Carter, Reagan, Obama and Trump
2020-Jan-03, Friday 17:49![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
texxgadgetOverall, I LIKED Jimmy Carter, despite his membership in the opposing party to mine.
He was honest, something lacking in DC.
He was also a good person, although that may have been his downfall.
When Iran siezed the US embassy and captured its inhabitants, this was legally an action of war.
One of my few criticisms of Carter was that he did not get on international news and remind the Iranians
of this legal point. He should have reminded them that they had committed an acto of war and asked them in
public if they REALLY wanted to go down that path.
He turned the biblical other cheek, and despite the evangelical lobby in this country, ended up being
branded a "wimp".
The hostages were released because they knew that Regan had few qualms about bringing the ambient temperature of Tehran to 15 million degrees in the time frame of a few seconds.
Fast forward.
A libyan mob attacked rthe US mission in Libya.
The press howled over how the Marines there had empty weapons.
Indeed this is normal.
The military guards are mostly ceremonial and seldom have bullets in their weapons.
Armed military at a consulate implys a military occupation rather than a diplomatic mission.
It is the job of private security firms based in the city hosting said embassy to provide armed security.
In the case of Benghazi, millitary was not scrambled, because it would betray the diplomatic mission
at the Embassy.
Contrary to common belief, the ambassador was NOT murdered!
First, he was not supposed to be there at the time. He was supposed to be in DC.
He died of smoke inhalation but not at the embassy.
He was down the road at the CIA facility, which was ALSO attacked.
While the embassy should be protected, there is no protection for a "spy nest".
Attacking the embassy was an act of war, but not so for the CIA annex down the road.
Someone should look into WHY the ambassador had returned againsrt orders, and WHAT he was doing over at the
CIA annex.
Alas, Clinton & Obama took a lot of heat over that one.
There were no explanations made, and therefore they took the whole brunt.
Fast forward again.
Recently, an Iran backed mob in Iraq attacked the US mission in Baghdad.
Another act of war.
Again, nobody spoke up with any explanations.
We got the usual BS out of the "Cretin in Chief", but nobody has stood up and pointed out that the
dead general was leading an act of war and suffered consequences for it.
Without the ability to put Iranian boots on US shores, they will be forced to to take revenge against
anything of US interest.
My guess is that we just put Israel into the crosshairs, as well as the entire oil infrastructure of the
middle east.
You are welcome to look this up.
Assuming we dont end up making the "Deadbeat in Chief" some sort of hero for plunging us into war,
we could see the cost of oil tripling, military spending taking another jump.
Depending how the Iranians react, the results just might kill the GoP hopes for November.
To be sure, the general probably did need to be taken out,
but a proper case should have been made including that he was behind an act of war.
Unfortunately, the proper case was not made and its going to be remembered as just another "Trump Temper Tantrum".
He was honest, something lacking in DC.
He was also a good person, although that may have been his downfall.
When Iran siezed the US embassy and captured its inhabitants, this was legally an action of war.
One of my few criticisms of Carter was that he did not get on international news and remind the Iranians
of this legal point. He should have reminded them that they had committed an acto of war and asked them in
public if they REALLY wanted to go down that path.
He turned the biblical other cheek, and despite the evangelical lobby in this country, ended up being
branded a "wimp".
The hostages were released because they knew that Regan had few qualms about bringing the ambient temperature of Tehran to 15 million degrees in the time frame of a few seconds.
Fast forward.
A libyan mob attacked rthe US mission in Libya.
The press howled over how the Marines there had empty weapons.
Indeed this is normal.
The military guards are mostly ceremonial and seldom have bullets in their weapons.
Armed military at a consulate implys a military occupation rather than a diplomatic mission.
It is the job of private security firms based in the city hosting said embassy to provide armed security.
In the case of Benghazi, millitary was not scrambled, because it would betray the diplomatic mission
at the Embassy.
Contrary to common belief, the ambassador was NOT murdered!
First, he was not supposed to be there at the time. He was supposed to be in DC.
He died of smoke inhalation but not at the embassy.
He was down the road at the CIA facility, which was ALSO attacked.
While the embassy should be protected, there is no protection for a "spy nest".
Attacking the embassy was an act of war, but not so for the CIA annex down the road.
Someone should look into WHY the ambassador had returned againsrt orders, and WHAT he was doing over at the
CIA annex.
Alas, Clinton & Obama took a lot of heat over that one.
There were no explanations made, and therefore they took the whole brunt.
Fast forward again.
Recently, an Iran backed mob in Iraq attacked the US mission in Baghdad.
Another act of war.
Again, nobody spoke up with any explanations.
We got the usual BS out of the "Cretin in Chief", but nobody has stood up and pointed out that the
dead general was leading an act of war and suffered consequences for it.
Without the ability to put Iranian boots on US shores, they will be forced to to take revenge against
anything of US interest.
My guess is that we just put Israel into the crosshairs, as well as the entire oil infrastructure of the
middle east.
You are welcome to look this up.
Assuming we dont end up making the "Deadbeat in Chief" some sort of hero for plunging us into war,
we could see the cost of oil tripling, military spending taking another jump.
Depending how the Iranians react, the results just might kill the GoP hopes for November.
To be sure, the general probably did need to be taken out,
but a proper case should have been made including that he was behind an act of war.
Unfortunately, the proper case was not made and its going to be remembered as just another "Trump Temper Tantrum".
