Hostages

Rudy Giuliani's latest ad is really one of the most breathtakingly dishonest things I've seen in quite some time. Here's the text:

I remember back to the 1970s and the early 1980s. Iranian mullahs took American hostages, and they held the American hostages for 444 days. And they released the American hostages in one hour, and that should tell us a lot about these Islamic terrorists that we’re facing. The one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which Ronald Reagan was taking the oath of office as president of the United States. The best way you deal with dictators, the best way you deal with tyrants and terrorists, you stand up to them. You don’t back down. I’m Rudy Giuliani, and I approve this message.

That's not what happened. At all. Rather, as the New York Times notes "the complex deal that led to their release was brokered by President Jimmy Carter’s administration. The hostages were released because the United States agreed to return nearly $8 billion in frozen assets to Iran, most of which Iran used to pay off foreign creditors." This then laid the groundwork for the Reagan administration's later policy of selling weapons to Iran in exchange for their assistance in getting hostages freed. This thing where Reagan's steely determination scared the Iranians into backing down never happened.

Comments

Well, sure, but we gave them that $8 billion in a very steely and determined manner.

Posted by jhupp | December 7, 2007 4:37 PM

Guiliani should run on Reagan's actual Iran record, mainly the part when he sold them weapons.

Posted by mad6798j | December 7, 2007 4:37 PM

This thing where Reagan's steely determination scared the Iranians into backing down never happened.

I think you're underestimating the effect of Reagan's "is this guy crazy enough to nuke us?" reputation, particularly when compared with Carter's reputation for helplessness. But Giuliani isn't acknowledging the back-door bribes, which had as much (probably more) of a role in affecting hostage release.

Posted by Shinyk | December 7, 2007 4:38 PM

Wow. I try never to overestimate the American people's willingness to buy into juvenile nationalistic mythology, but surely at least some of the people Giuliani wants are going to think this is just dumb. I mean, honestly, the "hour" bit? It's like Chuck Norris stuff. There is no theory of international relations; only a list of countries that Reagan allows to live.

Posted by Christopher M | December 7, 2007 4:42 PM

This is the kind of behavior that would have absolutely ruined Gore. There would have been a thousand Republicans in line pointing out his inaccuracies and underscoring his "problem with exaggeration," and every reporter in the United States would have reported the Republican reaction, noting its accuracy and poignancy. Indeed, this dynamic JUST happened with Bill Clinton's statement about his Iraq position. You had Tucker and Matthews and all those people going on and on about Bill Clinton's innate dishonesty. I don't claim to defend Clinton, but let's get some equal time for Rudy. This ad is absolute Republican fantasy and clearly (and deliberately) dishonest. Democrats need to talk about it--at great length, over and over again.

Posted by Unreal Veal | December 7, 2007 4:47 PM

By the way, there is a dishonesty trope developing that is ripe for exploitation by any foe of Guiliani--Republican or Democrat. His claim about serving as much time at Ground Zero as first responders was clearly exaggerated and inaccurate. This guy is willing to say whatever it takes to get ahead, and people need to call him on it. I guess the Republicans will be too afraid of sullying Reagan's image as a Republican saint to attack this particular ad. The facts lead to negative places. But I hope there is a Dem out there archiving this stuff in case Rudy gets the nomination. And one hopes that some mainstream journalists will jump on this as well. Alas...

Posted by Unreal Veal | December 7, 2007 5:02 PM

It's greatly disappointing, though, that Mr. Reagan decided against turning back time for 444 days (by zooming around the Earth) and making sure the hostages were never taken. Say what you will, but that's just laziness.

Posted by abb1 | December 7, 2007 5:11 PM

Honestly, Republicans are willing to believe any great myth about Reagan. Did you know he also won the Cold War single-handedly?

Posted by Gus | December 7, 2007 5:19 PM

Someday they're going to get to the bottom of that October 1980 meeting in Paris, right after they finish that 9/11 report. "Mistakes were made."

Posted by me2i81 | December 7, 2007 5:22 PM

Yeah, October surprise anyone? The Reagan administration was cozying up to the Iranians before they even got elected.

Posted by mq | December 7, 2007 5:36 PM

"Guiliani should run on Reagan's actual Iran record, mainly the part when he sold them weapons."

