October Surprise: Top Reagan Backers Persuaded Iran to Hold the Hostages Until after the 1980 Election

[mikegriffith1]

We can do thst just as long as you don’t deny realty Reagan along with bush committed treason in the October surprise delaying the hostages in a deal with Iran so he could get elected which is all documented in Barbara honneger s book the October surprise

Honneger goes off the deep end. There's no credible evidence that Reagan knew what Casey was doing. Even Robert Parry agrees that Reagan appears not to have known about Casey's intervention.

or deny reality thst as governor of california he committed treason against the American people blocking jim garrisons extradition request to subpeona Allen Dulles for his trial against clay Shaw.

Oh, come on. This was not "treason." The common perception at the time was that Garrison was grasping at straws. This is why no governors honored any of Garrison's extradition requests. It wasn't just Reagan. I agree that Dulles should have been compelled to testify at the Shaw trial, but I can understand why Reagan and other governors declined to honor Garrison's extradition requests.

that he was rewarded the position of potus for his role participating in the coverup the same as ford was because they both participated in the coverup endorcing the Warren commission,reagan,ford and bush were all later rewarded potus in the future because they all had a major role in the coverup.

Reagan and Bush (H.W.) had nothing to do with the cover-up, and Ford did not purposely take part in the cover-up. Ford was an honorable, decent man. He sincerely accepted the FBI's version of the shooting. He did not even attend most of the Warren Commission's hearings.

Reagan was as much a mass murderer and traiter as much as bush was.

Oh, boy. You lost me. This is crazy talk. When you start making wild claims like these, you discredit yourself and your replies.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Until fairly recently, I flatly rejected the "October Surprise" claim that top Republicans, especially William Casey, cut a deal with the Iranians to hold the American hostages until after the 1980 election. I did not believe former NSC staffer Gary Sick's 1991 book on the subject. However, after reading Dr. Kai Bird's book The Outlier and especially after reading award-winning investigative journalist Robert Parry's 2016 book Trick or Treason: The 1980 October Surprise Mystery, I am convinced that Casey and certain other top Reagan backers did make a deal with the Iranians to delay releasing the hostages until after the election.

Among other things, Parry demolishes the 1991 congressional October Surprise Task Force's report. For example, Parry debunks the committee's claims about Casey's alibi for the time period when he reportedly met with Iranian contacts in Madrid, Spain. Parry found documents that showed that the George H. W. Bush White House withheld key evidence from the October Surprise Task Force. This evidence included a secret State Department cable that proved that Casey was in Madrid at the exact same time an Iranian source said Casey met with Iranian representatives to try to persuade them not to release the hostages until after the election.

I take no pleasure in acknowledging the evidence that top Reagan backers persuaded the Iranians not to release the hostages until after the election. I just hope that Reagan was not aware of this effort. If evidence ever surfaces that Reagan knew about it, my opinion of him will change substantially. I would not put it past Casey to take this action on his own, without Reagan's knowledge. I hope that was the case.

Jimmy Carter arguably would have won the 1980 election if he had been able to get the hostages released before the election.

Casey in Madrid is simnply Casey in Madrid. Even if it does not synch with his earlier stateement about where he was at the time it does not prove any kind of meeting

Still just as weak as the original October Surprise idiocy which never has ny evidence

An " iranian source " is not verifiable and therefore meaningless

The elephant in the room which no one seems able to answer is why wait until the Inauguration. If they wanted to pull this stunt holding the hostages until a week or so after the election would have been fine.

The whole thing was always illogival and as stupid as any other conspiracy theory

 

[mikegriffith1]

Casey in Madrid is simnply Casey in Madrid. Even if it does not synch with his earlier stateement about where he was at the time it does not prove any kind of meeting.

Then why did he concoct an elaborate alibi for that time period?

Still just as weak as the original October Surprise idiocy which never has ny evidence

There is evidence. Read Parry's book. Or read the New Republic article.

