Rudy: "They Looked In Reagan's Eyes"

From the debate:

Speaking of Iran, Giuliani said "they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages." That was a reference to the U.S. hostages released from captivity on the day of Reagan's inauguration in 1981.

Oh really? Then how do you explain this, Rudy?

In 1983, Buckley succeeded Ken Haas as the Beirut Station Chief/Political Officer at the U.S. Embassy, but was kidnapped by the Islamist group Hezbollah on March 16, 1984. Hezbollah was closely allied to Iran. William Casey, who was by then the Director of Central Intelligence, asked Ted Shackley for help in securing Buckley’s release. Three weeks after Buckley’s abduction, President Ronald Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive 138. . . . This was the beginning of the Iran-Contra deal, which culminated in the exchange of missiles for the release of hostages.

Not to mention this:

On October 23 1983, around 6:20 am, a yellow Mercedes-Benz truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the U.S. 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marine Corps, had set up its local headquarters. . . . The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were equivalent to 12,000 pounds (about 5,400kg) of TNT. . . .In the attack on the American barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen . . . The Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. This was completed on February 26; the rest of the MNF was withdrawn by April.

Is that what Rudy is promising in his potential Presidency?

< House Passes Hate Crime Legislation, Bush Signals Veto | The Latest On The Iraq Supplemental >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:24:32 PM EST
    "they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages."

    It was because he winked and they knew the missile deal was a go.

    heh (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:25:54 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    It beats Rudy imagination, no?

    LMAO! (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Freewill on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    I mean (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    Rudy could have called Jarober. Then he'd know the future too... On second thought, he'd probably withdraw from the race if he had.

    Alternate history is a great campaign tool (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Freewill on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:38:42 PM EST
    when it is convenient to prove one's point. Most Americans don't take the time to actually fact check what a politician says about past events and most Americans, depending on their political beliefs, are willing to either accept or reject history based upon who is retelling the history lesson.

    It's like taking one sentence out of a story and explaining that the story revolves around that one sentence. Out of context history lessons that omit the full story's outcome. They pick and choose the moral of the story when it's convenient to their self-interest or their party's interest.

    Tonight's debate to me was a jocking for position by almost everyone of the politicians to see who could convenience America that they were Regan's long lost twin brother. It's truly sad that they couldn't only run on the merits (or lack thereof) of their achievements, instead they had to evoke a dead president's heroically invented legacy to excite potential voters. Sad!

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:43:23 PM EST
    We get to cal them out on it so it's fun for me.

    Amen brother! (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Freewill on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:48:24 PM EST
    I love the Internet and all the investigative tools that help the less wealthy, non-media owning individuals keep the MSM in check from time to time!

    Semi-segue: AP is still reporting (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:56:05 PM EST
    that the Cuban army deserters today were on a plane at Habana airport that was bound for NY.  Don't think so.  BBC doesn't make this mistake.  

    Per Miami Herald: charter plane (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:09:16 AM EST
    I dunno, BTD, I think (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Naftali on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:48:09 PM EST
    you're bringing facts to a narrative-fight.

    Did anyone see who all raised their hands during the 'evolution' question?

    What was the question? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:50:15 PM EST
    I was watching hoops.

    The question was something (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Naftali on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:55:00 PM EST
    in the neighborhood of, "Raise your hand if you don't believe in evolution."

    I missed the moment, so am furiously Googling for accuracy ...


    Well, from the dKos (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Naftali on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:01:13 PM EST
    thread, apparently Tancredo, Brownback, and Huckabee don't believe in evolution, and possibly Romney raised his hand as well. But nobody seems too sure about Romney.

    Romney flip flopped (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:06:09 PM EST
    in the middle of raising his hand?

    Checked swing (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:50:10 PM EST
    Reminds me of my dogs (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Light Emitting Pickle on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:08:26 AM EST
    When they aren't sure whether or not they've done something right or wrong, they wag the first few inches of their tails. Kinda like a Romney half-wave.

    Rudy's comment sounds like a (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:48:38 PM EST
    song title--maybe Cole Porter.

    Rudy should have enough sense to know George W. Bush's comment about seeing into Putin's soul kind of backfired.  

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:49:50 PM EST
    I looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes . . . (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by walt on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:54:50 PM EST
    . . . and saw the brain-dead, vacant, vacuous stare of an Alzheimer's patient, in 1980.

