Text 26343, 128 rader
Skriven 2009-01-18 14:46:08 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 26212 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: The first of many to com
================================
Hello Ross,

>RC>He was indecisive in the hostage crisis, holed himself up in the
>RC>White House and showed the world that hostage taking and
>RC>terroristic activities could disrupt the routines of the Govt.

>BF>Indecisive as in not listening to the trigger happy agencies that
>BF>assured him they could easily free the hostage (yeah, right, sure they
>BF>could...).

RC>He authorized and signed off on the mission, but take note
RC>I didnt mention the failed rescue mission in my original message,
RC>I didnt fault him for that..

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned in protest.

RC>I faulted him for letting the situation hold him hostage.

I fault presidential candidate Ronald Reagan for having made
a deal with the Iranians to refuse to allow the hostages to
return home so that presidential candidate Ronald Reagan would
have a better chance of winning the presidential election.

RC>AAMOF, had he not authorized any rescue mission, he would
RC>have been looked back at with more fault.

It was a good plan, but an unexpected sandstorm got in the way.
Even if everything had gone perfectly, it was expected that at
least half of the hostages would die.  And that would have been
considered a success.

RC>We can look back at the scenario by saying that US Cold War
RC>Politics in supporting the Shah and his oppresive regime
RC>caused the root problem, we cannot hold the hostages
RC>responsible, and having them held hostage for over a year
RC>was unacceptable.

Henry Kissinger supported the Shah.  While it would have been
unthinkable for any U.S. president to turn over the dying Shah
to the fanatical Iranian regime, it is not unthinkable that a
U.S. president hellbent on war might order a nuclear strike
against such an oppressive regime - even if that oppressive
regime posed no threat to our national security.

>RC>We had oil/gas shortages, double digit inflation and massive
>RC>unemployment.

>BF>And how could any of that be Carter's fault? In the first case it
>BF>was the Arabs that caused it (the entire world had the same problem)
>BF>and in the second and third case you were paying the price for a
>BF>stupid "police action" in Vietnam, surely you understand that such an
>BF>enormous military-industrial venture comes at a severe cost for the
>BF>people that eventually has to foot the bill?

RC>It was under his watch...

The events of 9-11 occurred under George W. Bush's watch.
Does that make George W. Bush responsible for what happened?

Hurricane Katrina breaking the levees and inundating the city
of New Orleans occurred under George W. Bush's watch.  Does that
make George W. Bush responsible for what happened?

President Carter could no more control the actions of a fanatical
Iranian regime than could President Bush control the actions of
fanatical Muslim terrorists or the forces of nature.

It is what a president does *after* such events take place that
is important.  Sure, every president does his best to prevent that
which can prevented.  But some things are beyond the control of
any president.

RC>Just like Bush and the GOP are being held accountable for
RC>everything that occurred under his watch that easily
RC>propelled Obama into winning the recent election.

The Republican-dominated Congress never held President George W. Bush
accoutable for anything.  It was not until after the American people
booted the Republicans out of office, putting the Democrats in charge
of Congress, that some brakes were put on President George W. Bush.

RC>Our current economic crisis stemmed from the bad mortgages
RC>that 2 Federal Enterprises bought up that severely strained
RC>the credit markets..

Our current economic crisis stemmed from the total mismanagement
of the Bush administration, Bush's policy of borrowing from China
and other lands to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy being just
one aspect of his madcap policies.  Going to war based on false
pretenses is another area.

RC>These Enterprises were directed into supporting these bad loans
RC>under the Clinton administration.

Clinton left Bush with a surplus.  Bush squandered that surplus,
going into deficit spending *before* the events of 9-11.  Our economy
was sound before Bush took office, it is in dire straits today. Had the
real winner of the presidential election (Al Gore) been allowed to take
office, the present economic crisis never would have happened.  The war
on Iraq also never would have happened. And Osama bin Laden, along with
Mullah Omar, would either be in captivity or dead.  It is also quite
probable that the events of 9-11 would have been prevented.

RC>When Bush administration officials at the watchdog agencies
RC>overseeing these 2 enterprises tried to tell Congress that these
RC>enterprises were in trouble (2003-05), they were rebuffed by the
RC>liberal congressman, whom are now admitting that there are issues..

Nice spin.  Except for one problem -

Republicans controlled the White House.
Republicans controlled the Congress.
Republicans controlled the US Supreme Court.

The US was, in effect, a one-party state.

RC>This wasnt Bush's fault, yet the meltdown happened under
RC>his watch, hence he gets the blame.

Nothing is ever the bush's fault.  He's god.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * BE A SAINT +

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)