An " iranian source " is not verifiable and therefore meaningless.

Oh, come on. One of those sources was a leading Iranian dissident who fled Iran because the Ayatollah was going to kill him. He also happened to be Iran's first president after the Shah's departure, so he was certainly in a position to know about the deal.

The elephant in the room which no one seems able to answer is why wait until the Inauguration. If they wanted to pull this stunt holding the hostages until a week or so after the election would have been fine.

Again, come on. Neither the mullahs nor Casey and his pals wanted Carter to get any credit for the return of the hostages. The mullahs delayed the hostages' return out of sheer spite, since, after all, Carter had wrecked their economy with draconian sanctions, had attempted a military rescue, and had publicly threatened the mullahs with destruction if they harmed the hostages. It makes perfect sense that the mullahs didn't want the hostages to be freed while Carter was still president. Ditto for Casey et al.

The whole thing was always illogival and as stupid as any other conspiracy theory

Not at all. There's credible evidence and the motives for the plot were quite logical.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Then why did he concoct an elaborate alibi for that time period?


There is evidence. Read Parry's book. Or read the New Republic article.


Oh, come on. One of those sources was a leading Iranian dissident who fled Iran because the Ayatollah was going to kill him. He also happened to be Iran's first president after the Shah's departure, so he was certainly in a position to know about the deal.


Again, come on. Neither the mullahs nor Casey and his pals wanted Carter to get any credit for the return of the hostages. The mullahs delayed the hostages' return out of sheer spite, since, after all, Carter had wrecked their economy with draconian sanctions, had attempted a military rescue, and had publicly threatened the mullahs with destruction if they harmed the hostages. It makes perfect sense that the mullahs didn't want the hostages to be freed while Carter was still president. Ditto for Casey et al.


Not at all. There's credible evidence and the motives for the plot were quite logical.

head of the CIA could have a thousand reasons


Once the election was over it would have been pountless and carter would have gotten no credit. That is why it is illofical

there is still no credible evidence

Unnamed sources are worthless

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Honneger goes off the deep end. There's no credible evidence that Reagan knew what Casey was doing. Even Robert Parry agrees that Reagan appears not to have known about Casey's intervention.


Oh, come on. This was not "treason." The common perception at the time was that Garrison was grasping at straws. This is why no governors honored any of Garrison's extradition requests. It wasn't just Reagan. I agree that Dulles should have been compelled to testify at the Shaw trial, but I can understand why Reagan and other governors declined to honor Garrison's extradition requests.


Reagan and Bush (H.W.) had nothing to do with the cover-up, and Ford did not purposely take part in the cover-up. Ford was an honorable, decent man. He sincerely accepted the FBI's version of the shooting. He did not even attend most of the Warren Commission's hearings.


Oh, boy. You lost me. This is crazy talk. When you start making wild claims like these, you discredit yourself and your replies.

Your the one that’s discrediting yourself. Only a fuckimg moron would say I hope Reagan diid not know what his backers did.you lost it big time there.

Honest decent man ford,? You really destroyed your credibility major big time there. Only Langley agent soupnazi is the only one at usmb that believes those lies of yours. And you deny what a mass murderer Reagan was,your as much of a disinfo agent as soupnazi os,only a far more clever one,he is transparent as hell but your st least much more clever than him,a poster from Langley everybody on the board laughs at,I give you props for not being transparent as he is.
Garrison grasping straws? History has proved his office was penetrated by cia plants you fucking liar.honneger has ten times more credibility than you do. you lost it when you said in the op I hope

I’m shocked beyond words the Nazi actually made it over here,this is the first time in all my years here I’ve ever seen the Langley agent post on a thread that wasn’t about the jfk assassination or 9/11. It must have been when I said jfk that word alerted Nazi here to this thread,he has it programmed at his computer at Langley to do so right gipper

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Honneger goes off the deep end. There's no credible evidence that Reagan knew what Casey was doing. Even Robert Parry agrees that Reagan appears not to have known about Casey's intervention.