    All of the stuff done on Reagan's watch was at the fine left hand of Bu$h xli, GHWB.  Baker & Schulz ran the foreign policy as per broad guidelines from the Veep.  Nancy & Donald Regan ran the domestic stuff.

    The rest is faux history.

    Iran-Contra was (is) treason.  Oh well, la plus ça change, la plus ça même chose.

    According to today's NY Times, Reagans (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:58:00 PM EST
    hand written diaries are coming out in print soon.  But nothing juicy on Iran-Contra, which isn't too surprising.

    Sounds like his lord and master, Bush. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Eternal Hope on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:38:31 PM EST
    "I have looked into Putin's eyes and I can see into his soul."

    And Putin played Bush like a violin.

    they looked into Reagan's eyes..... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by roooth on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:39:02 PM EST
    OMIFREAKINGGOD - I am SO freaking tired of the right-wing's desparate need to sanctify Reagan.

    And Guliani's statement is wrong on every possible level.

    1. Remember how Pelosi got gored by Repugs for talking to the Syrians? Reagan negotiated with the Iranian terrorists when he was a private citizen, before he became president, and promised them he would unfreeze 8 BILLION dollars in frozen assets in exchange for the hostages.

    Next time someone accuses Dems of "enabling terrorists" because we want our troops home, think about how enabled the Iranian terrorists felt when Reagan gave them 8 billion dollars so he could look like a hero.

    1. In an act of political cynicism and questionable humanity, Reagan had the hostages held longer than necessary so that they would be released as he was inaugurated. Brilliant PR visual; Americans saw the hostages freed as Ronnie was inaugurated, but only a man without morals makes a deal like that simply to make himself look good politically.

    2. The Iranians financed the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon. Maybe with the $8 billion Ronnie gave them. AFTER the bombing, when Ronnie needed cash to fund terrorists in South America, he sold weapons to Iran. Twice.

    3. Even as Reagan was signing a bill into law that made it illegal to sell weapons to Iran, among other terrorist states, he was selling weapons to Iran and lying about it. This was the basis of Iran Contra.

    The only lesson Reagan taught the Iranians, and every other terrorist in the Middle East, is that terrorism is a profitable tool and Republican politicians will make deals with terrorists, as long as its profitable, no matter how many Americans are killed.

    Sounds like GOP SOP (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TexDem on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:36:51 AM EST

    only a man without morals makes a deal like that simply to make himself look good politically.

    I don't recall anyone from the GOP acting differently in the last forty years.


    I missed it all, shucks (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:02:59 AM EST
    Tucker Carlson this morning just can't get enough of Rudy knowing the difference between a Sunni and Shia.  Rudy was asked point blank and he knew the answer and Tucker thinks that is just amazing.  I'm so sad.  This is a sad sad damned country when a Presidential candidate of the party that lied us into war and rubber stamped us into hell is given a virtual award for knowing common things about the people we attacked going on five years now!

    I can't wait until Tucker asks Rudy (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Freewill on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:32:23 AM EST
    "What is the cost of a loaf of bread - in Iraq"?

    they looked in Reagan's eyes (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Miss Devore on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:57:21 AM EST
    and plucked two pennies off a dead man.

    speaking of when Irish eyes aren't smiling:


    I looked this time (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    Good stuff.

    I looked into Reagan's eye's (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TomStewart on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    and saw to the back of his skull. Good Lord, you'd think Ronnie was eight feet tall, with hammers for hands and a voice that could be heard 'round the world (the better to scare the bad people).

     Reagan was an ill man whose minions covered up his disease and ran his government in a successful bid to stay in power. He had no business in the White House.

    I saw a... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:14:46 PM EST
    guy who ratted out his friends and hollywood colleagues for their political beliefs...yeah, a real hero.

    It was held at St. Ronnie's in Simi (none / 0) (#19)
    by Coldblue on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:14:44 PM EST
    If Rudy didn't deify Reagan, all of the LA cops that live in Simi Valley(and that's quite a large number) would have wrestled Rudy to the ground and beaten him repeatedly...knowing that a jury in Simi Valley would exonerate them of any wrong doing.

    But that's just my take.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#22)
    by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:49:12 PM EST
    Does this mean:

    -- you now recognize that the Islamists have been an enemy for over 20 years, and that Presidents of both parties have dealt poorly with them?
    -- that negotiating with Islamists is pretty pointless?

    Or is this just a free political shot?

