Comments | jordan179: The Myth of the "October Surprise"

jordan179

The Myth of the "October Surprise"

Sep 02, 2008 07:17

A throwaway comment in someone else's journal made me realize the extent to which many Americans have accepted and internalized the myth of the "October Surprise." So I thought I'd talk about it -- what was claimed, what was proven, and why it's almost certainly not only impossible -- but would have been irrelevant to the outcome of the Hostage ( Read more... )

diplomacy, 2000 election, 1980 election, 2008 election, iran, political, 1992 election, 1996 election, america, 2004 election

Comments 15

banner September 2 2008, 15:05:26 UTC

Hey, I like how the term 'swift boating' has been bent around to mean 'telling lies about your opponent' when in the case of the original 'swift boating' it meant 'correcting the lies your opponent is telling with the TRUTH'.

jordan179 September 2 2008, 16:15:09 UTC

headnoises September 3 2008, 06:23:48 UTC

"Swiftboating"
-To tell damaging truths about a Democrat.

pasquin September 2 2008, 15:49:44 UTC

Carter did attempt a military solution. He sent an elite force across the desert to retrieve the hostages with helicopters. I'm no expert, but the plan seemed ambitious if not reckless.

The Helos were ill-equipped and at least one failed on the way and another crashed.

jordan179 September 2 2008, 16:14:29 UTC

Carter did attempt a military solution. He sent an elite force across the desert to retrieve the hostages with helicopters.

Yes, I know. The problem was that this was the only military action he took against Iran in the whole year and a half he had after Iran went to war with us. Why did he launch no attacks on Iran before or afterwards?

pasquin September 2 2008, 16:27:31 UTC

I'm tempted to answer your question with this observation: Carter was the most feckless president of my life, and this gamble was emblematic of a pacifistic mentality: do nothing, do nothing, then impulsively react.

Even if the military was up to the job (they weren't, equipment was not desert-ready), the plan struck me as hair-brained. Swoop into the middle of Tehran, locate the hostages and get them out? No way. What are we, the Israelis?

Having said that, the 'October Surprise' is no surprise when you consider the players. Carter stood by for how many days during the hostage crisis? Who would of thought Reagan would??? The Iranians didn't.

jordan179 September 2 2008, 16:33:53 UTC

I'm tempted to answer your question with this observation: Carter was the most feckless president of my life, and this gamble was emblematic of a pacifistic mentality: do nothing, do nothing, then impulsively react.

Well, yes. I'm glad to hear someone else say this! :)

Even if the military was up to the job (they weren't, equipment was not desert-ready), the plan struck me as hair-brained. Swoop into the middle of Tehran, locate the hostages and get them out? No way. What are we, the Israelis?

The big flaw was that it was a serial and one-pronged attack. If it had been part of a larger attack, Carter might have failed to rescue the hostages but achieved other objectives (for instance, knocking out the Iranian Air Force and Navy). Carter chose a plan which had only one way to succeed, and many ways to fail.

His failure was the more egregious given his naval background. He could not plead ignorance of such affairs.

Having said that, the 'October Surprise' is no surprise when you consider the players. Carter stood by for how ( ... )

Thread 9

deeper than that ... btripp September 2 2008, 19:55:50 UTC

The problem is that, ever since McGovern, the Democratic "leadership" has become incestuously intertwined with a wide array of far-left and anti-American groups. These are the folks who mobilize their "true believers" to caucuses, pack platform committees, and raise big early money for what should be "fringe" candidates. By the time the "Joe Lunchbucket" Democrats become cognizant that they're into the new election cycle, the ultra-left has already set the agenda and chosen the players.

The problem is that a TRUE "centrist" can not get nominated by the Democrats. There are too many "fruit and nuts" constituencies to be placated and this is pretty much what happened to Hillary's campaign ... she was trying to appear Presidential, when she needed to look unhinged. Heck, the whackjobs out there are even attacking Nancy Pelosi, who should, by all rational measures, be institutionalized! Obama had the offices with the Che banners up, so he won the primary battles ( ... )

Re: deeper than that ... jordan179 September 2 2008, 21:06:24 UTC

Thus is born the myths around folks like Henry Kissinger, Karl Rove, and the rarely-seen Dick Cheney (who I understand is actually running the government when not cackling over the Hurricane Machine) ... since it would (obviously) take an Evil MasterMind to thwart the Democrats' far superior plans!

Yet at the same time, none of these Evil Masterminds can ever get himself actually elected President, but must manipulate matters from the shadows. Strange ...

Re: deeper than that ... writerspleasure September 2 2008, 21:53:51 UTC

> and the rarely-seen Dick Cheney (who I understand is actually running the government when not cackling over the Hurricane Machine)

well done. i smiled wide.