Oh, come on. This was not "treason." The common perception at the time was that Garrison was grasping at straws. This is why no governors honored any of Garrison's extradition requests. It wasn't just Reagan. I agree that Dulles should have been compelled to testify at the Shaw trial, but I can understand why Reagan and other governors declined to honor Garrison's extradition requests.


Reagan and Bush (H.W.) had nothing to do with the cover-up, and Ford did not purposely take part in the cover-up. Ford was an honorable, decent man. He sincerely accepted the FBI's version of the shooting. He did not even attend most of the Warren Commission's hearings.


Oh, boy. You lost me. This is crazy talk. When you start making wild claims like these, you discredit yourself and your replies.

Your lies will work on others here disinfo agent but not me. You cracked me up with your ignorance in the op when you said you hoped reagan did not know about it like bush did.comedy gold. You sure are good for laughs.

Oh and something else dumbass,there is a thread of it right here in the history section I been posting on fir years,the amount of time you spend in the history section and the fact you missed it all these years,,you need to get glasses and have your eyes examined the fact you never even saw that thread thst in the op the link has parry documenting what a mass murderer and traiter he was.you need a new eye doctor the fact you never saw that thread all these years even though it’s been on page one most the time thanks to me documenting his corruption over the years on thst thread.

Every poster that looked at your thread ALL laughed at you
Only sadly for the wrong reasons did they laugh at you as I did.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

How you could possibly miss thst thread on Reagan’s corruption thst myself the op and others documented on is flabbergasting the fact you spend all your time here at usmb in the history section and the fact I’ve posted on it so many times over the years keeping it on page one,damn you need glasses and need a new eye doctor the fact you missed that thread despite the multiple times it’s been on page one all these years.

You must have missed it cause you do whst that other troll political chic does,only read your own threads and tooting your own horn,you might try and read other people’s threads instead of just your own and tooting your own horn all the time,gee what a concept.

That’s what Langley agent nazi does here all the time,toots his own horn and never looks at the evidence thst does not support his babble in desperation somebody will listen to him and like a fool you fell fir it and fed the troll giving him the attention he seeks,congrats.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Another excellent book on the October Surprise, perhaps one that is even slightly better than Parry's book, is former Newsweek journalist and best-selling author Craig Unger's recent book Den of Spies: Reagan, Carter, and the Secret History of the Treason That Stole the White House: A Provocative History with Deep Political Revelations, High-Stakes Political Games of the 1980s (Mariner Books, 2024).

Den of Spies

Unger spent 30 years researching the October Surprise. His book contains some evidence that Parry's does not.

It's available for online reading as a Kindle book and as an audio book, for those who prefer those media.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another excellent book on the October Surprise, perhaps one that is even slightly better than Parry's book, is former Newsweek journalist and best-selling author Craig Unger's recent book Den of Spies: Reagan, Carter, and the Secret History of the Treason That Stole the White House: A Provocative History with Deep Political Revelations, High-Stakes Political Games of the 1980s (Mariner Books, 2024).

Den of Spies

Unger spent 30 years researching the October Surprise. His book contains some evidence that Parry's does not.

It's available for online reading as a Kindle book and as an audio book, for those who prefer those media.

Carter wasn't beating Reagan in 1980 no matter what happened.
Unless Carter went back to 1976 and wasn't a weak ass idiot for 4 years.

 

[mikegriffith1]

head of the CIA could have a thousand reasons

Umm, Casey wasn't head of the CIA at the time. He didn't become head of the CIA until after Reagan nominated him and the Senate confirmed him. Casey did not become CIA director until January 28, 1981. We're talking about Casey's doings from July through November 1980.

So, again, why did Casey concoct an elaborate phony alibi for the time period when we now know he was secretly in Madrid?

Once the election was over it would have been pountless and carter would have gotten no credit. That is why it is illofical.