    Jarober wears a tinfoil chapeau (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Repack Rider on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:14:27 PM EST
    you now recognize that the Islamists have been an enemy for over 20 years,

    That's like saying that all Republicans are corrupt, just because that's all we ever hear about them, but wouldn't you agree that some Republicans are NOT corrupt?

    You are in serious tinfoil hat territory.  Some of our enemies are Muslim, but that is as far as it goes.  Some of our enemies are home-grown fundamentalist Christians.  Some of our enemies are not even religious.  Some of our enemies hold elected office in our own country, and some of our enemies are American citizens who are looting the treasury because Dick Cheney handed them the keys.

    negotiating with Islamists is pretty pointless?

    Since we can't just blow every Muslim to vapor, what would you suggest other than "negotiation?"

    Didn't Reagan negotiate with our sworn enemy, Iran by trading arms for hostages?  

    Didn't we sell a lot of WMD to Saddam at about the same time?  Didn't that require negotiation?


    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:34:48 AM EST
    Rudy asked for it. If you were honest you wopuld admit it.

    But you aren't.


    Conservatives comments on (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:54:02 AM EST
    Islamists aren't taken seriously  unless they can demonstrate they can write a short essay accurately tieing in  Mosaddeq, Kermit Roosevelt, Operation AJax, the Shah and subsequent events in the Middle East through Operation Iraqi Liberation.


    Wow (none / 0) (#33)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:50:07 AM EST
    the Islamists have been an enemy for over 20 years

    Well, then we simply need to find their supreme overlord and kill him. Surely someone's calling the shots. Right?


    Hey! Take it easy... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:41:02 AM EST
    You'll confuse him with hard questions. Like, "right"?

    He's following orders. Don't expect too much.


    They Looked in Regan's Eyes (none / 0) (#25)
    by Green26 on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:20:35 PM EST
    Big Tent, could you explain the point of this thread and your mentioin of the two later events during the term of the Reagan administration? Note that I didn't see the debate, so don't know what Rudy was commenting on. When I read your post, I didn't see why Rudy's comment on the Iran hostage situation would mean that no organization or country would ever take hostages or cause any harm to Americans in the future--if that is what you were insinuating. Also, I wondered if Rudy's comment was said in complete seriousness.  

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:33:27 AM EST
    The Iranians looked in Reagan's eyes and turned over the hostages because . . .?

    And did they stop looking in his eyes when they took more hostages?

    Dude, if you are not a GOP troll you should be. You have the intellect for it.

    Finally, suuuuure, Rudy was joking.

    You have to better than that here. jarober is much better than this.


    Why do all of the GOP Trolls start with (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:46:18 AM EST
    "G" or "J"? It's like an affect.

    They have no effect? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:03:06 AM EST
    Pretty much every other word out of the (none / 0) (#27)
    by Freewill on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:19:55 AM EST
    candidate's mouths tonight were "Reagan".

    Rudy said this verbatim:

    Speaking of Iran, Giuliani said "they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages."

    Rudy, did not smirk, laugh, frown, or wink when he said this line. His remark was in reference to how tough the Republican Party has portrayed Reagan over the years. So, Rudy was extremely serious when he conjured up the dead likeness of Reagan in order to try and portray himself as the re-incarnated soul of Reagan. Because Rudy said Reagan was tough, Rudy was implying that he himself was also tough.

    It's pretty hard to sell yourself to America these days as this type or that type of Republican. I don't think too many Repubs would try to convince Americans of their Conservativeness by stating "I'm a conservative cut from the Nixon brand" or "Look at my stance on taxes, I learned everything I know from George Bush Sr.". Because of the lack of recent (past 40 years) non-scandaled Republican Presidents, Senators, or Congress Members it's becoming harder and harder for the G.O.P. to explain its positions by contrasting G.O.P. candidates running for office now to ones that might have possibly excited the G.O.P. base in the past. They are running like hell from G.W. Bush's record in high numbers. They do not want to be compared to G.W. in this current day in age.

    It looks like ole' Ronney is their man. Try to repaint history a bit and hope America doesn't remember the actual history but only remembers the history they fictionalized about the past.

    They sure can make a turd shine when power is at stake! And they'll even tell that it smells wonderful!


