I got an e-mail with a theory I couldn't shoot down.

 Do me a favor, look at the story, check for flaws.
 If you can - debunk it.
 If the story is bogus, show me.

 I know what you're going to say:
 "Ol' BartCop's gone off the deep end.
   He's turned "conspiracy crazy on us.' "

 Fine - answer the question, and I'll admit I'm crazy

 Before you dismiss the theory, you should be able to answer the question.
 If you have a problem with the theory - fine.
 Just answer the question.
 
 

 Subject: October Surprise
 

 For those of you what don't remember, October Surprise refers to the claim,  by WITNESSES WHO
 WERE THERE,  that George Bush Sr. and Reagan Campaign Chairman William Casey met with Iranians
 in a hotel in Paris on Oct. 17, 1980 to make a secret deal to trade arms for the hostages to be kept in Iran
 until after candidate Reagan was elected. They would be rewarded for helping Reagan.

 These negotiations were contrary to the legitimate and official negotiations
 underway by the U.S. Government of  President Carter.
 If it happened as the now HALF A DOZEN EYEWITNESSES claim,  it would be treason, right?

 Why should we believe the witnesses?
 My answer is simple,  THE DATE.

 How did they pick the date?

 Obviously, if they made it up, it would be easy to debunk the story.
 All you have to do is to look at the record.

 It's 3 weeks before the Big Election.  Surely the VP Candidate (Bush) would have given an interview,
 made a campaign appearance, taken a picture or something.  All you have to do is produce the newspaper account,
 picture, radio interview - anything to show he was in America that day and the entire theory is completely shot.

 Undoubtedly, the campaign manager would have attended a strategy meeting,
 raised money or just showed up at his office.  It should be very easy to disprove the story.
 Remember, it's just THREE WEEKS before the election.

 SO, WHAT DOES THE RECORD SHOW?

 George Bush, the Vice Presidential Candidate, 3 weeks before the election, disappears from public view on the 16th
 and reappears on the 18th.  Bill Casey, the Campaign Manager, 3 weeks before the election, takes the time to attend
 an Economic Conference at a small college in Southern England.  He signs into the conference on the 15th and nobody
 remembers seeing him again until closing ceremonies on the 18th.

 And, BY COINCIDENCE,  he's two hours away from the hotel in Paris where EYEWITNESSES place him.

 I find this incredible coincidence unacceptable.

 I believe the witnesses.
 They were there.
 I believe that Casey was there.
 It would have been too dangerous for Bush to go himself.
 He could have sent a double to the Paris meeting.

 (Before you 'pooh pooh' the notion, remember, Bush is an old CIA man.
 He is definitely skilled and experienced in the use of doubles.)

 But to send a double, Bush himself would have to disappear from public view so not to expose the fake.
 His double couldn't be meeting terrorists in Paris if he's waving to crowds in Peoria.
 (Iranians would probably not be able to distinguish the real Bush from a double).
 And that's exactly what happened.  It's the only story that fits.

 Also, Bush would need an alibi.
 And, like Al Capone having lunch with a judge during the St. Valentine's Day Massacre,
 George Bush was playing tennis with a Judge at a very private club.

 WHY  DIDN'T  THE  EYEWITNESSES  SPEAK  UP  SOONER?

 They are the Iranians who were at the meeting and the arms dealers (Khashoggi?) that set up the deal.
 They say that as long as Bush was President and he and Casey were in charge of the CIA,
 they were afraid for their lives.  Can you blame them?

 MAYBE THEY RESEARCHED THE DATES and found the one and only date
 that both the Candidate and Campaign Manager were unaccounted for.
 Remember, this was 1980, there was no internet, there was no way research this material.

 IT COULD ONLY BE ONE OF THREE THINGS:
 1.   The Iranians are really, really, really good guessers.
 2.   The Iranians have extraordinary psychic ability
 3.   Or, George Bush WAS there, and he made a deal to let those people rot another 77 days
       so Saint Reagan could get elected and give the billionaires their massive tax cuts.

 How can you possibly put any faith in options 1 or 2?
 Until a Blind Faith Republican can show me a fourth possibility, the question remains.

 So, here's the BIG question:

 How did the Iranians pick a date Bush couldn't explain away?

 We have to believe NO. 3

 This, of course is only one of the incredible coincidences relating to this story,
 including the fact that the British, French and Russian Intelligence Agencies
 (including the highly-touted KGB) place candidate Bush in Paris that weekend.

 The fact that the Carter negotiators thought they had a deal until suddenly, after the 17th, the Iranians pulled out,
 even as Ronald Reagan was on the campaign trail swearing to never trade arms for those hostages.
 And, Of course, the day that Reagan took office, the hostages were released and arms began to move into Iran.

 You can say none of this happened, but look at the motivation.
 The Iranians wanted out of the hostage mess and they needed weapons to fight Iraq.
 Reagan and Bush wanted power so bad, they were willing to break the law and screw those hostages.

 We know for a FACT they secretly sold weapons to Iran - why?
 When we were about to find out, Bush pardoned the whole gang to keep them quiet.

 THERE IS MUCH MORE EVIDENCE.
 Far more than anything brought against Bill Clinton.

 If you want to get deeper into it, you can find much more information
 at  http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html