This is both illogical and ahistorical. Carter was still president until January 20, 1981. If the hostages had been returned right after the election or at any point before January 20, this would have made Carter look very good. In fact, it would have looked especially good because it would have showed that he did not stop trying to free the hostages just because he lost the election.

there is still no credible evidence

Unnamed sources are worthless

There is credible evidence, and some of the sources are not unnamed. The problem is that you just don't want to believe it, no matter what, so you just can't bring yourself to look at this issue objectively.

Again, even Parry and Unger do not claim that Reagan knew about Casey's operation, so this is not an attack on Reagan.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Umm, Casey wasn't head of the CIA at the time. He didn't become head of the CIA until after Reagan nominated him and the Senate confirmed him. Casey did not become CIA director until January 28, 1981. We're talking about Casey's doings from July through November 1980.

So, again, why did Casey concoct an elaborate phony alibi for the time period when we now know he was secretly in Madrid?


This is both illogical and ahistorical. Carter was still president until January 20, 1981. If the hostages had been returned right after the election or at any point before January 20, this would have made Carter look very good. In fact, it would have looked especially good because it would have showed that he did not stop trying to free the hostages just because he lost the election.


There is credible evidence, and some of the sources are not unnamed. The problem is that you just don't want to believe it, no matter what, so you just can't bring yourself to look at this issue objectively.

Again, even Parry and Unger do not claim that Reagan knew about Casey's operation, so this is not an attack on Reagan.

He could have had many rwasons

It would not matter if carter looked good once he lost the election

It is PERFECTLY logical you on the other hand are grasping at straws

There is no credible evidence and just unnamed sources

 

[LA RAM FAN]

this is too funny one disinfo agent shill from langley arguing with the OTHER disinfo shill from langley,pricless and comedy gold.

The NAZI shill from langley is the most sad case on the planet,he is transparent as hell a shill from langley,he is so desperate for attention he talks to himself all the time desperate for the ENTIRE WORLD to hear him on his babble that the warren commission was correct and oswald shot kennedy,he address people that have had him on their ignore list for over a decade in the first person,thats talking to yourself and desperate for attention. whats REALLY comical about him though is he thinks by getting in the last word all the time he won the debate.comedy gold.

He is the biggest dumbass poster the fact he is so transparent as a shill the fact he defends ALL the governments versions of events ALL the time. He gets so angry people to dont listen to him on his lies oswald shot jfk,he goes into meltdown mode and as a result,has spelling problems which everybody makes fun of him for.

mike griffith on the other hand is a FAR much more clever disinfo agent shill from langley than nazi boy is,he is not transparent as he is,He actually posts a lot of truth half the time while the other half the time,ixes in lies with truth,VERY CLEVER shill,he is a clever shill from langley same as alex jones. Jones and mike are controlled oppossition shills. Jones pretends he is for the people and fighting the deep state but he IS the deep state, same with mike griifith here,he is also part of the deep state and controlled oppossition PRETENDING he is just another poster here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

this is too funny one disinfo agent shill from langley arguing with the OTHER disinfo shill from langley,pricless and comedy gold.

The NAZI shill from langley is the most sad case on the planet,he is transparent as hell a shill from langley,he is so desperate for attention he talks to himself all the time desperate for the ENTIRE WORLD to hear him on his babble that the warren commission was correct and oswald shot kennedy,he address people that have had him on their ignore list for over a decade in the first person,thats talking to yourself and desperate for attention. whats REALLY comical about him though is he thinks by getting in the last word all the time he won the debate.comedy gold.

