

    “Adding to the plausibility is the fact that Reagan’s turned out to be one of the most corrupt administrations in American histoty.”

    Got a source/link or some other logical route to back up that statement and quantify it with something factual?

    Even this site – http://www.mostcorrupt.com/Most-Corrupt-Administrations.html – which was partisan enough to pick on solely Republican administrations, didn’t even mention Reagan (and listed only Grant, Harding, Nixon, and G.W. Bush).

  13. Bart DePalma says:

    SC:

    Did you read the Trading with the Enemy Act? Look at the powers of the President.

    The Iran embargo did not apply to the government.

    Iran Contra ended up being a debate over whether North & Co violated the spirit of the non-criminal budget bill prohibiting direct government subsidy of the Contras by using the proceeds of the sale of unusable weapons to Iran to supply the Contras.

  14. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    If you are going to rest your case on the “unitary executive” theory, as you apparently are today, you should be cognizant of the fact that it’s fallen on hard times.

    The only reason Ollie wasn’t prosecuted under the UCMJ was that it was likely, given the President’s questionable mental state, Reagan might have authorized Ollie’s actions.

  15. Bart DePalma says:

    SC:

    Did I bring up the unitary executive theory? I asked you to read the statutes you cited.

    Congress usually excepts the government from most statutes (constant source of outrage among Tea Party folks).

  16. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ 3) The Iranians correctly had Carter pegged as a weak fool.

    And terrorists had Reagan pegged as a (((coward))) when he cut and ran from Beirut, Lebanon after they bombed the Marine barracks …

    Reagan’s feeble response!

    U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a “despicable act”and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon.

    Oops!

    Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who had privately advised the administration against ever having stationed U.S. Marines in Lebanon, said there would be no change in the U.S.’s Lebanon policy.

    Oops!

    U.S. Vice President George H. W. Bush toured the Marine bombing site on October 26 and said the U.S. “would not be cowed by terrorists.”

    Oops!

    In fact, there was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans … In the meantime, the attack gave a boost to the growth of the Shi’ite organization Hezbollah … Commentators argue that the lack of a response by the Americans emboldened terrorist organizations to conduct further attacks against US targets.

    Reagan appointed a military fact-finding committee headed by retired Admiral Robert L. J. Long to investigate the bombing.

    Indeed, that’s the ticket! U.S. Marines are killed so let’s form a presidential commission, eh. !@#$%^&*

    >

    btw, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy Sailors, and three Army Soldiers. Sixty Americans were injured.

    Whereas during the Iran Hostage Crisis, no civilians were killed, but, but, but at least Carter attempted the U.S. military rescue mission which failed for many reasons.

    Again, Reagan had no military response other than cutting and running …

    Repeating: Reagan had no military response other than to cut and run!

    One for the road ~ Reagan cut and ran from terrorists !!!

    >
    >
    >

    Did I mention Reagan cut and ran when 220 Marines were killed by terrorists in Beirut, Lebanon.

    Bartles, how do you reconcile Reagan’s cowardly act. As always, eagerly awaiting your disingenuous/deflecting song and dance reply!

    carry on w/Bart’s but, but, but Carter/Clinton/Obama as his ad nauseam, misinformation obsession will be his undoing.

    hmm, did cheney/bush ever get Osama bin Laden ~ rhetorical question as deflecting can indeed be fun ~ Republican chicken hawks unite! :-P

  17. Bart DePalma says:

    Shiloh:

    The intelligence community could not identify or locate the folks who bombed the Marine camp, so there was no one to strike back against.

    The Lebanon mission itself was over.

    No reason to stay.

    In reality, there probably was no good reason to deploy in the first place.

    As an aside, when we in the 82d Airborne were put on alert for the Grenada operation, we initially though we were headed to Lebanon. But that “weak fool” Reagan was deploying us to take down the Grenadan and Cuban communists. We ended up capturing a Soviet SAC base being built by the Cubans and enough weapons to supply a division equivalent that were being transshipped to Nicaragua.

