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

[CuteOldGuy]

At least Reagan did not sign a bill allowing the indefinite detention without judicial review of US citizens based on the whim of the President.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

COG, you forgot Reuters, LOL!!!!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Associated Press - State controlled media

Originally Posted by WTF

Where do you two get your news when your tin foil hats are in the shop for repair? Lee Atwater ran Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign.

<snip>

What I find funny and really really ignorant is that you two do not believe the man who said that that in fact was exactly what he did. You two act like the news misreported what is factual record.
<snip>

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Ahem, looks like I'm going to have pop WTF's balloon.

WTF, show me where I said anything about Lee Atwater other than a reference to a news organization I mentioned.

WTF, I'm waiting for a retraction.....

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

Or , Mr T could have cut a deal with Iran before the election because an October suprise would have probably gotten Carter re-elected.

Suprise....Reagan shipped arms to Iran through guess what country?

Now if that is true, who were the Iranians more scared of Don Knotts or Mr T?

.

I asked a hypothetical..

[quote=I B Hankering;2001327]Gary Sick’s “October Surprise” story and book was a fraudulent hoax. A 1992 Senate investigation and a 1993 House investigation both exonerated Reagan of this hoax.

Plus: “Based on a review of exclusive documentation it appears that none of [Gary] Sick's key informants had any original knowledge of the October Surprise counterplot, an alleged Reagan campaign attempt in 1980 to head off a preelection release of the 52 American hostages then being held in Tehran. Only by swapping rumors and tacking with the latest ones--a process that the Voice has traced in detail--were they able to create an impression that they knew of this event firsthand.”

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920224-october.htm[/quote] You then provide a link debunking that their was a deal.

Originally Posted by WTF

Was the sale of arms to Iran also false?

One does not have to look to hard to read between the lines.

Iran had kept hostages 444 days and Reagan turns around and rewards them with arms sales?
Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

.

I then say OK, even if the FOS think it impossible. Why would Reagan sell arms to Iran? To free other hostages? If he had such a clear disregard for the law, why would he not disregard it to get elected?

But my major point was that Reagan SOLD ARMS FOR HOSTAGES. Forget the Oct Suprise!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You said you are a man of science; yet you dispute the findings of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) who say October Surprise is a preposterous hoax?

Which had not denied that Reagan sold arms to Iran. My major point of contention.

Originally Posted by WTF

My next question was and pardon me but I should have said, if my first premise is not true, then why did Ronnie sell arms to Iran?

See right here...I no longer cared about the FoS findings, though I freely admit that I was confused as to wtf you were referencing.

Had I, I would have turn this into a global warming hoax where the FOS must be in their interest to clear Reagan just as you righties claim that GW is in all these other scientists who believe in GW.


[quote=I B Hankering;2001727]
To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair[/quote]

So it is not clear why he sold arms to Iran. He damn sure knew about it. He approved it. Could it be that the FOS was wrong and he owed the Iranians? That is a fair question with all the classified doc's still out there.

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.


Reagan traded arms for hostages. Lied about it and then came clean when confronted with the evidence. 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.

From there we went to this.

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 got another source to fund the airstrikes.

I misspoke

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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?

After you asked me about it and I researched it and realized I had. I then decided to turn about this FOS that you kept side stepping. You/I had comingled two things. Reagan selling arms to Iran and the Oct suprise.

I then provided your own link because it had as much to do with the fact of Reagan selling arms to Iran as it had to do with Obama getting reinbursed for the arms cost in Libya.

That is what seems to have went over both you and dilberts head.

Originally Posted by WTF

I have scientific evidence...

http://www.fas.org/

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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?

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course it did not happen just as Iraq repaying us for the cost of that war, as Cheney said they would, did not happen!

When it comes to Defense Contractors making money...things never are as they should be

...and made no bones about it being BS. You two had missed the irony.



[quote=I B Hankering;2003409]Still waiting for a reply:

www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2003237&postcou nt=199[/quote]

I had already replied and thought I had explained the jest....

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'm not aware of any reports that the U.S was getting reimbursed by its participating allies for support costs.

If you can show that link. I'll shut up about this and say Obama pulled a Reagan.

