Rudy's New Hampshire Ad: I Love Reagan And I Hate Terrorists
Wow, this new Rudy ad in New Hampshire gives new meaning to the phrase "reflected glory." The whole ad consists of Rudy offering an extended paean to Ronald Reagan and his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis upon taking office in 1980. "The best way you deal with dictators, the best way you deal with tyrants and terrorists, you stand up to them," Rudy concludes.
Oddly, Rudy says nothing that tells us why we're supposed to see Rudy as the terror-warrior heir to Reagan -- it's just something that goes without saying.
Comments (14)
Terje wrote on December 5, 2007 11:16 AM:Does Rudy really believe that Iranians released the hostages because Reagan was "standing up to them."? What a revisionist view of history.
Long before he was sworn in (indeed, during the campaign), the Reagan folks were negotiating with the mullahs. In the end the Iranians and the incoming Reagan administration agreed to hostage release only after Reagan was sworn in - a final humiliation to President Carter.
It was negotiation that freed the hostages -- not Carter's failed military rescue attempt, not bellicose threats. That might be a good lesson for Rudy (and other would be Presidents) to remember.
Greg wrote on December 5, 2007 12:00 PM:great points, terje. thanks for that.
J. Bentley wrote on December 5, 2007 12:32 PM:Somebody should remind all of these Republicans who are falling all over themselves to claim the mantle of Reagan, and the voters they are trying connect with, that Ronald Reagan's record on dealing with Middle Eastern dictators, terrorism, Iraq and Iran was less than stellar.
Reagan supported Saddam Hussein militarily and economically after the Iraqi dictator launched a very costly and bloody invasion of Iran that was unprovoked, and when Saddam gassed his own people. Reagan also sold arms to Iran and traded arms for hostages held by Hezballah and then lied about it to the American people. I wonder if Rudy considers that to be "standing up" to the militant mullahs.
GMFORD wrote on December 5, 2007 12:38 PM:My new name for Rudy: Rudolph the Red-Handed
Has a nice Christmas-y touch, don't ya think?
cognitorex wrote on December 5, 2007 12:47 PM:Look folks, says Rudi, "If you're not afraid you're a coward."
Jim wrote on December 5, 2007 12:58 PM:There were rumors during Reagan's administration that the aspect of the Iran/Contra conspiracy that involved Reagan covertly and illegally selling American missiles to Iran had been negotiated by the Reagan campaign as the price of the Iranians continuing to hold the hostages until after Carter was defeated. (Most of the speculation centered on suspicious trips to Paris by Dubya's daddy, Reagan's veep candidate.)
If those stories are true, then the release of the hostages just as Reagan was being sworn in is in fact the signature moment of the grossest crime ever committed against the American people by an American politician, not a point of pride Rudy can try to piggyback on.
Jeff wrote on December 5, 2007 1:00 PM:Remember Iran Contra, Remember the marines being pulled out of Lebanon.
anon wrote on December 5, 2007 1:01 PM:Minor point, considering the wisdom and glory imparted in that ad but certainly students deserve as much credit as "mullahs" for the hostage mess. Can't Rudy make something of that? Perhaps he should say "students assisted in their evil deeds by mullahs" and then, at the end, include "students" in his threat to "dictators and terrorists."
Bob wrote on December 5, 2007 4:31 PM:Carter negotiated the release of the hostages..the Iranians had already agreed to release them as soon as Carter left office but wanted to humiliate Carter. When I think of Reagan and Iran, I think of Iran\Contra...and selling the enemy weapons. Nice job Rudy!! Ha..no wonder the pinhead is sinking like the Titanic.
markg8 wrote on December 5, 2007 6:27 PM:Great, I guess Guiliani would trade arms for hostages just like Reagan did. That'll show 'em!
kcbill13 wrote on December 5, 2007 9:25 PM:I had heard rumors that Republicans actually paid the mullahs, or gave them weopons, or something along those lines to bribe the mullahs into not releasing the hostages until Reagan took office. Don't have any backup at all.
Did anyone else hear theses types of rumors, or am I just a paranoid conspiracy theorist?
Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 10:45 PM:kcbill13
There have been rumours of this floating around for years -- former Irani President Bani-Sadr has said that this happened. Gary Sick wrote a book which has been discredited in many details about such an alleged deal. A Reagan official (Barbara Honneger) claimed the same thing. However numerous journalistic and congressional investigations have come to the conclusion that it didn't happen.
For a good summary of the theory, wikipedia has a very thorough and reasonably well documented article on the subject --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy
What sometimes gets confused with the alleged "October surprise" is the later "arms for hostages" deal where the Reagan administration arranged to have Israel deliver arms to Iran in exchange for Iran securing Hezbollah's release of US soldiers being held in Lebanon. This led to the "Iran-Contra" scandal that involved Oliver North and so many members of the Reagan administration.
It does seem clear that the Reagan campaign/ transition team opened some sort of informal communication with the Iranis and that these communications ran on a parallel track with the negotiations being conducted in Vienna by the Carter administration. We will probably never know for certain exactly what level of discussion took place between Reagan's people and the Mullahs, but there certainly isn't any proof of a deal. But it never hurts to be a bit suspicious, does it?
brewmn wrote on December 6, 2007 12:13 AM:I think Judy should get Rudy "Landslide" by Doyle McManus and Jane Mayer for Christmas. It opens with Reagan being so paralyzed with depression that his aides consider invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him, and ends with Reagan implausibly denying that he sold arms for hostages. Rudy really should read it.
Michael E. Locklear wrote on December 6, 2007 2:00 PM:Kudos to Josh & Co.'s uncommonly excellently informed readership! Spent a good part of my “modern [real-] historical research endeavoring” of the last fifteen years doin’ as much reading-research on the lingering 1980 October Surprise (Original GOP Sin…) allegation/question – Sick, Parry, & Honnegar mostly (Always loved President Carter, a young-boy Southern Baptist myself at the time…). VERY likely the 80’s era arms-deals were a payoff for the co-conspiring co-operation from Khomeini & the mullahs in the Majlis (No more principled than Iraq’s pols today…). Moral Of The Story: Karma, bad! Reaping what we sow! Gotta nip/lance The Problem. And the Clintons were PRECISELY the pols who let (King) George Senior Off The Hook for Iran&Iraq-gates in 1993. Whereas as a Senator Al Gore had been pushing for an honest investigation. Prince/Veep Albert in 2008!