  18. shiloh says:

    Bartles, your reply was as feeble/emasculated/impotent as Reagan’s response, congrats! :D ~ repeating …

    U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a “despicable act”and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon.

    Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who had privately advised the administration against ever having stationed U.S. Marines in Lebanon, said there would be no change in the U.S.’s Lebanon policy.

    U.S. Vice President George H. W. Bush toured the Marine bombing site on October 26 and said the U.S. “would not be cowed by terrorists.”
    ~~~~~

    Oops! as again Bartles has a reading comprehension problem …

    take care, blessings

  19. shortchain says:

    It’s odd, but when I put in a google search for the supposed military base Bart refers to, what pops up is this.

    So, Bart, did you see those weapons and that military base with your own eyes?

  20. shiloh says:

    Let the record show if Carter/Clinton/Obama had cowardly cut and ran from Beirut, Lebanon after 220 Marines were murdered by terrorists, like Reagan did, Bartles would have immediately called for their impeachment! No ifs, ands or buts.

    Heck, gingrich impeached Clinton because he lied about a blow job …

    And Bart will never get the last word re: Reagan cowardly cutting and running from terrorists!

    “I, Ronald Wilson Reagan, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    >

    btw shortchain, Reagan kicked butt in Grenada …

  21. shiloh says:

    btw:

    Terrorist attack Beirut, Lebanon ~ Oct. 23, 1983

    Dutch’s Grenada (((invasion))) ;) ~ Oct. 25, 1983

    coinkydink/tail wagging the dog ~ you decide …

  22. dcpetterson says:

    Mule, here’s an unabashedly left-leaning site for you to use to begin your researches into Reagan Administration corruption. Because it is proudly leftist, I don’t expect you to take anything there at face value. It will, however serve as a starting point. Have fun!

    http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html

  23. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shiloh, shortchain, dc, y’all c’mon,. I thought y’all KNEW the way it works:

    America loses people in mass attack in Lebanon. We wring our hands cause we can’t pinpoint the source. We send Army, Marine and Naval forces in the thousands and attack Granada under VERY questionable circumstances.

    America loses people in mass attack in New York and DC. We wring our hands cause we can’t pinpoint the source. We send Army, Marine, Air Force and Naval forces in the thousands and attack Iraq under VERY questionable circumstances.

    Hey, it worked the FIRST time!

    Next time some bully hits ME in the nose, I’m running down the street and kicking the TOTAL SHIT outta that fifth grade schoolgirl!!!! Everybody else may look on me as an asshole, but, hey! I got precedence on my side.

    Bart said “_____________”

  24. shiloh says:

    Bartles desperately hoping a new (((pro-Obama))) 538 thread is started so he can once again pounce w/the first post displayin’ his ignorance/misinformation er Obama obsession!

    After getting (((buried))) in this thread! as per usual ~ rinse, lather, repeat …

  25. Mule Rider says:

    Interesting material, DC, but again, there’s nothing really there to suggest that the Reagan administration was one of the “most corrupt” in our nation’s history. I pointed out that I initially looked at a left-leaning site and they made no mention of Reagan. That’s not to say that there wasn’t any corruption, just that there seems to be scant evidence that his administration was one of the worst offenders in our nation’s history.

    Of course, since you are a proud leftist who wants to demonize someone like Reagan every chance you get, I doubt you’ll take the contrary view at face value and continue to believe what you want to believe.

  26. Brian says:

    I just found this word on the website futilitycloset.com

    ultracrepidarian-
    adj. one who gives opinions and advice on topics beyond his knowledge

  27. Mule Rider says:

    http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/838,HISTORICAL-RANKING-OF-UNITED-STATES-PRESIDENTS

    Maybe you want to take a look at this list, DC. It’s a historical ranking of all 43 presidents. Granted, this isn’t scientific but it seems to match up with similar rankings I’ve seen which have Lincoln, Washington, TR, and FDR near the top and people like Buchanan, Johnson, GWB, and Harding near the bottom. This has Reagan at #10 with no mention of corruption in his administration (which no doubt existed but was probably far less prevalent than you’re making it out to be), and he is generally listed in the “top half” of presidents and is rarely tied to “corruption” outside of the Iran-Contra stuff and a few other things.