He is the biggest dumbass poster the fact he is so transparent as a shill the fact he defends ALL the governments versions of events ALL the time. He gets so angry people to dont listen to him on his lies oswald shot jfk,he goes into meltdown mode and as a result,has spelling problems which everybody makes fun of him for.

mike griffith on the other hand is a FAR much more clever disinfo agent shill from langley than nazi boy is,he is not transparent as he is,He actually posts a lot of truth half the time while the other half the time,ixes in lies with truth,VERY CLEVER shill,he is a clever shill from langley same as alex jones. Jones and mike are controlled oppossition shills. Jones pretends he is for the people and fighting the deep state but he IS the deep state, same with mike griifith here,he is also part of the deep state and controlled oppossition PRETENDING he is just another poster here.

Is Langley in the room with you right now?

 

[mikegriffith1]

He could have had many rwasons

Many reasons to secretly fly to Madrid in the middle of a presidential campaign and then later concoct an elaborate phony alibi for it? Really? Can you name one such reason?

It would not matter if carter looked good once he lost the election. It is PERFECTLY logical you on the other hand are grasping at straws.

Listen to yourself. It would not have mattered if a president who had just lost the election succeeded in getting the hostages home before his term ended, thus enabling him to leave office on a historic high note and with sky-high approval ratings???

It's very simple: Neither the Ayatollah nor the Casey gang wanted Carter to get any credit for the return of the hostages. The Ayatollah had been promised that Reagan would give him a better deal, so he naturally was willing to hold the hostages until after Reagan took office. And the Republicans naturally wanted Reagan to get all the credit for the hostages' return.

And look what happened right after Reagan took office: he started selling weapons to the Ayatollah, something that Carter had forbidden.

There is no credible evidence

How can you say this when you haven't even read any of it? You are just dismissing it without even reading it.

and just unnamed sources

I already refuted this. Again, one of the Iranian sources who confirmed the Casey-Iran deal was the moderate Iranian leader Abolhassan Banisadr, who turned against the Ayatollah and fled Iran. Banisadr was Iran's first president after the Shah was deposed, which is why he knew about the deal. After fleeing to France, Banisadr became a leader among anti-Ayatollah Iranians.

Another Iranian source on the Casey-Iran deal was Jamshid Hashemi, an Iranian arms dealer. Hashemi took part in the meeting with Casey in Madrid, along with his brother Cyrus Hashemi, who was also an arms dealer. Two Iranian officials were also at the meeting with Casey. Jamshid Hashemi later went public with his knowledge of the deal.

So, no, we're not talking about just unnamed sources.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's very simple: Neither the Ayatollah nor the Casey gang wanted Carter to get any credit for the return of the hostages.

Exactly!
No need for a deal to keep the hostages to make weak, useless Carter look weak and useless.

 

[Dante]

Until fairly recently, I flatly rejected the "October Surprise" claim that top Republicans, especially William Casey, cut a deal with the Iranians to hold the American hostages until after the 1980 election. I did not believe former NSC staffer Gary Sick's 1991 book on the subject. However, after reading Dr. Kai Bird's book The Outlier and especially after reading award-winning investigative journalist Robert Parry's 2016 book Trick or Treason: The 1980 October Surprise Mystery, I am convinced that Casey and certain other top Reagan backers did make a deal with the Iranians to delay releasing the hostages until after the election.

Among other things, Parry demolishes the 1991 congressional October Surprise Task Force's report. For example, Parry debunks the committee's claims about Casey's alibi for the time period when he reportedly met with Iranian contacts in Madrid, Spain. Parry found documents that showed that the George H. W. Bush White House withheld key evidence from the October Surprise Task Force. This evidence included a secret State Department cable that proved that Casey was in Madrid at the exact same time an Iranian source said Casey met with Iranian representatives to try to persuade them not to release the hostages until after the election.

I take no pleasure in acknowledging the evidence that top Reagan backers persuaded the Iranians not to release the hostages until after the election. I just hope that Reagan was not aware of this effort. If evidence ever surfaces that Reagan knew about it, my opinion of him will change substantially. I would not put it past Casey to take this action on his own, without Reagan's knowledge. I hope that was the case.

Jimmy Carter arguably would have won the 1980 election if he had been able to get the hostages released before the election.