I had already said this in response:

Originally Posted by WTF

Or , Mr T could have cut a deal with Iran before the election because an October suprise would have probably gotten Carter re-elected.

Suprise....Reagan shipped arms to Iran through guess what country?

Now if that is true, who were the Iranians more scared of Don Knotts or Mr T?

.

I asked a hypothetical..

[quote=I B Hankering;2001327]Gary Sick’s “October Surprise” story and book was a fraudulent hoax. A 1992 Senate investigation and a 1993 House investigation both exonerated Reagan of this hoax.

Plus: “Based on a review of exclusive documentation it appears that none of [Gary] Sick's key informants had any original knowledge of the October Surprise counterplot, an alleged Reagan campaign attempt in 1980 to head off a preelection release of the 52 American hostages then being held in Tehran. Only by swapping rumors and tacking with the latest ones--a process that the Voice has traced in detail--were they able to create an impression that they knew of this event firsthand.”

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920224-october.htm[/quote] You then provide a link debunking that their was a deal.

Originally Posted by WTF

Was the sale of arms to Iran also false?

One does not have to look to hard to read between the lines.

Iran had kept hostages 444 days and Reagan turns around and rewards them with arms sales?
Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

.

I then say OK, even if the FOS think it impossible. Why would Reagan sell arms to Iran? To free other hostages? If he had such a clear disregard for the law, why would he not disregard it to get elected?

But my major point was that Reagan SOLD ARMS FOR HOSTAGES. Forget the Oct Suprise!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You said you are a man of science; yet you dispute the findings of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) who say October Surprise is a preposterous hoax?

Which had not denied that Reagan sold arms to Iran. My major point of contention.

Originally Posted by WTF

My next question was and pardon me but I should have said, if my first premise is not true, then why did Ronnie sell arms to Iran?

See right here...I no longer cared about the FoS findings, though I freely admit that I was confused as to wtf you were referencing.

Had I, I would have turn this into a global warming hoax where the FOS must be in their interest to clear Reagan just as you righties claim that GW is in all these other scientists who believe in GW.


[quote=I B Hankering;2001727]
To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair[/quote]

So it is not clear why he sold arms to Iran. He damn sure knew about it. He approved it. Could it be that the FOS was wrong and he owed the Iranians? That is a fair question with all the classified doc's still out there.

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.


Reagan traded arms for hostages. Lied about it and then came clean when confronted with the evidence. 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.

From there we went to this.

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 got another source to fund the airstrikes.

I misspoke

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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?

After you asked me about it and I researched it and realized I had. I then decided to turn about this FOS that you kept side stepping. You/I had comingled two things. Reagan selling arms to Iran and the Oct suprise.

I then provided your own link because it had as much to do with the fact of Reagan selling arms to Iran as it had to do with Obama getting reinbursed for the arms cost in Libya.

That is what seems to have went over both you and dilberts head.

Originally Posted by WTF

I have scientific evidence...

http://www.fas.org/

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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?

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course it did not happen just as Iraq repaying us for the cost of that war, as Cheney said they would, did not happen!

When it comes to Defense Contractors making money...things never are as they should be

...and made no bones about it being BS. You two had missed the irony.



[quote=I B Hankering;2003409]Still waiting for a reply:

www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2003237&postcou nt=199[/quote]

I had already replied and thought I had explained the jest....

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'm not aware of any reports that the U.S was getting reimbursed by its participating allies for support costs.

If you can show that link. I'll shut up about this and say Obama pulled a Reagan.

I had already said this in response:

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course it did not happen just as Iraq repaying us for the cost of that war, as Cheney said they would, did not happen!

When it comes to Defense Contractors making money...things never are as they should be

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your link is too broad - you more or less said your evidence is out there, find it for yourself. BTW, that's also another way to say you cannot find a link to substantiate your statement; thus, rendering your statement as nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

I had already said this in response to your question....

Originally Posted by WTF

Or , Mr T could have cut a deal with Iran before the election because an October suprise would have probably gotten Carter re-elected.

Suprise....Reagan shipped arms to Iran through guess what country?

Now if that is true, who were the Iranians more scared of Don Knotts or Mr T?

.

I asked a hypothetical..