If he did the GOP base would eat it up and declare it a bold, daring, and brave approach. Only traitors would disagree.

Posted by An Outhouse | December 7, 2007 5:36 PM

Where's Fred, Al and Chris? They should be in here defending their God from the infidels...

Not that this ad should be any surprise to anyone. This is the sort of fantasy land the right wing nutjobs live in. It's an entire mythology on a par with the Nazis "World of Ice" and ancient Aryan supermen.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 7, 2007 5:47 PM

I thought that on the day He was inaugurated, Ronald Reagan walked across the ocean and plunged one of His mighty hands into the midst of the vile kidnappers and carried out all the hostages cradled in His palm.

And then He came back and dug the Grand Canyon with His tears.

Posted by El Cid | December 7, 2007 6:03 PM

MattY, this is a classic urban legend believed by the right-wing. I'm surprised you haven't heard it before... the hostages weren't released right after 12pm, Jan 20th in order to spite Jimmy Carter, as one might think. So, it was because the Iranians were so afraid of Ronald Reagan that they freed the hostages right after he became president, lest they fall victim to his wrath, hich they knew they would face after he looked steely-eyed and tough during the campaign.

So yes, the ad is entirely bullshit, but it's bullshit that a large number of Republican primary voters -- particularly those inclined to support Giuliani -- believe.

Posted by Tyro | December 7, 2007 6:10 PM

Just for fun, let's take the Rudester's assertion at face value for a moment. Now ask this question: Just how much steely determination can one show in the space of an hour???? (Outside of a Steven Seagal film, that is.)

Perhaps the Iranians figured anyone who wasn't afraid to appear in public with Gumby* hair was a formidable presence indeed...

_____
*Or Devo hair. Pick your reference point. I'm easy...

Posted by Roddy McCorley | December 7, 2007 6:24 PM

Reagan's inaurguration played into the hostage release but only because the Iranian government timed it that way to prevent Carter (against whom they had conceived an irrantional hatred) from enjoying any political benefit for the deal.

Posted by Jonf | December 7, 2007 6:59 PM

Yes, this is a complete fabrication. Yes, Giuliani's target demographic buy this b.s. lock stock and barrel. Yes, the cable news heads should be going bonkers over the blatant lies underlying this claim.

Going after these lies would (a) help to discredit Giuliani further, (b) prevent this lie from gaining any more traction among the populace at large, and (c) maybe even make some of the believers reconsider.

Ok. I jest on (c).

IIRC, The Reagan people were actually negotiating with the Iranians behind Carter's back before the election, promising all sorts of things trying to hold the Iranians off from releasing the hostages (!!!) until the election. The concept of a Unitary Executive, then as now, only applies to Republican Presidents.

Posted by Bribes | December 7, 2007 7:09 PM

After 18 years of life, I hadn't even kissed a girl. Then, after smoking pot for the first time, I managed to make out for half an hour with the most beautiful woman in my college. With tongue!

Smoking weed will make all your dreams come true.

I'm Tinisoli, and I approved this message.

(p.s.–– There's an ad for McCain running during the Celtics game tonight. It stars Curt Schilling, former George W. Bush fellator. He's talking about McCain's "backbone of steel" and how John is a "winner." I assume this is aimed at folks in NH.)

Posted by tinisoli | December 7, 2007 8:39 PM

"Where's Fred, Al and Chris?"

Shinyk stated the case fairly well. Part of the reason the hostages were released on Reagan's watch was the Iranians' spite for the pathetic Carter, part of it was Carter's deal on the frozen assets, and part of it was fear of Reagan. Democrats had attempted to Goldwater Reagan during the campaign as a dangerous warmonger, and this probably had an effect on the Iranians. The other reason that the hostages were held so long was because of the Mullahs' demand that we hand over the deposed Shah, who was terminally ill with cancer. That demand, which even Carter wouldn't stoop to agreeing to, expired when the Shah passed away.

Of course, Reagan would later make a deal with the Iranians to free the hostages their Hezbollah proxies held in Lebanon. But he wasn't all carrots with the Iranians. He continued Carter's policy of helping Saddam Hussein bleed Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, and he gave the U.S. Navy free rein to deal with Iranian mischief in the Persian Gulf.