October Surprise? You mean like Hunter's Laptop? It's failing drove some Trump people right over the edge.​

Carter? Was not a fan of his presidency, but was a staunch Liberal, and loyal Democrat. I was not a fan of Reagan. I doubt Carter would've won without this. Who knows for sure.

 

[Dante]

Many reasons to secretly fly to Madrid in the middle of a presidential campaign and then later concoct an elaborate phony alibi for it? Really? Can you name one such reason?


Listen to yourself. It would not have mattered if a president who had just lost the election succeeded in getting the hostages home before his term ended, thus enabling him to leave office on a historic high note and with sky-high approval ratings???

It's very simple: Neither the Ayatollah nor the Casey gang wanted Carter to get any credit for the return of the hostages. The Ayatollah had been promised that Reagan would give him a better deal, so he naturally was willing to hold the hostages until after Reagan took office. And the Republicans naturally wanted Reagan to get all the credit for the hostages' return.

And look what happened right after Reagan took office: he started selling weapons to the Ayatollah, something that Carter had forbidden.


How can you say this when you haven't even read any of it? You are just dismissing it without even reading it.


I already refuted this. Again, one of the Iranian sources who confirmed the Casey-Iran deal was the moderate Iranian leader Abolhassan Banisadr, who turned against the Ayatollah and fled Iran. Banisadr was Iran's first president after the Shah was deposed, which is why he knew about the deal. After fleeing to France, Banisadr became a leader among anti-Ayatollah Iranians.

Another Iranian source on the Casey-Iran deal was Jamshid Hashemi, an Iranian arms dealer. Hashemi took part in the meeting with Casey in Madrid, along with his brother Cyrus Hashemi, who was also an arms dealer. Two Iranian officials were also at the meeting with Casey. Jamshid Hashemi later went public with his knowledge of the deal.

So, no, we're not talking about just unnamed sources.

Well informed post. A rare gem here @ usmb.

thank you
D

 

[mikegriffith1]

Exactly! No need for a deal to keep the hostages to make weak, useless Carter look weak and useless.

That is the exact opposite of what I said. It's also the exact opposite of what the situation was at the time.

The Casey gang knew that if the hostages were returned before the election, Carter had an excellent chance of winning. Again, even Cadell's internal polls showed Carter with a slight lead going into the last days of the election but with a huge chunk of undecideds (13%). When the hostages were not returned, the undecideds broke strongly for Reagan, while some broke for Anderson.

And, between the election and Carter's last day in office, neither the Ayatollah nor the Casey gang wanted Carter to get any credit for the return of the hostages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Casey gang knew that if the hostages were returned before the election, Carter had an excellent chance of winning.

Baloney.

 

[mikegriffith1]

October Surprise? You mean like Hunter's Laptop? It's failing drove some Trump people right over the edge.

I think you are seriously misinformed about Hunter's laptop. You appear to be unaware of what was learned about it.

What Congress Should Ask FBI Agent Who Hid Biden Laptop

Elvis Chan can untangle how the government interfered in the 2020 election by lying that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.

thefederalist.com

'Twitter Files' Show FBI Neck-Deep In The Russian Disinfo Lie

Latest 'Twitter Files' suggest the FBI was very involved in crafting the Russian disinfo narrative to kill the Hunter Biden laptop story.

thefederalist.com

After Nuking Hunter Biden Laptop Story, Corrupt Press Admit It Was Legit

After crying 'Russian disinformation,' the press is quietly admitting that the Hunter Biden laptop story was real all along.

thefederalist.com

Carter? Was not a fan of his presidency, but was a staunch Liberal, and loyal Democrat. I was not a fan of Reagan. I doubt Carter would've won without this. Who knows for sure.

Well, we know that Republican officials and campaign staffers believed Carter would win if the hostages were returned before the election. We know that Democrat officials and campaign staffers believed the same thing. Casey and his bunch weren't taking any chances.