Al Gore, friend of our enemy

Gore should at least issue a statement.

 

That's why the US has continued on the technological front to treat the Russians as a "threat" force.

Gore does not believe in American superiority of ideals. He is a liberal through and through laying far more than our share of the world's problems at our doorstep.

Effectively, he's a traitor. God forbid he should ever become president.

 

I guess you think that Gore must should have known in 1995 that we would be in Iraq 8 years later, with the possibility of going into Iran in the near future.

 

The news storys first of all claims that a "secret" deal called the 'Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol' helped make this happen.

These meetings were not secret, they have been written about for a while now.

If you research the 'Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol' you will find that is dealt with a lot of other things other than defensive, but it also helped rathered than hurt when it came to Russia dealing with Iran.

Before the Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol there were no dates or terms for Russia to stop selling to Iran, with the Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol the end date was the end of 1999.

Putin was later to reverse Russia's promise to cease arms sales, so although Russia had a deal, they didn't honor it.

I don't see how this is Al Gore's fault. At least under his deal, that Moscow has agreed to, would have stopped arms sales to Iran after 1999.

Russia didn't live up to their word, so it's their fault, not Al Gore's.

Jamie

 

Reagan made a deal to sell arms to Iran in exchange for delaying the release of the hostages.

 

Spreading this kind of garbage is not Christ like. Jimmy Carters hostages were released because the Irani's knew America was about to install a real President, Ronald Reagan, and they'd better get their karma sorted out. </font>[/QUOTE]

Hill I think their might be a 12 step program in your neighborhood for toxic kool aid imbibers.

amazing stuff your drinking thar

 

It's just a bad as someone who points fingers at Al Gore for absolutely no good reason huh?

Jamie

 

It is certainly true that they did indeed get weapons....

Yes, and as I recall, after that "real President" came to office, the Iranians were able to secure weapons with the help of the despicable Oliver North......

 

Spreading this kind of garbage is not Christ like. Jimmy Carters hostages were released because the Irani's knew America was about to install a real President, Ronald Reagan, and they'd better get their karma sorted out. </font>[/QUOTE]Anything you don't want to accept is "not Christ-like." I'll dig up some proof. But I assume you don't think the slur on Vice President Gore is "not Christ-like" do you?

 

"October Surprise"

Upon the death of the shah in July (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages' release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an "October Surprise"* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages' release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration's defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released. Under Reagan, the Iran-Contra Affair completes this story.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2021.html

 

resources

contact

search

subscribe

September/October 1991

WHO WILL UNWRAP THE OCTOBER SURPRISE?

http://archives.cjr.org/year/91/5/october_surprise.asp

When the story does appear, the key questions not only go unanswered,they go unasked. Questions like why did the Iranaians suddenly break off negotiations with Carter in the fall of 1980, just when they appeared closer than ever to releasing the hostages? And when they eventually did strike a deal with the Carter administration (which promised the release of Iranian assets frozen in U.S. banks in exchange for the return of the hostages), why did the Iranians drop their demand for military spare parts, which had appeared so important to them a few months earlier? And why were planes loaded with American military equipment flying from Israel to Iran just after Reagan's inauguration in early 1981 -- a time when no American hostages were being held in Iran or Lebanon? Is it possible that the Reagan administration was arming Iran in return for a perfectly timed release of the hostages -- only minutes after Reagan's inauguration?

 

And your regard for truth? There are many news articles about arms deals and Reagan and Iran.

If you regarded the truth, then you might believe the news article and the statement you made at the beginning of this thread, but after showing &lt;easy search on Google&gt; that is wasn't any of Al Gore doings, you disregard that and still believe in it?

That to me seems like someone who doesn't want the truth, that seems like someone that just wants to stir the pot.

Jamie
Truth wasn't the reason you started this thread.

 

You see though, that doesn't make sense. Republicans and Democrats alike make deals that we as Christians shouldn't like. Their Politicians! I honestly believe some day they will change the definition of Politician to: Anyone who can lie, cheat and steal without getting caught 90% of the time.

This definition, my definition, applies to BOTH parties. AS a Christian, I am appauded&lt;sp&gt; at BOTH parties.

You see, it's this point of all I wish we could agree on. It's NOT Democrats vers Christians.

There are Christian Democrats, and Christian Republicans.

There are SO called Christian Democrats and SO called Christian Republicans, the difference being they claim to be a Christian, but their actions don't show it.

So, AS Christians, we HAVE to look at each person, NOT the party they represent. It's not either/or - or - Black/White.

I have voted for Democrats and Republicans. It's who will do the best job according to my standards, that is how I vote. Not straight across the board with one party of the other.

So, if nothing else, I hope we can both agree on this point. I believe that is everyone on this board would agree on this very point, there would be less bickering&lt;sp&gt; about Politics and more talk about Christianity.

Just my thoughts..

Jamie