Posted by Fred | December 7, 2007 9:23 PM

... and he gave the U.S. Navy free rein to deal with Iranian mischief in the Persian Gulf.

Ah, yes, the Airbus. We smote them a might blow.

Posted by George | December 7, 2007 10:25 PM

The best part is that the "Saint Ronnie" narrative isn't even about Reagen, but about conservatives trying to claim winning the Cold War for themselves. They liked Reagen when he was behind SDI funding, Grenada, etc. However, once he negotiated with Gorbachev in Iceland and rejected the neocons' advice, they called him a traitor. George Will said that we would look back on that day as the day the US lost the Cold War. When the Berlin Wall fell during the George H. W. Bush's term, it couldn't be to his credit because he was supposed to be a wimp and it couldn't be to any Democrat's credit, so it had to be Ronnie and thus he had to be the perfect conservative that followed their theories all along like He-Man.

Posted by Reality Man | December 7, 2007 11:16 PM

George gets it right.

And the Airbus blow back became TWA Flight 800.

The Clinton Administration admitted that three Stinger missiles came across the Canadian border into the New York area. And of course, they came from Afghanistan via Iran. Clinton covered this up because the reason for that attack would lead straight back to the Vincennes and that that attack was a deliberate downing of a civilian airliner.

Later, the CIA spread the claim that the 600 lost Stinger missiles were useless because their batteries had run down.

Until ex-CIA agent Robert Baer publicly denied that, saying the batteries are just as good now as they were then - and so are the Stingers.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 7, 2007 11:30 PM

Re: And the Airbus blow back became TWA Flight 800.

No, the Airbus revenge was the PanAm flight blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Posted by JonF | December 8, 2007 1:07 AM

I thought the negociation were, for at least a part, made with the Reagan team : to do nothing till after election. I'm not an expert on the question, it's just the post electoral timing of the release.

Posted by yabonn | December 8, 2007 2:58 AM

What about 'get er done' don't you understand?

Posted by alec | December 8, 2007 5:49 AM

And it wasn't the mullahs that took the Americans hostage, either.

Posted by Pennywhistler | December 8, 2007 7:41 AM

Tyrol - MattY, this is a classic urban legend believed by the right-wing. I'm surprised you haven't heard it before... the hostages weren't released right after 12pm, Jan 20th in order to spite Jimmy Carter, as one might think. So, it was because the Iranians were so afraid of Ronald Reagan that they freed the hostages right after he became president, lest they fall victim to his wrath.

Nope, you are incorrect. The Iranians correctly assumed Carter wouldn't attack them. After Reagan's election, old-timer officers I knew said that Reagan intermediaries said an attack was on shortly after Reagan would take office and with full knowledge of Carter's DOD, which was disgusted with him, a full war target list aimed at naval and airforce destruction of Iran's air force, navy, and critical infrastructure was in place. The old timers said that they were told to be set by January, with February slotted as the window when 5 Naval Battle groups and NATO forces would be at their peak - unless the hostages were released - and the Soviets were on board as long as we kept the Zionists out of it, and we did not occupy Iran.

The Iranians themselves admitted later that the initial takeover was not planned and they had gained as much prestige as possible from punking out Carter at that point, and knew Reagan was elected in part because voters wanted him to free hostages or kill a pile of Iranians and wreck their country if Iran failed to meet a deadline for their release.

Reagan had followed Nixon's and other's advice, which was to leak to the Iranians that the US under Reagan would consider the Hostage's lives expendable.

Nixon, Kissinger, and a minority camp within the Democratic Administration had recognized diplomacy with a hostile state is useless without an underlying threat of lethal force - something Carter had screwed himself with in rejecting his advisors and having an evangelical moment where he concluded nothing mattered but the Welfare of his dear "Hostage Friends".

Once Carter had taken serious military action off the table other than his ridiculous rescue mission, he became diplomatically toothless - the Iranians rejected his offer to unfreeze Iranian assets if they were released, for over a year, because the humiliation of the US and their bringing in violent radical Islam and Islamic terrorism with a state sponsor were far more valuable than money to Muslim religious fanatics.