[quote=I B Hankering;2001327]Gary Sick’s “October Surprise” story and book was a fraudulent hoax. A 1992 Senate investigation and a 1993 House investigation both exonerated Reagan of this hoax.

Plus: “Based on a review of exclusive documentation it appears that none of [Gary] Sick's key informants had any original knowledge of the October Surprise counterplot, an alleged Reagan campaign attempt in 1980 to head off a preelection release of the 52 American hostages then being held in Tehran. Only by swapping rumors and tacking with the latest ones--a process that the Voice has traced in detail--were they able to create an impression that they knew of this event firsthand.”

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920224-october.htm[/quote] You then provide a link debunking that their was a deal.

Originally Posted by WTF

Was the sale of arms to Iran also false?

One does not have to look to hard to read between the lines.

Iran had kept hostages 444 days and Reagan turns around and rewards them with arms sales?
Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

.

I then say OK, even if the FOS think it impossible. Why would Reagan sell arms to Iran? To free other hostages? If he had such a clear disregard for the law, why would he not disregard it to get elected?

But my major point was that Reagan SOLD ARMS FOR HOSTAGES. Forget the Oct Suprise!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You said you are a man of science; yet you dispute the findings of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) who say October Surprise is a preposterous hoax?

Which had not denied that Reagan sold arms to Iran. My major point of contention.

Originally Posted by WTF

My next question was and pardon me but I should have said, if my first premise is not true, then why did Ronnie sell arms to Iran?

See right here...I no longer cared about the FoS findings, though I freely admit that I was confused as to wtf you were referencing.

Had I, I would have turn this into a global warming hoax where the FOS must be in their interest to clear Reagan just as you righties claim that GW is in all these other scientists who believe in GW.


[quote=I B Hankering;2001727]
To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair[/quote]

So it is not clear why he sold arms to Iran. He damn sure knew about it. He approved it. Could it be that the FOS was wrong and he owed the Iranians? That is a fair question with all the classified doc's still out there.

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.


Reagan traded arms for hostages. Lied about it and then came clean when confronted with the evidence. 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.

From there we went to this.

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 got another source to fund the airstrikes.

I misspoke

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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?

After you asked me about it and I researched it and realized I had. I then decided to turn about this FOS that you kept side stepping. You/I had comingled two things. Reagan selling arms to Iran and the Oct suprise.

I then provided your own link because it had as much to do with the fact of Reagan selling arms to Iran as it had to do with Obama getting reinbursed for the arms cost in Libya.

That is what seems to have went over both you and dilberts head.

Originally Posted by WTF

I have scientific evidence...

http://www.fas.org/

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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?

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course it did not happen just as Iraq repaying us for the cost of that war, as Cheney said they would, did not happen!

When it comes to Defense Contractors making money...things never are as they should be

...and made no bones about it being BS. You two had missed the irony.



[quote=I B Hankering;2003409]Still waiting for a reply:

www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2003237&postcou nt=199[/quote]

I had already replied and thought I had explained the jest....

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'm not aware of any reports that the U.S was getting reimbursed by its participating allies for support costs.

If you can show that link. I'll shut up about this and say Obama pulled a Reagan.

I had already said this in response:

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course it did not happen just as Iraq repaying us for the cost of that war, as Cheney said they would, did not happen!

When it comes to Defense Contractors making money...things never are as they should be

I really wasn't sure what you and dilbert were looking for.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

WTF, I'm waiting for a retraction.....

After going through all the other posts in the last clarification, I am going to bed. I'm sleepy. If I mixed you up I will find out tomorrow. People deserve the truth. I am not above getting mixed up.

[I B Hankering]

@ WTF - FAS determined 'October Surprise' was a conspiracy hoax, yet you insist it happened. Newsweek determined 'October Surprise' was a conspiracy hoax, yet you insist it happened. The Village Voice determined 'October Surprise' was a conspiracy hoax, yet you insist it happened. Bowden doesn't even mention 'October Surprise', yet you insist it happened.

Take off your tin-foil cap and admit you lied.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You cite both Kyle and Beckwith, and then ignore their input.

