7 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst President of our lifetime

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Military spending decreased every year from 1969 to 1976. In 1977 spending started to increase until 1986. It stayed steady until 1989. From 1990 until 2002 it mostly went down. It spiked up again in 2003.

The mission failure was caused by a brutal sandstorm, radio silence, and equipment failures related to the sandstorm. It was not Carter’s fault in any way except by virtue of him being President.

If anyone had blame it would be the planners. They sent a force that was too small. 8 started out. 2 aborted on the way to the rendezvous with the C-130s, and 1 had its primary hydraulics system fail at the site. With 6 aircraft as a mission minimum, the rescue was aborted. In my previous post I should have made it clear that the accident happened after the mission had been aborted.

The military’s pilots who were involved in the mission and the accident were the best trained we had. All had many, many years of experience and almost certainly were Viet Nam veterans. Why do I say that? Because that’s who you send on a mission like that.

Like with Obama, there are enough real issues with Carter. This was a case of bad luck, not a bad president.

Defense Budget (in billions)
1975 $293.3 Ford (fall of Saigon on 30 April)
1976 $283.8 Ford
1977 $286.2 Carter
1978 $286.5 Carter
1979 $295.6 Carter (the Iran Hostage Crisis begins November 4)
1980 $303.4 Carter (failed Operation Eagle Claw: April 24-25)
1981 $317.4 Reagan

The Marines piloting the RH-53D Sea Stallions were not fully integrated and trained to operate with Delta Force, but they were employed because no Army pilots were trained to operate the Sea Stallions - the only helicopter with the range to accomplish the mission (Bowden's Guests of the Ayatollah).

Training operations during the Carter years were seriously curtailed because of budgetary constraints, and equipment deadline rates soared because there was no money for repair parts. I was there; I remember it well.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Defense Budget (in billions)
1975 $293.3 Ford (fall of Saigon on 30 April)
1976 $283.8 Ford
1977 $286.2 Carter
1978 $286.5 Carter
1979 $295.6 Carter (the Iran Hostage Crisis begins November 4)
1980 $303.4 Carter (failed Operation Eagle Claw: April 24-25)
1981 $317.4 Reagan

The Marines piloting the RH-53D Sea Stallions were not fully integrated and trained to operate with Delta Force, but they were employed because no Army pilots were trained to operate the Sea Stallions - the only helicopter with the range to accomplish the mission (Bowden Guests of the Ayatollah).

Training operations during the Carter years were seriously curtailed because of budgetary constraints, and equipment deadline rates soared because there was no money for repair parts. I was there; I remember it well.

Yes I B, you are right, the sandstorm had nothing to do with it.

Our military was piss poorly trained and had nothing to fly and Carter was to blame.

That is why the Iranians were scared of Reagan , because they knew our military was poorly trained but Reagan would single handily come over there and kick their ass.

And if all else failed, Reagan would sale them arms.

Yea that is it....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yea but I B was sly enough to divert the answer. He did not answer the obvious question I asked but instead hung his hat on the one thing Reagan may not have been in the loop on, though North sure said he was.

Were weapons given to Iran during the Reagan years? Yes. Did this happen on Reagan's watch? Yes. Were some of the proceeds used to fund the Contras? Yes. Was Reagan ultimately responsible? Yes. Was Reagan intimately aware of all of the details of every associated operation? Demonstrably, no. So your absolute statement stating otherwise is not substantiated by verifiable fact.

Originally Posted by WTF

Nobody was able to prove that the GOP withheld the release of the American hostages but it sure the fuc was in their best interest if they wanted to defeat Jimmy Carter. The Iranians influenced out 1980 election and Reagan rewarded them with arms. The question has always been, was it negotiated before hand.

This has been proven to be a conspiracy hoax - take off your tin-foil hat.

Originally Posted by WTF

The present Republican field of Presidential candidates always invoke old Ronnie, which one of them would say they will sell arms to Iran and grant amnesty to illegal's and get elected today? Which one would tout raising the SS tax rate? The tax on a gallon of gasoline? The people that worship Reagan really do not have a clue as to just wtf he did. Barrack Obama is way more like Reagan than any of these clowns are and the right leaning posters in this forum are to ignorant on this subject to even know wtf their hero's history is.

