And you never will, because you simply want things to go agree with your thoughts.
and everything that you read or hear his colored with that perspective.
to sit on his hands wracked with indecision, cahracterizes his presidency
And in what way have I done that?
ATV wrote:This article acknowledges Carter was in an "impossible situation" and I agree. Botom line - the Iranian people won and no Americans were killed.
Unless you count the Desert One operation, but unless you gloss over this event then you're forced to acknowledge an instance where Carter was at least decisive, which contradicts.....to sit on his hands wracked with indecision, cahracterizes his presidency
You can't have it both ways. If the military operation would have worked should Carter have looked like a hero?And in what way have I done that?
Well, you simply made those comments before editing the very same post by adding the PBS excerpt. But you knew that. What a lame tactic. Maybe I should go back and edit all my posts to make it look like I've been talking about the Bugaloos this whole time.
When the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran, opened for business the morning of 22 October 1979, there was a cable waiting in the Central Intelligence Agency station from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The cable advised that President Carter had decided the previous day to admit the former Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, into the United States for life-saving medical treatment. From the perspective of the embassy staff, it was absolutely the worst thing that could happen, on two fronts: the decision would undo the progress, however slight, in improving United States-Iranian relations; and it would jeopardize the safety and security of all Americans in Iran. The embassy staff was utterly astonished, for not only had they warned Washington over the previous summer of the various dangers associated with such a decision, but some had even been told that by Washington seniors that the consequences of the shah’s admission to the United States were so obvious that no one would be "dumb enough" to allow it. Yet, with U.S.-Iranian relations still lacking real stability, and with an intense and growing distrust of the United States permeating the new Iranian "revolutionary" government, President Carter — unbelievably, from the embassy’s optic—had decided to allow the shah to enter the United States.
Was there no place else he could go? Was the United States the only country in the world with adequate medical facilities to treat the shah?
The Khomeni is a hero to Osama Bin Laden. When he took over he advocated, funded, and fueled terrorism as a way of imposing his political will.ATV wrote:his actions in Iran are a large part of why we are constantly targets of terrorism now.
Huh? For example......?
1 iran hostage crisis. when the sha was overthrown by muslim extreamists and the country was going crazy, carter let the sha (a friend of america) come the the US for medical treatment. as a reasult the iatolla khomani (sp?) attacked the US embassy
As if the Iranian Revolution would never have happened hadn't we allowed the Shah here. That's like saying our Colonial Revolution happened because of the Boston Tea Party. In fact Wikipedia explains that the embassy plan had already been established beforehand.....
"The original idea to seize the American embassy was concocted by Ebrahim Asgharzadeh (a month before) in September of 1979."
No, there were legitimate reasons for the uprisings....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
Carter just happened to be the President when the finally hit the fan.
2 he didnt stand up against the soviets when they invaded afganistan.
Wrong. "On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed a directive authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the revolutionary regime." Remember that? How did that turn out? Carter even pulled us out of the 1980 Moscow Olympics.
it is said to have ended detante and further the cold war.
Actually it's usually suggested that the USSR's debacle was akin to our experience in Vietnam, financially crippling them, hastening their downfall just a few years after they finally pulled out.
Where do some of you people get your facts from? Do you just make this stuff up? Are you simply writing what you WANT to be reality? Truely, I don't get it.
Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled proudly:
"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap..." [...]"The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."
OK, what are you talking about. Yes, I edit my posts.
And you never will, because you simply want things to go agree with your thoughts, and everything that you read or hear his colored with that perspective.
And in what way have I done that?
But the reality is that the revolution had been ongoing for months and Carter failed to do anything about it
One botched rescue attempt does not make him a fearless leader.
you can't side with Carter as being a great man simply because he's a democrat!
Here's just how great a president he was....
The Khomeni is a hero to Osama Bin Laden. When he took over he advocated, funded, and fueled terrorism as a way of imposing his political will.
The revolution happened because Carter couldn't keep the Shah in line, and wouldn't intervene.
The revolution wasn't just something that happened one day and was then over with. It took place over months and months
during which Carter, who knew just how evil and violent the Khomeni was, did nothing to aid the Shah.
In the months leading up to the revolutions the Shah was oppresive and brutal, but Carter praised him publicly and fostered further resentment amongst the Iranian people.
OK, Carter's regime actively attempted to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. Not only did he not stand up to them.....he wanted them to invade.
Its was that Carter aided the Mujahadeen the prolong the war.
In doing so he created what is one of the largest terrorist operations in the world.
Now, Reagan didn't stop this behavior when he took power. In fact he continued it, and it his him who is often blamed by the Democrats for creating the situation in the Middle East.
"He did however let it continue and his legacy should be tainted because of this, but why should Carter get a free ride?"
So, Khomeni and Mujahadeen rose to power as a direct result of actions taekn by Carter
People blame Reagan for funding Iraq
Carter was responsible for the Sandinistas rising to power as well.....want to argue that one?
...Where do some of you people get your facts from? Do you just make this stuff up? Are you simply writing what you WANT to be reality? Truely, I don't get it.
ATV wrote:I never wrote that you, specifically, fabricated facts. I've tried to demonstrate why this assertion......his actions in Iran are a large part of why we are constantly targets of terrorism now.
.....is quite a stretch.
http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/2006/12/video_dennis_ross_says_carter.phpWhen Kenneth Stein resigned from the Carter Center over Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," he wrote in an email that he objected to the book because "it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments." At the time of the email, however, Stein cited no specifics.
