Comments on: Ted Kennedy’s Real October Surprise

By: stealthy

stealthy — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:05:11 +0000

Not included in the article, but what I think is very interesting, is that Senator Abourezk’s foreign policy adviser at that time was none other than Tom Dashelle. That’s where he got his start. What did he know and when did he know it?

By: P. Aaron

P. Aaron — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:38:01 +0000

QUOTE: Just as Gary Sick and his friends in our watchdog media all have claimed, there really was an attempt at freeing the Iranian hostages as an ‘October Surprise’ in 1980 after all.

Aw darn! My favorite part of that whole story was the part about the SR-71. It’s a cool plane.

By: Liberals Demise

Liberals Demise — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:56:31 +0000

“Political Hookers, the Demoncratic Party”

I LIKE THAT!!

By: GetBackJack

GetBackJack — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:38:24 +0000

Turnspeak Propaganda

“To accuse your enemies of exactly that you are doing.”

Since we have no media, let alone a “watchdog media” we can expect all Conservatives to be labeled with every Liberal failure, FAIL and treason.

I’m hoping Almighty God will do an Egyptian pay-back (if you don’t know what that is, read Ex 11-12:36) on the media and their political hookers, the Democratic Party.

By: VMAN

VMAN — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:48:57 +0000

Somehow these anti-American thugs need to be thrown out of government and every other aspect of influence that effects real American’s lives. Frankly I don’t see this ending well.

By: OneAmericanCitizen

OneAmericanCitizen — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:42:06 +0000

DID ABOUREZK GO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HOSTAGES WERE NOT RELEASED!

I don’t understand what Kennedy stood to gain. If he had successfully negotiated the release, how was he going to take credit for it? What negotiating power did he have?

The only negotiating power he had was to promise more concessions than Carter when/if he was elected. Carter would have certainly received most of the credit for the pre-convention release thereby boosting his popularity and increasing his lead over Kennedy. This makes no sense – unless Abourezk went there to make sure that the ayatollah DID NOT release the hostages before the convention. Thereby denying Carter the hostage release boost!

THIS IS CLEARLY TREASON!

Reagan/Bush were accused of this treasonous strategy. A congressional investigation was initiated by the Democrat congress based on the seriousness of the charges.

By: OneAmericanCitizen

OneAmericanCitizen — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:51:35 +0000

The media reported charges that George Bush flew over in a spy plane to make sure that the hostages were not released before the election. They were released less than an hour after Reagan’s inauguration just to embarrass the Carter administration. The seriousness of the charges warranted an full scale congressional investigation.

Truth: Reagan’s team was talking about progressivelly severe blockades of Iran’s ports and airports. Reagan was seen as tough and pro military. The ayatollah choose to make the best deal he could with wussy-boy Carter. Ransom was paid in concessions that released frozen bank accounts, etc. (concessions that Reagan would not have made).

To further disrespect Carter, the ayatollah delayed the release until after Reagan was sworn in. Reagan generously gave all credit to Carter as did the media.

By: canary

canary — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:47:18 +0000

I was in the service and remember exactly where I was when I heard the good news. It was because Reagan said something about those barbarians. Course, now we can’t even call them terrorists. Obama implys terrorists are our brothers and sisters.

Carter was so anti-military he was taxing the little pay we made back then, and even threatened one month that we would not get paid that month, because there wasn’t the money. This is one another thing Obama and Carter have incommon to today. Carter was given to much credit, when it was said he was just weak in foreign affairs, he is nuts.

By: The Redneck

The Redneck — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 02:04:08 +0000

the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which takes a sympathetic view of the fiercely anti-Israel Palestine Liberation Organization.

“Fiercely Anti-Israel?”

That’s like saying Ted Bundy was “fiercely anti-virgin.”

By: Dr.D

Dr.D — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:43:45 +0000

I don’t think this damages his reputation as the conscience of the Democratic party in anyway. This is the sort of thing the Democrat conscience condones freely. It is only conservatives that would see this as improper — people like most of us who read this.

By: RightWinger

RightWinger — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:59:41 +0000

“And how perfectly typical that our watchdog media has covered up the story all these years.”

Well to the MSM, recorded history did not begin until Sept 12, 2001. Any written news prior to that involving Democrats is just complete hearsay or words were taken out of context. The MSM will make sure American history is revised accordingly.

By: JohnMG

JohnMG — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:40:40 +0000

For it to be a crime, pro, there must be three elements present;

First, the perpetrator must believe in the Constitution. Second, the perpetrator must commit the act anyway. And third, the perpetrator must be a Republican.

If one of these three elements is missing, then no crime has been commited. Simple, huh?

By: proreason

proreason — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:29:46 +0000

Uh, isn’t it a crime for to negotiate with foreign country’s if you aren’t doing so as a member of the duly-elected admnistration?

If I recall correctly, the crime is called Treason.

John Kerry knows all about it.