    I think you’re suffering from something akin to Bart. You tell him that his definition of “socialism” is simply something a left-leaning president does that he doesn’t like, whether or not they’re actually socialist. I’m going on the record now and saying that “corruption” for you is simply a right-leaning administration that does things that you don’t like, whether or not they’re actually corrupt.

  28. dcpetterson says:

    I’m aware of those rankings, Mule. Thanks.

    I said Reagan’s administration was corrupt. I didn’t say Reagan was. He appeared to be senile (I vividly recall the presidential debates in 1988, where he hardly seemed to know where he was.) I think he, personally, meant well. But the men around him were dishonest and criminal, and had almost as low a view of the Constitution as did the people around Bush 2.

    Come to think of it, many of them were the same people.

  29. shortchain says:

    DC,

    This is about the only time I’ve ever disagreed with something you’ve said, but I just don’t see Reagan’s administration as having been among the most corrupt. He’s up against some stiff competition, here, with Nixon and George W., and, before them, with Harding and some of the spectacularly corrupt 19th-century presidents.

    Now, this is not to say that I think Reagan was anywhere near as good a president as his rating. For just one reason, his game of chicken with the Soviets could have turned out to be an extinction-level event, except for the rationality — and humanity — of the Soviet leadership. It was a bet made by an idiot. A lucky idiot, which was lucky for all of us, but still …

    For another thing, as has been documented, Reagan was quite capable of creating a false memory, of altering history in his own mind. That’s a trait that is incredibly dangerous in a leader. People with vision are a necessity if we are ever to advance as a country, but people who have visions should be restricted to positions in places of worship or institutions where such things can be handled properly with medication.

  30. dcpetterson says:

    @shortchain
    This is about the only time I’ve ever disagreed with something you’ve said,

    No sweat. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree :-)

    And I can’t disagree with anything in particular that you said, by the way.

  31. shiloh says:

    Again, for the record, liberals disagree all the time ie half the fun of being a progressive :-P

    2008 Dems disagreed on Obama/Hillary and it was a double disaster for Bartles as it turned out being a package deal! ~ The Rep’s worst case scenario lol

  32. dcpetterson says:

    Shiloh said:
    Again, for the record, liberals disagree all the time

    No, we don’t. You’re just wrong.

  33. dcpetterson says:

    Not for purposes of argument, but just because I was (rightfully) challenged on my statement about the Reagan Administration:

    “By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.”
    from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday)

    And one should look also at the nature of some of the crimes of the Reagan administration — Iran/Contra for example, bypassing Congressional oversight to illegally sell arms to a terrorist nation, in order to illegally fund terrorists in another nation attempting to overthrow a legitimate government.

    Some of Reagan’s officials (such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, North) talked openly about setting up a “shadow government” to conduct secret foreign operations such as Iran/Contra, along with various forms of domestic spying. It is no coincidence that many of these same officials later served under Bush 2, and caused the invasion of Iraq, encouraged an invasion of Iran, and masterminded both the “Patriot Act” and the Department of Homeland Security.

    There is plenty of raw material here for dozens of conspiracy theories, most of which would score quite well on the Credibility Index — and many of which (such as Iran/Contra) have been proven and admitted to.

    That is what I meant by “corrupt” — this casual dismissal of the Constitution, coupled with the dishonest rhetoric about hatred of Government, all the while strengthening the Presidency into a virtual Imperium, above the law, and unanswerable to Congress or the Courts. Unlike lesser men, the officials of the Reagan Presidency were not so much out for personal prestige or monetary reward, but simply for raw power. Bush 2 seems worse because the motives of his administration were more mundane (mostly, simple greed). But the Reagan corruption is what set the stage and the tone for what came later.