First off, they say nothing about budgets or lay fault on Carter.
Second, they place the blame on the pilots. They don't fault the training. They fault the pilots for not following it.
You are saying they didn't destroy their aircraft and all of the intelligence materials, because there was no money to practice destroying their aircraft.
Col. Kyle said the pilot of helo 5, who returned to the carrier, was the cause of the aborted mission.

By citing them, I acknowledge their input.

You ignore them by continuing to blame Carter.

You know who didn't ignore them? The man who insisted on 2 extra helicopters flying into Pakistan to do bin Laden. So when 1 of 2 helicopters crashed in bin Laden's compound, instead of trying to fit 25 people and a body on 1 Black hawk or waiting on a helicopter from Afghanistan to show up, everybody got out alive. Oh, except bin Laden.

So the guy who insisted said more than a simple "yes". The guy who insisted remembered what happened at eagle claw and corrected it. The guy who insisted had a big hand in saving SEAL Team 6's ass. The guy who insisted earned his credit.

Regardless of what someone who blames Carter says.

[dilbert firestorm]

post #228 - I couldn't follow what you posted. your quoting went haywire.

if that's not the case, you did a piss-poor job of quoting and it shows considering that you're sleepy and going to bed.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

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

No shit.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

First off, they say nothing about budgets or lay fault on Carter.
Second, they place the blame on the pilots. They don't fault the training. They fault the pilots for not following it.
You are saying they didn't destroy their aircraft and all of the intelligence materials, because there was no money to practice destroying their aircraft.
Col. Kyle said the pilot of helo 5, who returned to the carrier, was the cause of the aborted mission.

By citing them, I acknowledge their input.

You ignore them by continuing to blame Carter.

You know who didn't ignore them? The man who insisted on 2 extra helicopters flying into Pakistan to do bin Laden. So when 1 of 2 helicopters crashed in bin Laden's compound, instead of trying to fit 25 people and a body on 1 Black hawk or waiting on a helicopter from Afghanistan to show up, everybody got out alive. Oh, except bin Laden.

So the guy who insisted said more than a simple "yes". The guy who insisted remembered what happened at eagle claw and corrected it. The guy who insisted had a big hand in saving SEAL Team 6's ass. The guy who insisted earned his credit.

Regardless of what someone who blames Carter says.

Beckwith blamed the pilots for the failure of the mission. The on-scene air commander Colonel James Kyle blamed the pilot of Helo Number Five who 'decided' to turn back for killing the mission. Kyle blames the pilot of Helo Number Five for lacking the resolve to continue with the mission as he should have. That is a reflection of inadequate training.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Arguing over opinion is not the same as proving facts.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

True. But that isn't the case here.

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.
Answer this question.
Why don't you suck my dick?

I call them vacations, CBS doesn't. Calling them whatever you want to is not a difference of opinion. You have zero credibility at this point. Don't you see the beauty of a link? Don't argue with me motherfucker. Argue with CBS.

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

You are totally flustered and incoherent. Dilbert brought up the point that you don't even know who you are talking to.
You don't know what you post either.

I'll say this once more you country cocksucker. You said Obama had already beaten Bush's vacation record. I pointed out that you were full of shit because CBS counted 1020 days at, on the way to, or on the way back from, Camp David, Crawford, and his parent's house. Obama had been in office 1075 days.

If you go back a few sentences, you'll see were I said something about a person. A person you wrote about before I did. In the big people's world, that means I didn't bring him up. You were lying....again. About Obama beating his vacation record. You are lying again...now. By saying I brought him up.

I used red in my post to symbolize the liquid running out of your vagina.

Put a plug in both ends.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Beckwith blamed the pilots for the failure of the mission. The on-scene air commander Colonel James Kyle blamed the pilot of Helo Number Five who 'decided' to turn back for killing the mission. Kyle blames the pilot of Helo Number Five for lacking the resolve to continue with the mission as he should have. That is a reflection of inadequate training.

I think it is a character issue. Mute point. You say the inadequacies come from a lack of training funds. They also come from not recognizing the need for that training. You are beating a dead horse. They don't say that or indicate that a lack of funds had anything to do with this. And no statements or proof to the contrary
The spending increased every year, you babble about fiscal vs. calendar year (the budget is fiscal year, you know that), and everything you say now tries to prove it was money.

