Truer words never spoken, in regards to an echo chamber that only allows one POV.
I donât know what youâre talking about, you unrelentingly post your POV here practically every day, as is âallowedâ by RP. That most donât agree with you is your problem, not ours nor RPâs. We all reap what we sow.
The seizure of the American embassy in Tehran was a clear intelligence failure on the part of the CIA. I haven't read much about the Iranian revolution but even as a teenager at the time I could see that the Shah's rule was ebbing away and that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini would return from exile to influence the next regime. The US should have seen that Khomeini was going to break alliances and relations with the West. IIRC the CIA was completely surprised by the seizure of the American but to the Iranians, it was in part symbolic payback. The CIA in 1953 had engineered a coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and used hired thugs—some pretending to be students—to start rioting. The Iranians who took over the embassy were agents of the Khomeini government but they also masqueraded as students—perhaps to mock the US's old ruse. You can't blame Carter entirely for the seizure of the American hostages. The Iranians had no intention of releasing the hostages to Carter
* and entered into secret negotiations with presidential candidate Ron Reagan to release the hostages when he came into office
(reminiscent of Nixon's secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese to delay a cease fire until after the '68 election). But the US government should have drawn down staff and should have removed or destroyed classified documents at the embassy after Khomeini took power as safeguards.
The timing of the release of the hostages gave rise to allegations that representatives of Reagan's presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the 1980 United States presidential election to thwart Carter from pulling off an "October surprise".[170][171] In 1992, Gary Sick, the former national security adviser to Ford and Carter, presented the strongest accusations in an editorial that appeared in The New York Times, and others, including former Iranian president Abolhassan Banisadr, repeated and added to them.[172] This alleged plot to influence the outcome of the 1980 United States presidential election between Carter and Reagan became known as the 1980 October Surprise theory.[172]
After twelve years of varying media attention, both houses of the United States Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that credible evidence supporting the allegation was absent or insufficient.[173][174]
I was specifically addressing Richard's question as to why Carter was reviled as POTUS and gave examples.
I did not say that he was a failure, just terrible from certain POV's. Yes, the Camp David Accords which paved the way for the Abraham Accords of which Trump gets no positive credit for accomplishing, at least not in these quarters. The deregulation mentioned above, which is anathema to the current democrat agenda as in deregulate nothing.
It is not that Carter could have prevented the takeover of the embassy in Iran, it is how he handled it. The eventual release was hastened by the election of Reagan who would bring an entirely different way of dealing with the matter to the table. A credible threat that the Iranians actually took seriously. Similar now as we see Trump taking over for the very ineffectual Biden. Trump is already the defacto POTUS even though he has not been sworn in. Many world leaders are and have been talking to Trump as if he is already POTUS. Biden is totally MIA anymore.
The Canal ? There are different POV's on the subject. What is exactly wrong with my take on the subject ?
As everyone has said everywhere, Carter was a great ex president. His accomplishments after leaving office are tremendous and his Nobel Prize well earned and deserved. As CIC, which is a primary part of the job, he was a candyass to use an old expression. All bark and no bite.
Regan delayed the release of the hostages by promising to trade arms to the Iranians, enemies of the US in exchange for their release. He was a traitor. Carter was faced with a choice: essentially declare war on Iran and sacrifice the hostages or try to keep the hostages alive and obtain the eventual release. His course of action allowed the Canadians to get the Americans holed up in their embassy out alive. He mounted a military mission to try to rescue the hostages. I don't think he can be blamed for its failure. Worth a shot.
The hostage crisis had its origins in the Iranian revolution led by the Islamic fundamentalist Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran and ruler of the country intermittently since 1941, went into exile in January 1979. He lived in Mexico until November, when he was allowed to travel to the United States for cancer treatment.
Mr. Carter had resisted pressure to let the shah into the country. Among those pleading the shahâs case were Mr. Brzezinski, by now the presidentâs national security adviser; Henry A. Kissinger, Nixonâs secretary of state; and Mr. Rockefeller, the banker.
The president relented only after learning that the shah could not receive the treatment he needed in Mexico, but he foresaw the consequences. âWhat are you guys going to advise me to do when they overrun our embassy now and take our people hostage?â he asked his aides.