  34. shortchain says:

    Speaking of “no surprise”, when asked if he actually saw the supposed weapons or “Soviet SAC” base, Bart’s response is ……

    Perhaps he had a big day in court, or perhaps his cutting replies and cites of definitive evidence have all been lost in moderation.

  35. shiloh says:

    “By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.”

    So nice, let’s say it twice … Bartles, not only were you buried in this thread, but your demigod was buried again as well. Ah redundancy! :D Sorry Bart, no second comin’ for wingers ~ instead a second burial for Reagan as he is still dead …

    >

    Bart, can a president ;) be impeached posthumously? Just wonderin’

  36. shortchain says:

    DC,

    Yup, I disagree completely. These absolutely illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Reagan administration were not “corruption” — they were evolutionary steps in the direction toward which Reagan desperately wanted this country to move, namely toward a country ruled by benevolent corporate overlords, who would provide employment for all the worthless, Cadillac-driving welfare recipients on their vast agribusiness acreage or in their anti-missile laser factories.

  37. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shortchain said: “. . . perhaps his cutting replies and cites of definitive evidence have all been lost in moderation.

    Yes, and perhaps pigs will fly out of my butt and we’ll all have ham and bacon forever!

    I do believe it would be better for him if Bart ACTUALLY SAID: “________”!

  38. dcpetterson says:

    shortchain,

    I’m glad we can reasonably disagree to agree :-)

  39. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    All the talk of Reagan and his minions that joined the W administration have got me thinking. Perhaps, because he was MUCH more like Reagan and NOT his father, we should be calling W “Reagan II”.

    The next few months will be very interesting. We’ll see if the GOP is going to actually practice what they’ve been preaching the past 30 years. And how well the voters will receive it should they do.

    Heretofore, when in power, the GOP has been the political equivalent of Jim Bakker, preaching the gospel while boinking the church secretary. The GOP preaching responsible fiscal policy while boinking the country ever deeper and deeper into debt.

    Now the country’s economy is SOOOOOOOO screwed from the tax-cut-and-spend policy of the Reagan-Reagan II years, there are truly few alternatives but the painful necessities equivalent to the housing bubble bursting.

    Either way, it ain’t gonna be pretty.

  40. shortchain says:

    DC,

    Are you a “Time Bandits” fan? “I’m a reasonable man.”

  41. dcpetterson says:

    shortchain, I love Time Bandits. Especially now that I know what an invisible barrier looks like.

    @Max aka Birdpilot – You make a great point. Either the GOteaPers begin to keep the promises they’ve been making and breaking for 30 years (which will do immeasurable damage to the country), or they will incur the wrath of their insane idiot base (which will do immeasurable damage to their Party). It will be interesting to see which direction they go.

    There is an old Chinese curse about living in interesting times.

  42. Bart DePalma says:

    shiloh says: “By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.”

    Being investigated or indicted – especially by witch hunting special or politicized prosecutors – is not remotely the same thing as guilt.

    For example, the special prosecutor indicted Ollie North on 16 felony counts, the jury convicted North on accepting an illegal gratuity (putting in a security system in his home to protect his family from the terrorists he was fighting), aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. Then, in an appeal assisted by ACLU, the court of appeals threw out all of the convictions because they were based on immunized testimony before Congress the prosecutor unlawfully introduced. The net result = nada, zip, zilch. BTW, none of the convictions were what anyone would call corruption.

    Reagan’s Sec Labor Ray Donovan famously asked after being acquitted of all the BS charges against him: “Where do I go to get my reputation back?”

  43. dcpetterson says:

    For example, the special prosecutor indicted Ollie North on 16 felony counts, the jury convicted North on accepting an illegal gratuity

    And they only got Al Capone on income tax evasion. Spiro Agnew was taken down on similar charges.