Give it up.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

post #228 - I couldn't follow what you posted. your quoting went haywire.

if that's not the case, you did a piss-poor job of quoting and it shows considering that you're sleepy and going to bed.

Didn't Bush have a longer post than that?
Bed time.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

When I gave Cutiepie some facts where Reagan's campaign coordinator admitted to using the so called Southern Strategy, he said he did not trust the AP as a source. Now I can see how the President of Iran can deny the holocaust happened. They all are in denial. This group reminds me of the kids that ignores the facts by stomping on the ground with his/her finger in their ears!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Associated Press - State controlled media

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

COG, you forgot Reuters, LOL!!!!

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Ahem, looks like I'm going to have pop WTF's balloon.

WTF, show me where I said anything about Lee Atwater other than a reference to a news organization I mentioned.

dilbert, these are posts 148, 149, 150 and your last post was 157.

In post 148, I was addressing Munch (I think) pointing out that even linking things for some of you is a lesson in futility. Cutirpie says what he say about AP, you chime in about Reuters. Neither address the actual facts. Did Lee Atwater use a racist strategy and admit to it or not?

No you attack the source. Or you pile on the attack.

Now if you were being flippant and actually believe that in fact Atwater did indeed admit to such a strategy then my apologies. But if you were trying to dog pile with cutiepie and shoot the messenger too then forget it. So the question now is...Do you believe that Lee Atwater admitted using coded racial words as a strategy for Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 presidential campaign?


I am sorry it took so long, I played golf today and my New Dodge Truck that I had bragged about in another thread would not start. 6k miles. WTF is not a happy camper.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

@ WTF - FAS determined 'October Surprise' was a conspiracy hoax, yet you insist it happened. Newsweek determined 'October Surprise' was a conspiracy hoax, yet you insist it happened. The Village Voice determined 'October Surprise' was a conspiracy hoax, yet you insist it happened. Bowden doesn't even mention 'October Surprise', yet you insist it happened.

Take off your tin-foil cap and admit you lied.

I said I think it happened.

Despite FAS.

I think, wait, I know Iran influnced our election in 1980. Had they released the hostages in October , Carter would have had a much better chance of beating Reagan.

That was my point on your silly Don Knotts analogy. Just who was Don Knotts? Seems it was Reagan.

Now I never said that there is proof that Reagan did it or that the FAS were lying. With the data they had, they had no proof. I accept that.

Butttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t, I look at the events that happened. Iran waited to release hostages to Reagan. If they were more scared of Reagan then they would have released the hostages earlier to ensure Carter's vicrory in 1980. Not the other way around. Reagan then sold arms to them and basically said fuc all the energy conservation things that Carter had put in place. Making us more dependent on ME oil. Who did that benifit short term? Iran and the United States. Long term, not us so much.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I think it is a character issue. Mute point. You say the inadequacies come from a lack of training funds. They also come from not recognizing the need for that training. You are beating a dead horse.

That would be "Sea Stallions".

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

They don't say that or indicate that a lack of funds had anything to do with this. And no statements or proof to the contrary

You're right. It was an election year, and there's always money to influence the voters in an election year. But were they trained? No.

Task Force Commander Major General James B. Vaught: "What's the risk, Colonel Beckwith?"



Beckwith: "Oh, about 99.9 percent."



Vaught: "What's the probability of success?"



Beckwith: "Zero."



Vaught: "Well, we can't do it."



Beckwith: "You're right, Boss."



Vaught: "I've got to buy time from the JCS."



In his book Delta Force, Beckwith details the immense difficulties associated with the rescue mission. Intelligence was poor in Iran, and "it had always been assumed that when Delta was needed overseas, the country in which it would operate would be friendly or at least neutral."19 As the Air Force did not then have a special operations aircraft capability, the pilots for the mission had been drawn from the Marine Corps and trained in time for the aggressive flying style which, though the mission demanded it, was unfamiliar to them [the same pilots Beckwith and Kyle later faulted for "lacking resolve" - not enough training]. The contradiction between the optimism of the flag-rank staff officers and the pessimism of field commanders like Beckwith indicates that the feedback of ground commanders had not been taken seriously by a civilian administration which was determined to execute what it perceived as a last resort.



http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/point.../Vol28_2/5.htm