I would also add, almost all of the hostages were freed soon after.

You are the one looking at it through a different lens.

 

Reagan Administration people stated that the reason for the sale of weapons to Iran was in order for the Iranian Government to "influence" the terrorist groups that held 7 Americans hostage in Lebanon.

 

The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.

 

Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Iran-Contra Affair was a clandestine action not approved of by the United States Congress. It began in 1985, when President Ronald Reagan's administration supplied weapons to Iran¹ — a sworn enemy — in hopes of securing the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's leader.

 

Iran-Contra Affair

 

Even a more conservative source reminds us that even if it was "said" it was not a ransom scenario, Reagan later admitted that that was what it became.

 

The foreign-policy scandal known as the Iran-contra affair came to light in November 1986 when President Ronald Reagan confirmed reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran. He stated that the goal was to improve relations with Iran, not to obtain release of U.S. hostages held in the Middle East by terrorists (although he later acknowledged that the arrangement had in fact turned into an arms-for-hostages swap).

 

The Iran-Contra Affair

 

 

Here is Reagan's address to the nation about the events. It is his willingness to take responsibility that burns his legacy in my mind as a great leader who refuses to pass the buck of blame along to others.

 

Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation during a nationally televised address from the Oval Office on March 4, 1987, and two other speeches;[60] Reagan had not spoken to the American people directly for three months amidst the scandal.[61] President Reagan told the American people the reason he did not update them on the scandal:

 

The reason I haven't spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion. There's been enough of that.

 

He then took full responsibility for the acts committed:

 

First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior.

 

Finally, the president stated that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect:

 

A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind.

 

I get all of that, but the United States did not directly pay Iran to release hostages, who were currently being held by Hezbollah during the Iran-Contra Deal. The section I have bolded explains that. Although the end game was to provide an incentive to get Iran to get Hezbollah to release US hostages, we didn't directly pay Iran or Hezbollah, which is why I don't think an accurate comparison can be made to what President Obama recently did.

 

No doubt, the Reagan administration went through loopholes, secretly, in an effort to get back our hostages. However, he didn't pay the group (Hezbollah) who were holding the US hostages. Heck, he didn't even directly pay or provide arms to Iran. This is where I think the difference is between what Reagan and Obama did. Reagan found ways to indirectly incentivize having the hostages released; Obama just played into the captors hand.

A brief summary of the differences between the two, in my opinion:

 

Reagan administration didn't directly pay, or provide arms for the release of hostages

 

Reagan administration didn't directly pay, negotiate or provide arms to the group holding US hostages.

I get all of that, but the United States did not directly pay Iran to release hostages, who were currently being held by Hezbollah during the Iran-Contra Deal. The section I have bolded explains that. Although the end game was to provide an incentive to get Iran to get Hezbollah to release US hostages, we didn't directly pay Iran or Hezbollah, which is why I don't think an accurate comparison can be made to what President Obama recently did.

 

No doubt, the Reagan administration went through loopholes, secretly, in an effort to get back our hostages. However, he didn't pay the group (Hezbollah) who were holding the US hostages. Heck, he didn't even directly pay or provide arms to Iran. This is where I think the difference is between what Reagan and Obama did. Reagan found ways to indirectly incentivize having the hostages released; Obama just played into the captors hand.

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

Again, I would give anything to have a President with the leadership skills of Reagan.

 

But he had his warts. He was so passionate about getting the hostages free that he made "deals with the devil" (indirectly or not doesn't matter. wouldn't happen if he didn't initiate it) to get them freed. This is the same Hezbollah who was at least in bed with if not actually a part of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. It was the same Iran who created the crisis that helped spring Reagan into office because he would be more hard-line than Carter on them.

 

I get the semantics of what you are saying HHS, but I disagree that they are really different at the heart of issue. It was a bad move by Reagan (more were captured soon after by terrorist groups expecting the same payday) and an even worse move by Obama considering that it will only lead to more "political prisoners" for ransom.

 

In the end, both are equally bad precedents.

I'm going to go kidnap a few national guard soldiers so I can become a millionaire.

And if those hostages hadn't gotten back safely, I'm pretty sure Obama would be getting shredded for not getting them home.

 

He would be. We all know it. Of course we all know more about the entire situation as we read our links than the folks who actually get all of the real information in briefings.

We don't negotiate with terrorists...or DO we?

And if those hostages hadn't gotten back safely, I'm pretty sure Obama would be getting shredded for not getting them home.

 

Absolutely glad they are home. Who cares about the money. We can just print more. The downside is that puts the world on notice that you can get paid kidnapping Americans. I'm never leaving to go abroad.

How did these 4 people get taken? What were they doing?

Absolutely glad they are home. Who cares about the money. We can just print more. The downside is that puts the world on notice that you can get paid kidnapping Americans. I'm never leaving to go abroad.

 

Just print more, yeah that won't ruin an economy.

He would be. We all know it. Of course we all know more about the entire situation as we read our links than the folks who actually get all of the real information in briefings.

 

It is obvious Obama has never done anything wrong in your eyes.

It is obvious Obama has never done anything wrong in your eyes.

 

Of course he hasn't. Ride or die.

Just print more, yeah that won't ruin an economy.

 

I get it...it's a bad precedent. But would you be against it if it was a family member of yours that was being held??

Of course he hasn't. Ride or die.

 

That's disturbing. No one is perfect.

 

Blind loyalty is what's wrong with politics today.

That's disturbing. No one is perfect.

 

Blind loyalty is what's wrong with politics today.

 

There's a lot wrong with politics today. There's a lot wrong with discussing politics these days also. Missing sarcasm is one of them. At the same time, the last thing I am going to do is discuss what Obama has done wrong with a bunch of people who hate everything he has done. I'm at the beach, I have beer, gonna cook some steaks shortly....this was a drive by for me. I may be back on tomorrow. I may not. Either way.....carry on!