The movie seems so bad it could be good, if it is bad enough...
btw, you forgot to vote!
cheers

In reply to this comment by Biminim:
Anything wants to be eating babies--that's a movie for me.

No, not really. The initial hostage problem was "solved" when Reagan took office. When Carter and Reagan were in the limo going to the inaugural together, Carter got a call that the hostages were being released. There is much speculation that somehow the Reagan team orchestrated the release, that there was a back channel deal to keep the hostages through the election, and that once Reagan got elected and inaugurated, they would be let go.

^Biminim:^

Does that mean that the situation McCain is referring to was actually a problem solved by Jimmy Carter and not Reagan at all?

In reply to this comment by Biminim:
I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.