Don't scream at me. I like Ronald Reagan, but I think Giuliani did this in his ad just to use Reagan's good name.
2007-12-06 13:44:09 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Gary W-I'm well aware of the Iran Contra affair. Reagan did not negotiate to get the hostages released. Read up on your American History.
2007-12-06 14:08:40 · update #1
Mary Jo-I know it wasn't Carter.
2007-12-06 14:10:13 · update #2
Maybe you all are not understanding my question. The hostages were released 30 minutes after Reagan was sworn in as President, so you know it wasn't Reagan. My question was who NEGOTIATED the release of the Iranian hostages.
2007-12-06 14:12:12 · update #3
Please don't get this confused with the scandulous Iran Contra affair when we sold weapons to Iran to Reagan's embarrassment like Gary W did.
2007-12-06 14:17:27 · update #4
stashnut-Very close. Just need the name of Carter's man who actually did it.
2007-12-06 14:19:03 · update #5
It was Warren Christopher who successfully negotiated the release of the hostages on behalf of Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter knew the Reagan administration would take the credit but he is such a class act, he didn't care. He wrote quite a bit about that situation in his book "Christmas in Plains". It was a wonderful book.
2007-12-06 14:28:01 · answer #1 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The hostages were release immediately after Reagan was elected. That should always be remembered when bargaining with the Iranians. That is how they believe in doing business.
The were determined to punish President Carter. They need not have bothered. The economy was headed into the crapper at the end of his term with credit card interest at 25%, like we are beginning to reach.
Please note, the Republicans were accused of cutting a deal with Iran to keep the hostages until Reagan was actually elected. Was brought up and discussed many times.
Much indirect evidence pointed to that possibility. Possibly another Col. Ollie North operation like the Contra Scandel. They were caught redhanded in the Contra matter.
Guess politics at the level involves all that 007 and cloak-and-dagger stuff. Just a matter of time until the next scandel in DC.
2007-12-06 14:05:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
there grow to be no negotiations that the well-known public knew of. Reagan promised in his marketing campaign, first priority the hostages will come domicile lifeless or alive. The Iranians released the hostages at proper to the comparable time Reagan took the oath. The palms deals got here later, and not something grow to be given away, the Iranians offered the weapons, and the money grow to be redirected to Nicaraguan rebels. After the Ayatollah compelled the Shah of Iran in another country, they needed alternative areas. The Shah grow to be a US puppet, so of direction all the Iranian militia armaments have been American situation.
2016-10-10 10:45:44 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Giullani's a clown. He should have used Abe Lincoln to get his messages through.
In any case, the Iranian hostages were a bit of an embarrassement to Carter as well as the rescue bid. Obviously the Iranians had a good deal in exchange for the hostages release. Needless to say the deal would be even more embarrassing and up to now it has still not being made public. Food for thought, could it be plans for building a nuke ?
2007-12-06 16:03:53 · answer #4 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The deal was made my Reagan agents with the Iranians in a carrot and stick manner. If they did not release the hostages by the time He took office then He would unleash the beast on them and take no prisoners. If we get a president that projects the strengths of this country unlike those in Congress and would be presidents that project the faults of this country then the Iranians will back down. The rest of the world needs to know how much this country is United and that it will not roll over like the libs want. Too many lives have been given for this country to have it squandered away by libs that prefer quitting to finishing the job.
2007-12-06 17:33:56 · answer #5 · answered by old codger 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well there are different stories, but his people beat President Carter's people to the punch and would release about $13* billion of frozen Iranian assets when he became president and also the arms. He did give Carter the credit. As he was being sworn in as president they were flying out. Take care.
2007-12-06 14:03:22 · answer #6 · answered by R J 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gary has his fact right. Reagan traded arms to the Iranians in exchange for the hostages. That's what the "arms for hostages" means in the Iran-Contra Affair.
It may have been treasonous and the arms may have been used against our troops in later years but, hey, Reagan freed the hostages alright.
2007-12-06 13:49:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Hostages were released after Reagan was sworn in for the sole reason of shaming Carter
2007-12-06 13:47:38 · answer #8 · answered by tallerfella 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
The release was negotiated by the Carter administration in its final days. Like tallerfe said it was done after Reagan took office to shame Carter. Reagan of course got credit for something he did not do. And I dont like Reagan or Giuliani
2007-12-06 14:14:02 · answer #9 · answered by stashnut7 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
One bad deed deserves another? Reagan cheated to win the election by illegally selling arms to the TERRORISTS that had kidnapped 52 Americans. The failed rescue mission that ended in disaster in the desert was commanded by Col. North. It was a complete embarrassment to President Carter. Once in office,Reagan used the money from the Iranian TERRORISTS, to illegally send arms,by planes, to the TERRORIST Contras,then those planes that were flown back to the US full of cocaine! Are you starting to see how corrupt they were?
2007-12-06 14:09:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