First, some White House officials and Republicans in Congress contended this week, the Boland Amendment's ban on ''direct or indirect'' aid to the contras by ''any agency or entity involved in intelligence activities'' did not apply to the President or his National Security Council [the Democrats, of course, disagreed].

Second, they have suggested, if these restrictions were interpreted to apply to the President or his National Security Council staff, they might be unconstitutional [the Democrats, once again - of course, disagreed]. President Reagan said in a magazine interview made public yesterday that the Congressional ban did not prevent him from asking others to supply aid. ''And there is nothing that has ever been in the Boland Amendment that could keep me from asking other people to help the rebels,'' Mr. Reagan was quoted as saying in the May 25 edition of U.S. News and World Report. ''The only restriction on me was that I couldn't approve the sending of help or arms out of our budget.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/17/wo...ess-s-ban.html

Very recently a president defied Congress by going to war in Libya. He wasn’t impeached.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Our military was piss poorly trained and had nothing to fly and Carter was to blame.

That is why the Iranians were scared of Reagan ,

Yeah, that about sums it up.

It was pilot error (attributable to lack of training) that caused the crash. The pilot didn't hold his position and allowed his hoovering helicopter to drift into the stationary C-130 fuel plane.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Were weapons given to Iran during the Reagan years? Yes. Did this happen on Reagan's watch? Yes. Were some of the proceeds used to fund the Contras? Yes. Was Reagan ultimately responsible? Yes. Was Reagan intimately aware of all of the details of every associated operation? Demonstrably, no. So your absolute statement stating otherwise is not substantiated by verifiable fact.
This has been proven to be a conspiracy hoax - take off your tin-foil hat.
First, some White House officials and Republicans in Congress contended this week, the Boland Amendment's ban on ''direct or indirect'' aid to the contras by ''any agency or entity involved in intelligence activities'' did not apply to the President or his National Security Council [the Democrats, of course, disagreed].

Second, they have suggested, if these restrictions were interpreted to apply to the President or his National Security Council staff, they might be unconstitutional [the Democrats, once again - of course, disagreed]. President Reagan said in a magazine interview made public yesterday that the Congressional ban did not prevent him from asking others to supply aid. ''And there is nothing that has ever been in the Boland Amendment that could keep me from asking other people to help the rebels,'' Mr. Reagan was quoted as saying in the May 25 edition of U.S. News and World Report. ''The only restriction on me was that I couldn't approve the sending of help or arms out of our budget.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/17/wo...ess-s-ban.html

Very recently a president defied Congress by going to war in Libya. He wasn’t impeached.

This is where Obama parts company with Reagan. He used the illegal libya air war support came from the Pentagon's budget while at the same time violating the war powers act.

[JD Barleycorn]

I have to disagree. The planners (who you blame) came up with a plan involving gunships, a number of helicopters, a CAP, and a large number of fighting men. The predicted over 1,000 Iranian deaths and the loss of maybe half the hostages. Carter didn't want to kill that many Iranians so he asked the planners how many helicopters did they need, minimum, to pull of the mission. He was told that they needed at least 10, eight for the mission and two backups. Carter said they would use eight only (micromanaging the professionals). The helicopters did not have the proper filter screens since they had not been delivered to the ship and the intakes were fouled with sand. The buck stops in the Oval Office. Carter micromanaged the professionals and the logistics were not there to support the people on the ground or the ship. The military had been plagues with budget cut after budget cut under Carter. They were not up to speed and Carter didn't have the stomach for the fight. Don't worry though, Warren Christopher was the man who said the students would respect our embassy and he got promoted under Bill Clinton.

[JD Barleycorn]

Why are you making fun of the late Don Knotts. He was a World War II veteran and I expect a little bit more respect for Don Knotts. Barney Fife was a character he played and recieved five Emmy nominations for.

[JD Barleycorn]

Funny, I also have a Maytag repairman job and spend a lot of time researching things. You want links, you got em.

If I got some factually wrong then point it out with supporting evidence. Despite your claims you haven't done that.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why are you making fun of the late Don Knotts. He was a World War II veteran and I expect a little bit more respect for Don Knotts. Barney Fife was a character he played and recieved five Emmy nominations for.

It would have been more correct to have used "Barney Fife" for the metaphor.