    To Big Tent (none / 0) (#39)
    by Green26 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    I find it interesting that you would start crying GOP troll, instead of attempting to answer an honest question. It makes me wonder if you don't have an answer to the question or are afraid to answer it. I'm not even a GOP, let alone a troll. I am independent, with Hillary in the mix of the top couple candidates I'm looking at. I have noticed some of your posts over time, and find you a bit over the top sometimes biased.

    I was having trouble (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nolo on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:02:37 PM EST
    understanding what your question was, personally.  And your suggestion that Rudy might have been joking just made your post sound surreal.

    I found your question (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    worthy of ridicule. Sorry.

    He has answered you. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:27:56 AM EST
    Ronnie showed his true colors in November, 1980 (none / 0) (#44)
    by SeeEmDee on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    when he kissed and made up with George Bush the First...after making a speech in which Reagan was highly critical of the kinds of organizations that Bush belonged to, i.e. The Council on Foreign Relations. Immediately after that rapprochement, Reagan's limping campaign took off running. In short, Reagan pimped himself to Power, and not only he but the entire traditional conservative ideology was bought cheap, like the services of a 20 dollar hooker.

    At that point, anyone who continued to harbor fantasies about Reagan's 'conservatism' was due to be sorely disappointed. Everything he did after that repudiated traditional conservative values. Yet these guys still call him the conservative's conservative. I think I can be excused if I keep an eye out for a large rabbit checking his pocket watch and exclaiming he's late; if Reagan was a conservative, then I'm Alice. It sure feels like Wonderland these past 6 years...

    To Big Tent and Nolo (none / 0) (#46)
    by Green26 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:36:09 PM EST
    You found this question "worth of ridicule" and were unable to understand it?

    "could you explain the point of this thread and your mention of the two later events during the term of the Reagan administration?"

    The question seems fairly straightforward to me. It makes me wonder if you want to discuss issues, or just hear yourself talk. Given your response so far, I suppose you may have just wanted to ridicule Rudy, and had no other point. I guess I may have given you more credit than I should have initially.

    So does the answer (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:41:23 PM EST
    I will humor you.

    Rudy said that the reason the Iranians gave up the hostages was that Reagan had been President for 2 hours. "They looked in his eyes."

    The point of citing later events is that Reagan was STILL President when Iranian backed Hezbollah took MORE hostages and drove Reagan and the US out of Beirut.

    Accepting the ridiculopus premise of Rudy's answer, what happened to Reagan's eyes that Hezbollah took more hostage and bombed him out of Beirut??

    And let me be perfectly clear now, you mreally must be very not bright not to have understood this point the first time.

    I was thinking better of you by suggesting you were a GOP troll.


    What BTD said (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by nolo on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:57:50 PM EST
    The idea that Iran gave up hostages out of fear of Saint Ronnie is completely inconsistent with Reagan's track record during his tenure in office.  But maybe it was unfair of me to assume that you were familiar with the way Reagan backed down in the wake of Hezbollah's bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the fact that Reagan traded arms to Iran in return for hostages held by Hezbollah. If so, I apologize.

    To Big Tent (none / 0) (#51)
    by Green26 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:08:27 PM EST
    Thanks, and thanks for humoring me. Here are a few more questions.

    Because Hezbollah was "closely allied" to Iran, do you think that means Iran controlled Hezbollah, and do you think Hezbollah consulted Iran before they attacked the American barracks in Lebanon?

    Do you think releasing hostages in Iran is the same as an attack on US soldiers in Lebanon by an organization closely allied to Iran?

    What do you think Rudy's answer would be? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    You see, I am playing Rudy's game.

    Have you NOT figured that out yet?


    Sean McCormack, the chief State Department spokesman, said the countries (Iran and Syria) "subcontract" terrorist attacks through Hezbollah.

    "Hezbollah received material support from Iran.... The Syrian government provides political as well as other kinds of support," he said. "So I think it's really time for everybody to acknowledge that these two states do have some measure of control over Hezbollah.

    Please answer this comment. Do you think Rudy will disagree with the Bush Administration on this?


    To Big Tent (none / 0) (#54)
    by Green26 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:07:27 AM EST
    I'd be happy to answer your questions after you answer my prior ones. Here are a few other questions for you.

    Do you think the relationship between Hezbollah and Iran has changed in the past 25 years?

    Are you for or against Hezbollah?

    Okay, I'll answer you recent questions. Yes, I assume Rudy would agree with the State Dept. spokesman. Do you think that these are reasons for the US to stay very involved in the Mideast.