If Carter had gone in like a defender of America and beat the snot out of the Ayatollahs, we may have lost 39 hostages, but saved possible millions of victims (inc Africa and Asia) from the Jihadis over the last 28 years.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 8, 2007 7:53 AM

Right, Chris, sure. Calm down now.

Posted by abb1 | December 8, 2007 8:38 AM

This thing where Reagan's steely determination scared the Iranians into backing down never happened.

Next, you're probably going to say that making a plan to build a defensive weapons system that was near-universally considered unfeasible would not cause the Soviet Union to collapse.

And that's just crazy talk.

Posted by calling all toasters | December 8, 2007 9:15 AM

One would think, with their high racially endowed IQs, that Fred and Chris would know the difference between argument and assertion.

Posted by Mark | December 8, 2007 9:46 AM

"The other reason that the hostages were held so long was because of the Mullahs' demand that we hand over the deposed Shah, who was terminally ill with cancer. That demand, which even Carter wouldn't stoop to agreeing to, expired when the Shah passed away."

Why wouldn't you hand the shah of Iran, a filthy failure of a human being, over to his kindreds in the Iranian revolution? Sure, the milk of human kindness might flow for the old bastard to a certain point, but dictator who deserves everything he'll get for hostages is a good deal to me.

Posted by witless chum | December 8, 2007 11:19 AM

Where's Fred, Al and Chris?

Sorry, Karl gave me the afternoon off. Now, with me failing to respond quickly against this important accusation, I hope Karl doesn't dock my pay...

In any case, Matthew's response is lame. The idea that it just happened to be a coincidence that the hostages were freed just as Reagan was inaugurated is pathetic. Of course there is a causal relationship between Reagan's inauguration and the hostages being freed.

Posted by Al | December 8, 2007 12:08 PM

Al, what exactly is that causal relationship? Would it just happen to be one that casts Ronnie in a negative, near-treasonous light? Is that why you can't say what it is?

Posted by Reality Man | December 8, 2007 1:09 PM

Of course there is a causal relationship between Reagan's inauguration and the hostages being freed.

Yeah, it's called the October Surprise and the eventual payoff of selling arms to Iran. Duh Al!

Posted by Voice of Reason | December 8, 2007 1:18 PM

"Ah, yes, the Airbus. We smote them a might blow."

The airbus was an accident during a naval war in the Gulf started by Iran and finished by the U.S. Navy.

"Why wouldn't you hand the shah of Iran, a filthy failure of a human being, over to his kindreds in the Iranian revolution?"

Well, for starters, Carter always had a soft spot for dictators -- from kissing Brezhnev, to inviting Baby Doc Duvalier to teach at his Sunday School, etc.

"Yeah, it's called the October Surprise and the eventual payoff of selling arms to Iran."

It's been almost 30 years. It wouldn't take nearly that long for evidence of an "October Surprise" to leak out. The U.S. State Department and CIA have more leaks than a colander. The anti-tank TOW missiles sent to Iran were a payoff to release the hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. They had the added function of keeping a war between to asshole regimes going even longer.

Posted by Fred | December 8, 2007 1:59 PM

It wouldn't take nearly that long for evidence of an "October Surprise" to leak out.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence -- to quote someone near and dear to your heart.

Speaking of Rummy and the good ol' days of the Iran-Iraq War, this would've been around the time that he was sent as a special envoy to give Saddam a wink and a nod that the US would look the other way if he used chemical weapons on the Iranians. Funny how the same shabby characters and motifs reappear in this miserable farce.

Posted by Voice of Reason | December 8, 2007 3:03 PM

the best way you deal with tyrants and terrorists, you stand up to them

Is that the same President Reagan who cut and run when a suicide bomber killed 241 American servicemen at the Marine barracks in Beirut?

Posted by croatoan | December 8, 2007 8:50 PM

"But he wasn't all carrots with the Iranians. He continued Carter's policy of helping Saddam Hussein bleed Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, and he gave the U.S. Navy free rein to deal with Iranian mischief in the Persian Gulf"

What about the part where he sold Iran weapons? In violation of US law and an Arms embargo that he created. Can you explain that one away?

Posted by David Shor | December 9, 2007 12:30 AM