    You’re not making a very convincing argument here.

    By the way, speaking of politically-inspired witchhunts, there was the Republican Congress during the Clinton Administration, and Darrell Issa today…

  44. drfunguy says:

    @shortchain
    Thanks for the link about the Grenada. My favorite part is the description of our heroic troops in action:
    “The US invades Grenada on 10/25/83, operation “Urgent Fury” � 2,000 Americans marines and paratroopers the first day, by week�s end 7,000 on the island, even more waiting offshore � planes fitted with murderous multi-barreled Gatling guns spraying positions of the tiny Grenadan army � captured soldiers used as hostages, ordered to march in front of American jeeps as they advanced on enemy positions, a war crime according to the Geneva Convention � the fighting is over in a week, approximately 400 Granadians killed or wounded, 135 Americans as well. � The Guardian (London), 11/25/83 ”

    Do you suppose Bart got one of those medals?

  45. drfunguy says:

    North got off only because of his immunized testimony. Period.
    Bush got off because he pardoned Weinberger before he could testify against him. And because of the extent of the cover-up; how many counts of lying to Congress and obstruction does it take before you admit the guys were criminals?
    How many convictions were there Bart?
    Speaking of partisan witch-hunts. I seem to recall $60 million of our tax dollars going to investigate a real estate deal in which the Clintons _lost_ money.
    Whitewater certainly was as significant as the crimes of Weinberger, McFarlane, North and others. Not!

  46. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    THIS time Bart said he supported the decision of an activist Appellate Court. to overturn the judgement of a jury of We the People, based on an appeal filed in conjunction with the freakin’ Aye-See-Ell-YOU!!!!!!!!

    HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!

    What a hypocrite!!!!!

  47. shiloh says:

    Bartles rationalizing again about his still dead and buried demigod!

    btw, O.J. got away w/murder so what’s your point as even a pedestrian lawyer like yourself knows $$$ and celebrity usually rule the day in court proceedings. Although Scooter guilty as sin Libby, needed cheney/bush to commute his sentence to keep him quiet ;) and bush’s daddy was out of the loop from 1981 to 1989 ie no quid pro quo lol as Sgt. Schultz er Bush41 knew nothing! :D

    Pay no attention to the Republican president behind the curtain ~ as the conservative corporate lobbyist puppeteers work the strings …

  48. dcpetterson says:

    none of the convictions were what anyone would call corruption.

    Maybe we should call it “high treason” instead.

  49. Just Sayin' says:

    And so it goes….

  50. Emerson Schwartzkopf says:

    While this is an interesting theory, this particular postulation is a bit on the shoddy side. Posting a picture with an incorrect cutline — no, that doesn’t just look like David Koresh, that IS David Koresh in a freeze-frame video in Waco — and then offering evidential links to a dead website is weak, and using Sarah McClendon for backup is a bit like arming yourself for a major policy debate with citations from Capper’s Weekly.

    There is a difference between taking aim and taking potshots. Bring better focus instead of popping one off to make ‘em scatter.

  51. shortchain says:

    Emerson,

    So you have no facts to disagree with, you are all about the “kerning”?

  52. no, that doesn’t just look like David Koresh, that IS David Koresh in a freeze-frame video in Waco

    That was my mistake. I was scouring the Internet for a photo of Welcher, and that was the only one that came up under his name. With nothing else to cross-reference, I took it. I didn’t realize it was Koresh until it was pointed out to me. The picture has been removed.

    I take the blame for that one, but it wasn’t meant to be a potshot.

    As for the link to a dead website, a very small amount of research on your part would have found that the founder of thepacc.org died in January, 2006, and the site died about a month later. Everything you need to see is available here. I’ve added this link to the article as well, so others can see it too.

  53. Mr. Universe says:

    @Emerson

    I noticed it, too but was in transit at the time. Michael fixed it by the time I got home. We’re not above using humour here but we do try to take credit for it and we will fix it when we’re wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s