The shah arrived in New York on Oct. 24, 1979. Iranian militants began to demonstrate outside the American Embassy. Days later, about 3,000 of them overran the embassy and seized the hostages with the approval of Ayatollah Khomeini.
Don't listen to the Deep State ;) He should have let the Shah croak (27 July 1980) in Mexico.
Carter got blamed for the embassy takeover as if there was some way he could have prevented it or somehow intimidated radicals in a country whose government had just been overthrown. If you can see such a scenario please elaborate.
And your response would be more credible if it didn't express the same historical and economic illiteracy of your Panama Canal criticism.
As for his legacy as a political leader I'll point to his Nobel Prize-winning peace negotiated between Israel and Egypt (still holding, BTW, despite the current difficulties), his appointment of Paul Volker as Fed chairman (that ultimately turned the tide on the inflation that started during the previous administration), and his role in deregulating so much of our economy.
The seizure of the American embassy in Tehran was a clear intelligence failure on the part of the CIA. I haven't read much about the Iranian revolution but even as a teenager at the time I could see that the Shah's rule was ebbing away and that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini would return from exile to influence the next regime.
The US should have seen that Khomeini was going to break alliances and relations with the West. IIRC the CIA was completely surprised by the seizure of the American but to the Iranians, it was in part symbolic payback. The CIA in 1953 had engineered a coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and used hired thugs—some pretending to be students—to start rioting. The Iranians who took over the embassy were agents of the Khomeini government but they also masqueraded as students—perhaps to mock the US's old ruse.
You can't blame Carter entirely for the seizure of the American hostages. The Iranians had no intention of releasing the hostages to Carter and entered into secret negotiations with presidential candidate Ron Reagan to release the hostages when he came into office (reminiscent of Nixon's secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese to delay a cease fire until after the '68 election). But the US government should have drawn down staff and should have removed or destroyed classified documents at the embassy after Khomeini took power as safeguards.
And yes, points to Carter for being willing to appoint Volcker in an attempt to kill entrenched inflation. He likely knew he was risking his re-election when he did so.
Carter got blamed for the embassy takeover as if there was some way he could have prevented it or somehow intimidated radicals in a country whose government had just been overthrown. If you can see such a scenario please elaborate.
And your response would be more credible if it didn't express the same historical and economic illiteracy of your Panama Canal criticism.
As for his legacy as a political leader I'll point to his Nobel Prize-winning peace negotiated between Israel and Egypt (still holding, BTW, despite the current difficulties), his appointment of Paul Volker as Fed chairman (that ultimately turned the tide on the inflation that started during the previous administration), and his role in deregulating so much of our economy.
I was specifically addressing Richard's question as to why Carter was reviled as POTUS and gave examples.
I did not say that he was a failure, just terrible from certain POV's. Yes, the Camp David Accords which paved the way for the Abraham Accords of which Trump gets no positive credit for accomplishing, at least not in these quarters. The deregulation mentioned above, which is anathema to the current democrat agenda as in deregulate nothing.
It is not that Carter could have prevented the takeover of the embassy in Iran, it is how he handled it. The eventual release was hastened by the election of Reagan who would bring an entirely different way of dealing with the matter to the table. A credible threat that the Iranians actually took seriously. Similar now as we see Trump taking over for the very ineffectual Biden. Trump is already the defacto POTUS even though he has not been sworn in. Many world leaders are and have been talking to Trump as if he is already POTUS. Biden is totally MIA anymore.
The Canal ? There are different POV's on the subject. What is exactly wrong with my take on the subject ?
As everyone has said everywhere, Carter was a great ex president. His accomplishments after leaving office are tremendous and his Nobel Prize well earned and deserved. As CIC, which is a primary part of the job, he was a candyass to use an old expression. All bark and no bite.
Carter put solar panels on the White House, Reagan had them removed. Imagine if the US had embraced solar energy from that point forward. We would have been a world leader in the renewable field and a good part of the world would have followed our lead. Maybe Climate Change wouldn't be at the levels it currently is and growing worse by the year.
More than four decades ago, President Carter said the U.S. could harness âthe power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.â
You're still butthurt over Rush? Stay hurt. That guy was everything wrong with America.
