Why such resistance?
Reader comment on article: The "October Surprise" Theory

Submitted by john w. mcginley (United States), Mar 21, 2004 at 19:40

There is a certain plausibility, prima facie, that through Casey and Bush the Reagan to-be-Administration orchestrated with the Iranians a deal such as actually occurred. It is noteworthy that the day after the deal the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial was that Reagan should welch on this (allegedly) Carter brokered deal. and indeed, this would have been Reagan-esque. But of course Reagan did no such thing.

The Senior Bush's involvement may very well be the blackmailable info which George Tenet even today hold's over the present Bush Administration. Good conspiricies are such that the don't get public attention and if they do they are undertaken in such a way that they can't be demonstrated. The basically emotional need to deny conspiricies is based on a naivte about how the world is actually run. On the other hand the unprovability of the most successful conspiricies lend credibility to mere CLAIMS of conspiricy which usually involve an antisemitic motivation. It's a tough situation, Daniel. But you should keep more of an open mind..

john w. mcginley

ps: this is for sure: the shot that killed kennedy came from the front and the whole thing was orchestrated by Mafia (Marcello) with cooperation from rogue CIA (i.e., the influence of the fired-by- kennedy Allen Dulles). Also, the writings attributed to "Shakespeare" were in fact written by Edward De Vere. Laugh if you need to.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.