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
Certainly one of the better men to hold the office. His legacy was besmirched by many much smaller men who couldn't understand his compassion and empathy for the world beyond him.
His handling of the seizure of our embassy in Iran and the hostages. That event was the reason for the creation for the show Night Line on ABC. It was hosted by Ted Koppel who vowed to keep on it daily until the hostages were released. Each show began with the count of how many days it had continued. The show continued on for many years afterwards.
Before that, in case you haven't been paying attention to the news o de day, he gave away the Panama Canal which very shortly was placed in China's hands to "manage" it.
There are others but those are the two biggies.
Oh, and inflation to a degree not seen before (20% mortgage rates) and now we have a repeat with Biden ...
I guess you had to be there. Sigh.
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 have a personal family connection to the Canal. My Grandfather was a Navy Commander and the Paymaster for the Canal Zone up until the beginning of WW II, IIRC the dates. My Dad spoke of living there as a kid. My Mom just gave me my Grandfather's carved ebony elephant that he picked up on the day he was returning to the States, about a month ago. There is a special story attached to this elephant. He had walked by a shop that had it on display and he asked over and over again how much the elephant would cost. This went on for a couple of years. On his last day there, he stopped by the shop to ask about the elephant saying that it was his last day there. The shop owner smiled and gave it to him.
So the Canal has always been in the main for me with the family history and it was always in the news because of all the chaos that ensued, some of it mentioned in your PDF. Its been a political football forever and became a moot, but not forgotten point once Carter negotiated his own treaty and sealed the deal.
That Ford, Nixon and Kissinger were into the deal does nothing to shield Carter from doing the actual deed. Reagan was strongly opposed to it.
How about the other such situations where successive Presidents made promises, such as moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem ? It was Trump who finally did it. How empty where all the previous promises made, including the ones regarding the Canal ?
Regardless, there is still the Iran Hostage situation and the inflation that is still a large part of Carter's Presidential legacy.
I did say that he was a good man, and meant it. But he was also a terrible POTUS as considered from certain POV's. The two are not mutually exclusive. There are good reasons for why he only served one term. I was in my late 20's then, so I was an adult paying attention as it went down and lived through it.
You have your thoughts and I have mine. We disagree. Do we agree to disagree and respect each other's views ? Or not ? How deep do you want to go ?
âElected in the shadow of Watergate, Jimmy Carter promised voters that he would always tell the truth. And he did â advocating for the public good, consequences be damned.
He believed some things were more important than reelection - things like integrity, respect, and compassion. Because Jimmy Carter believed, as deeply as he believed anything, that we are all created in Godâs image.
Whenever I had a chance to spend time with President Carter, it was clear that he didnât just profess these values. He embodied them. And in doing so, he taught all of us what it means to live a life of grace, dignity, justice, and service. In his Nobel acceptance speech, President Carter said, âGod gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace.â He made that choice again and again over the course of his 100 years, and the world is better for it.â
âMy father was a hero, not only to me but to everyone who believes in peace, human rights, and unselfish love. My brothers, sister, and I shared him with the rest of the world through these common beliefs.â
Never understood why he was so reviled. Seemed like one of your better Presidents.
Well there are a few reasons.
His handling of the seizure of our embassy in Iran and the hostages. That event was the reason for the creation for the show Night Line on ABC. It was hosted by Ted Koppel who vowed to keep on it daily until the hostages were released. Each show began with the count of how many days it had continued. The show continued on for many years afterwards.
Before that, in case you haven't been paying attention to the news o de day, he gave away the Panama Canal which very shortly was placed in China's hands to "manage" it.
There are others but those are the two biggies.
Oh, and inflation to a degree not seen before (20% mortgage rates) and now we have a repeat with Biden ...
Never understood why he was so reviled. Seemed like one of your better Presidents.
Certainly one of the better men to hold the office. His legacy was besmirched by many much smaller men who couldn't understand his compassion and empathy for the world beyond him.
