Reviewing the documentary "Cover-up: Behind the Iran Contra Affair"
By Walter Jensen
|
Produced by Barbara Trent, Gary Meyer, and David Kasper
|
 |
From this video the world has attained proof that Ronald Reagan and George Bush used the American hostages, held by the Iranian government, as a political tool to win the 1980 election. Through the "Freedom of Public Information Act" and the Center for Constitutional Rights, we now know the following:
1. Ronald Reagan, in 1979, sent George Bush, Richard Allen, and Donald Greg to two meetings, one in Paris France and one in Washington DC, to insure Carter was not re-elected. They negotiated with Manchari Gorbanifar (Iranian arms dealer), Bani Sadr (president of Iran and political puppet of the Kohmeni regime), Albert Hakim (arms dealer), and Hashem (diplomat of the Iranian government). Reagan's team promised that the US federal government would sell over one billion US dollars in American weapons to Iran if Iran would not release the American hostages until after the 1980 presidential election.
2. The reason Iran needed the weapons was to defend themselves from Iraq. Reagan sold Iran, with out the approval of United States Congress, military weapons to ensure he would be elected president of the United States, keep the campaign contarbutions from US oil companies flowing, and relieve his unfounded fear that the former Soviet Union was going to invade Iran and Iraq.
Since Reagan had no authority to make such a deal, he had to hide this unethical transaction from the Congress and the American people. He did this by using Oliver North, John M. Poindexer, William Case, and National Security Agency to set-up and maintained his cover-up. The illegal arms deal, starting on March 9, 1981 and continuing into 1986, was built upon an elaborate network of dummy corporations (like Kendal Holding Limited and EATSCO) and numbered bank accounts. The dummy corporation, controlled by Iranian sympathizers, bought weapons from the US government and sold them to another dummy corporation, at a small financial increase. The profits made from the first dummy corporation selling to the second was filtered through the CIA and given to the Contras. The Contras were another political Military organization train by the School of Americas, to stamp out land reform in Central America, violently.
In light of all this information, two questions still remain, "Why aren't the guilty members of this sinister crime serving life sentences in a federal penitentiary, for violating the human rights of the Iranian held American hostages?" AND "Why are individuals like Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Oliver North not seen in the same light as Charles Mansion, John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffery Dahmer?
Many nationalist and neo-Conservatives would see the entire Iran/Contra affair not as a cover-up but a good use of political power, an end that justifies the means. They would both see the cover-up as a necessary way to preserve the political and economical structure inside and outside America and a necessary way to maintain, in their opinion, the most advanced society in history, the capitalist system. Both sides believe this action maintained US control in the middle east and kept the oil flowing, regardless of the human suffering and countless human lives that were thrown away all in the name of profit.
For those of you who can not believe the Neo-Conservative trend has white washed the truth don't take my word for it. Rent or buy "Cover-up: Behind the Iran Contra Affair" or read "The Iran Contra Connection: Secret teams and Covert Operations in the Reagan Era" by Peter Dale Scott and judge for yourself.
Quiz time
Q: When were the Iran Hostages released?
A: January 21, 1981.
The same day as Ronald Reagan's inauguration.
Q: Who picked Reagan's Cabinet?
A: No one really knows.
Paul Slansky, in his book 'The Clothes Have No Emperor: A Chronicle of American 80s (ISBN 0-671-67339-4),' he gives his readers the idea that it wasn't Reagan. See pages 11-16.
Q: How did Ronald Reagan avoid answering critical questions?
A: Humor.
Reagan mocked reporters and political opponents by misdirecting their questions in order to make fun of a particular element of the question which was asked before the crowd.
In this way, Reagan avoided answering the question and the laughter from his statement erased the question from the mind of those who heard it.
In other words, the laughter disarmed a potentially damaging situation for Reagan (and/or his staff) and kept the truth from being known and/or discussed.
To conservatives, Reagan was known as the 'Great Communicator.'
However, this was not a title of great respect but a nicely packaged way to ridicule Reagan.
Think of it this way: A 350 pound, 5 foot 2 inch tall man, asks a woman if he is fat, she responds, 'No, you're are a slender reed. From that point on, everyone called the fat man 'slender reed.'
Even today, conservatives are too dense to pick up on the severely sarcastic meaning behind the phrase 'the Great Communicator.'
Revised 08-24-2013