In an interview with The Los Angeles Times last night, however, Stein backed up his allegation that Carter "copied materials not cited" claiming that he had lifted maps from Dennis Ross's book "The Missing Peace."
Yes, but his actions in Iran are a large part of why we are constantly targets of terrorism now.
TincoSkin wrote:two things people look poorly at carter for,
1 iran hostage crisis. when the sha was overthrown by muslim extreamists and the country was going crazy, carter let the sha (a friend of america) come the the US for medical treatment. as a reasult the iatolla khomani (sp?) attacked the US embassy.. thus starting a hostage crisis that would not end till years and years later.
2 he didnt stand up against the soviets when they invaded afganistan. over amillion people died and people say its his fault.
it is said to have ended detante and further the cold war.
now, people who love reagan hate jimmy carter because one, they didnt like his humanitarian first ideals and two, it was carters presidency that set the stage for reagans triumph and if they cant let it go.. jimmy famously said we were living in a state of political malaise, as a country we did not know what we stood for after the turbulent 60s. the nation was exhausted after the civil rights revolution and were searching for meanning. reagan gave them meaning with the backing of the moral majority/relgious right.
so, people hate jimmy because the reagan lovers (and there a lot of them) wont let his 2 mistakes die.
he was a good president. he did a lot of good things but his two mistakes will haunt him forever..
he has been one of the best ex presidents ever though.. he is more suited in that regard. not as a person with military power but one with a kind heart and a will to make the world a better place.
personally i think he was trying to be like JFK and bobby but they were way tougher when it came to forgin policy and carter never got that. he thought you could change the world will love with out a big gun behind it.
We blew away a Sunni military dictator named Saddam Hussesin, and put the country in the hands of three Shi-ite factions. The Iraqi Sunnis have continued to fight the dominant Shia. Al Q spends it's spare time blowing up Shia mosques, and bombins Shia pilgrims. The three Shia militias kidnap and murder 50 or 60 Sunnis every day.
Since it's time to talk accurately, please investigate the three Shia armed factions, including that of Moktada Al Sadr. They are called the Mahdi Army, and they have waged armed attacks on US forces since the Battle of Sadr City, April 4, 2004. Look it up. He has no ties to Iran...but he tells the Iraqi government what to do.
How does Jimmy Carter play in this? Would the "Shah" have changed anything?
ATV wrote:Tell me, what makes Carter such a GREAT man?
What doesn't?
This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop. My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.
Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally.
President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.
The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.
Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.
In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.
As ever,
Ken
Dr. Kenneth W. Stein,
Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science,
and Israeli Studies,
Director, Middle East Research Program and
Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel
Atlanta, Georgia
Instead of spending hours rebutting the above filth, for those still of an impartial unaffected opinion on here (of which there may be none), I simply hope that you value earned honors such as Purple Hearts, and Nobel prizes, or that you respect our nation's current and former scholars, artists and authors, etc. Likewise, I hope you also never forget the relatively recent traitors to our democracy, the criminals (Nixon, Liddy, North, Libby, Abramoff....more to come) who seem to often be amongst the orchestration (corrupt administrations, Fox News, etc.) behind the denouncement, reduction, of our nation's heroes.
thaiphoon wrote:Instead of spending hours rebutting the above filth, for those still of an impartial unaffected opinion on here (of which there may be none), I simply hope that you value earned honors such as Purple Hearts, and Nobel prizes, or that you respect our nation's current and former scholars, artists and authors, etc. Likewise, I hope you also never forget the relatively recent traitors to our democracy, the criminals (Nixon, Liddy, North, Libby, Abramoff....more to come) who seem to often be amongst the orchestration (corrupt administrations, Fox News, etc.) behind the denouncement, reduction, of our nation's heroes.
Seriously ... if you hope to put up Carter as a "hero" in whole or in part because he garnered a Nobel prize (due to his anti-Americanism) then I simply do not know what to say.
As for the denouncement and reduction of our nation's heroes, talk to Jawn Carri (John Kerry), Charlie Rangel, Cindy Sheehan and others on the Left. While the Right, as far as I can see, takes umbrage with the positions the person is taking or their actions (and then that Democrat then wraps himself up in his service and ribbons as a supposed umbrella defense against his/her bad positions/actions) the ones on the Left seem to disparage those on the Right personally. Couple that with the corruption of Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Rep. Jefferson and others and one can see how easily I can turn the mirror to you and say the same thing.
Cheers...
P.S. - everyone keeps forgetting one of the most recent things you should be loathing good ole Jimmy... his supposed "deal" he worked out the the North Koreans in the 90's where we give them reactors and concessions in exchange for them not developing nukes... whoopsie
ATV wrote:Instead of spending hours rebutting the above filth, for those still of an impartial unaffected opinion on here (of which there may be none), I simply hope that you value earned honors such as Purple Hearts, and Nobel prizes, or that you respect our nation's current and former scholars, artists and authors, etc. Likewise, I hope you also never forget the relatively recent traitors to our democracy, the criminals (Nixon, Liddy, North, Libby, Abramoff....more to come) who seem to often be amongst the orchestration (corrupt administrations, Fox News, etc.) behind the denouncement, reduction, of our nation's heroes.
Don't forget Ted Kennedy!
ATV wrote:Don't forget Ted Kennedy!
That's right, all you facists be sure to get in line....
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/1 ... ile-enemy/
UK Skins Fan wrote:Ted who?