[JD Barleycorn]

Arguing over opinion is not the same as proving facts.

Answer these questions about presidential travel; why did Obama go to Germany? why did Obama go to Egypt? why did Obama go to India? why did Obama go to Denmark? None of them had anything to do with policy. They were all about Obama.

I call them vacations, CBS doesn't.

Still doesn't answer the question about why are YOU bringing up Bush again?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I have to disagree. The planners (who you blame) came up with a plan involving gunships, a number of helicopters, a CAP, and a large number of fighting men. The predicted over 1,000 Iranian deaths and the loss of maybe half the hostages. Carter didn't want to kill that many Iranians so he asked the planners how many helicopters did they need, minimum, to pull of the mission. He was told that they needed at least 10, eight for the mission and two backups. Carter said they would use eight only (micromanaging the professionals). The helicopters did not have the proper filter screens since they had not been delivered to the ship and the intakes were fouled with sand. The buck stops in the Oval Office. Carter micromanaged the professionals and the logistics were not there to support the people on the ground or the ship. The military had been plagues with budget cut after budget cut under Carter. They were not up to speed and Carter didn't have the stomach for the fight. Don't worry though, Warren Christopher was the man who said the students would respect our embassy and he got promoted under Bill Clinton.

who are you disagreeing with? its hard to tell since you didn't quote the relevant post.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Were weapons given to Iran during the Reagan years? Yes. Did this happen on Reagan's watch? Yes. Were some of the proceeds used to fund the Contras? Yes. Was Reagan ultimately responsible? Yes. Was Reagan intimately aware of all of the details of every associated operation? Demonstrably, no. So your absolute statement stating otherwise is not substantiated by verifiable fact.

That is not the truth. I stated that North said he was in the loop. So I said he sold arms to Iran. Check. I said that North said he was in the Contra loop. Check. I had stated that North was not the most reliable but that is wtf North stated.
This has been proven to be a conspiracy hoax - take off your tin-foil hat.
First, some White House officials and Republicans in Congress contended this week, the Boland Amendment's ban on ''direct or indirect'' aid to the contras by ''any agency or entity involved in intelligence activities'' did not apply to the President or his National Security Council [the Democrats, of course, disagreed].

Second, they have suggested, if these restrictions were interpreted to apply to the President or his National Security Council staff, they might be unconstitutional [the Democrats, once again - of course, disagreed]. President Reagan said in a magazine interview made public yesterday that the Congressional ban did not prevent him from asking others to supply aid. ''And there is nothing that has ever been in the Boland Amendment that could keep me from asking other people to help the rebels,'' Mr. Reagan was quoted as saying in the May 25 edition of U.S. News and World Report. ''The only restriction on me was that I couldn't approve the sending of help or arms out of our budget.''

So thet what you are saying was that it was ok to over charge the Iranians for the weapons sale and divert the over charge to the Contras? Gotcha. How many people were convicted of this crime that seems to not be a crime? How many were eventually pardoned?

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/17/wo...ess-s-ban.html

Very recently a president defied Congress by going to war in Libya. He wasn’t impeached.

Neither was Reagan.

Now who said Obama was more like Reagan than any of the present GOP contenders in this thread? I believe it was WTF.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

This is where Obama parts company with Reagan. He used the illegal libya air war support came from the Pentagon's budget while at the same time violating the war powers act.

You are correct, he should have sold nukes to Iran to paid for the Libyan airstrikes. That way you Reagan supporters could have supported Obama for doing exactly like your hero!

Now correct me if I am wrong but I thought we were getting reimbursed on that cost by other countries including Libya? So it seems he did do exactly as Reagan did. He go another source to fund the airstrikes.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

who are you disagreeing with? its hard to tell since you didn't quote the relevant post.

Exactly.

He appears to be answering something from three pages ago but who knows.

I think it is his new ploy to say something without actually having to be pinned down with actual facts.

I think Maytag is having Washer issues.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Now correct me if I am wrong but I thought we were getting reimbursed on that cost by other countries including Libya? So it seems he did do exactly as Reagan did. He go another source to fund the airstrikes.

Did this really happen? Or, was it all lip service? The U.S. provided most of the ordinance - at a million dollars per pop, because France and Britain soon exhausted their stock piles. Do you have a hyperlink that documents an actual transfer of funds?