Why Scrivener's "OBAMA DEBATE ACE IN HOLE..." Story is nonsense!

Regrettably the good folks at NowPublic have broken their own comments feature and can't be bothered to respond toward why that is for some two weeks now and in lieu of walking away we must find new ways to communicate with other authors we normally discuss articles with. 

So it is with this in mind I read Scrivener's provocative but typically nonsensical speculative take on the recent political scene and was befuddled he'd lost the entire point about what went on during Reagan's ALLEGED October surprise which has never been proven- but for fun and an opportunity to reveal more typical leftist ignorance we'll humor his skewed historical accounting. 

Preceding that 1980 election was of course the hostage crisis. Why did that occur in the first place? Because well meaning peanut farmer Jimmy Carter's philosophy was trust your enemies implicitly and the most evil entities in the world were those under your own control and employ. 

One of his first agendas as President was to decimate the humint assets of American intelligence- meaning give a good number of CIA field agents their pink slips, while publicly stating he would expand our satellite imaging capabilities. 

This is all well known and Carter was openly contemptuous of CIA human assets and vowed to gut their ranks. After doing this one of the most affected allies were in fact the Iranians, in which our embassy in Teheran also served as the CIA's headquarters and records repository for the entire region- including the records of our operations against the mighty Soviet Union. 

Carter's failure to support our allies in Iran with intelligence left the Shah vulnerable and undeniably facilitated his overthrow- and ironically to make matters worse when that embassy fell all those CIA records including the identities of past and present agents operating undercover inside the Soviet Union, fell into the hands of the students and though embassy personnel tried to shred them even in crosscut fashion, the industrious Iranians were able to painstakingly reassemble the documents and soon handed them to the Soviets and themselves sold copies of a compilation for $258 worldwide. 

Intelligence expert Edward Jay Eppstein called this event the biggest loss of intelligence data to a hostile power in modern history, and there is no telling how many CIA agents operating clandestinely lost their lives when their cover was blown. 

All of this paints a picture of, from the POV of any CIA employee or administrator, of a dangerous and reckless man in office who must be stopped at any cost. We at home just considered he was a nice guy but a big loser. 

So is there any mystery why, if the CIA did assist the hostages in being freed- which can't be explained how that got Reagan elected if it happened 2 1/2 months after the election, but again humoring Scrivener- that they didn't have every right and motivation to do so? Carter was getting them killed, lives were being lost- and forget the CIA's interests, we know now his foolish policies affected us all for decades. 

So why does all this history which I stand upon as 100% factual and documentable, make Scrivener's speculation nonsense? 

Because Barrack Obama is a FRIEND of the CIA, expanding their use in the war on terror, utilizing their assets and having their drones assassinate Americans abroad without trial or due process, even if a minor American citizen dies doing so. 

A CIA employee now has a long healthy career in front of him should Obama be re elected because like other moderate Democrat CinC's he has an aversion to large scale conflicts (never invading a country unless he can hand control of our forces to NATO or the UN) BUT is responsible enough (unlike Jiminy Crickett Carter) to not let the homestead get run over by natives on the warpath. (no offense to Native Americans implied or intended, an age old analogy merely respecting the competence of their warriors vanquishing cowards or fools left behind to defend women and children while real men were away in colonial expanding America) All but the most extreme leftist Americans now realize Carter's humanitarian nature left us vulnerable in every foreign policy matter he touched, and Iran was clearly the worst of it. Since the Shah was our surrogate keeping the peace in the region we had to replace with our own "infidel" forces for decades after, you can connect his legacy easily with the Islamic grievances that led to 9/11. 

I don't hate Jimmy, his social programs kept me employed as an impoverished teen over several summers under the CETA program but welfare alone doesn't save the world. 

So in conclusion we all know Reagan won in 1980 because we weren't about to let 4 more years of Carter's disaster endure. If there WAS influence by the CIA in that case Carter's gaffes were so extreme their very lives were in danger and they fulfilled their mission of saving the country with no one knowing they were involved. 

This could not be the case now because Obama is not Jimmy Carter, he's Bush light. Err, maybe that's a bad way to say that. 

And Scrivener as usual is a reliable source of unintentional comedy relief. 

Ronald Reagan for his part was given his rightful burial as a hero some years ago, and while he had his critics and some policies controversial,  his legacy holds he may be the last great President and patriot of our lifetimes. Unlike so many, when he did something the motivation was because he felt it was the right thing for the America of future  generations. He had a vision and the vision turned out right.  No skull duggery was necessary for him to assume his destiny.