Jimmy Carter -- Still Foolish After All These Years
In his latest recurrence of embarrassment, guilt and overwhelming feelings of having been a fool, Jimmy Carter attempted to escape his grand mistake by offering the bizarre notion that to save the 52 American hostages held by Iran, he had to choose between peaceful negotiations OR slaughtering 20,000 innocent Iranians.
Well. No he didn't.
Even in 1979 and 1980, we had accurate weapons. Moreover, were we to attack, we would have attacked government and/or military sites mainly to neutralize Iran. Not to terrorize the hapless citizens. Frankly, bombing Iran as though it were Germany in WWII would have failed to bring back the hostages and it would have failed to stop the threat that had emerged in Iran as a result of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
Obviously the US military would have had an easy time of flattening government facilities where the new Iranian leadership might be found, and we would have crushed the Iranian military, a relatively defenseless band of incompetents who would have failed to launch a single airplane and would have surrendered to any available American.
With a little luck, an American attack on Iran might have killed Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, a blessing that would have gone unknown forever. Perhaps we would have nailed Ayatollah Khomeini as well. And possibly his successor. But most important, an attack would have eliminated any doubt about the US and its willingness to punish irresponsible behavior.
If the Iranian revolutionaries had seized the Americans and shipped them out of the country and back to the US within a few days, the episode would have been little more than a footnote of history. Instead, the Iranian revolutionaries created an international event that changed the course of American politics.
Had Carter been spared this international humiliation, he might have won a second term. Reagan might never have become president. His age was an issue in his first election. If he were hoping to win the presidency for the first time in 1984 it would have been a bigger issue. Perhaps big enough to eliminate him, possibly in the primaries.
Ultimately, Carter showed the muslim world that America is often willing to back down from confrontations. That was all muslims needed to know. Since then, muslim terrorist attacks on Americans and American interests have escalated.
Moreover, Iran grew so confident of its view that America would never attack that it began supplying arms and money to Hezbollah, which controls Lebanon and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
What does this mean to Jimmy Carter? It's okay with him. His anti-Semitism is recognized by all.
Bottom line -- we can say that much of today's trouble in the middle east is a result of Carter's wimpiness on Iran during the Hostage Crisis.
Carter defends his handling of Iran hostage crisis
2009-11-17
Thailand: Former US President Jimmy Carter said he was pressed by his advisers to attack Iran during the hostage crisis there more than 30 years ago but resisted because he feared 20,000 Iranians could have died.
Islamist militants stormed the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, and seized its occupants. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days.
Carter said Monday that one proposed option was a military strike on Iran, but he chose to stick with negotiations to prevent bloodshed and bring the hostages home safely.
"My main advisers insisted that I should attack Iran," he told reporters in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai, where he was helping build houses for Habitat for Humanity. "I could have destroyed Iran with my weaponry. But I felt in the process it was likely the hostages' lives would be lost, and I didn't want to kill 20,000 Iranians. So I didn't attack."
The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, just minutes after the swearing in of President Ronald Reagan, whose victory over Carter is largely attributed to the crisis.
The former president has commented in the past on how military action had been an option but that he feared a death toll in the tens of thousands, according to Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo.
Well. No he didn't.
Even in 1979 and 1980, we had accurate weapons. Moreover, were we to attack, we would have attacked government and/or military sites mainly to neutralize Iran. Not to terrorize the hapless citizens. Frankly, bombing Iran as though it were Germany in WWII would have failed to bring back the hostages and it would have failed to stop the threat that had emerged in Iran as a result of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
Obviously the US military would have had an easy time of flattening government facilities where the new Iranian leadership might be found, and we would have crushed the Iranian military, a relatively defenseless band of incompetents who would have failed to launch a single airplane and would have surrendered to any available American.
With a little luck, an American attack on Iran might have killed Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, a blessing that would have gone unknown forever. Perhaps we would have nailed Ayatollah Khomeini as well. And possibly his successor. But most important, an attack would have eliminated any doubt about the US and its willingness to punish irresponsible behavior.
If the Iranian revolutionaries had seized the Americans and shipped them out of the country and back to the US within a few days, the episode would have been little more than a footnote of history. Instead, the Iranian revolutionaries created an international event that changed the course of American politics.
Had Carter been spared this international humiliation, he might have won a second term. Reagan might never have become president. His age was an issue in his first election. If he were hoping to win the presidency for the first time in 1984 it would have been a bigger issue. Perhaps big enough to eliminate him, possibly in the primaries.
Ultimately, Carter showed the muslim world that America is often willing to back down from confrontations. That was all muslims needed to know. Since then, muslim terrorist attacks on Americans and American interests have escalated.
Moreover, Iran grew so confident of its view that America would never attack that it began supplying arms and money to Hezbollah, which controls Lebanon and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
What does this mean to Jimmy Carter? It's okay with him. His anti-Semitism is recognized by all.
Bottom line -- we can say that much of today's trouble in the middle east is a result of Carter's wimpiness on Iran during the Hostage Crisis.
Carter defends his handling of Iran hostage crisis
2009-11-17
Thailand: Former US President Jimmy Carter said he was pressed by his advisers to attack Iran during the hostage crisis there more than 30 years ago but resisted because he feared 20,000 Iranians could have died.
Islamist militants stormed the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, and seized its occupants. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days.
Carter said Monday that one proposed option was a military strike on Iran, but he chose to stick with negotiations to prevent bloodshed and bring the hostages home safely.
"My main advisers insisted that I should attack Iran," he told reporters in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai, where he was helping build houses for Habitat for Humanity. "I could have destroyed Iran with my weaponry. But I felt in the process it was likely the hostages' lives would be lost, and I didn't want to kill 20,000 Iranians. So I didn't attack."
The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, just minutes after the swearing in of President Ronald Reagan, whose victory over Carter is largely attributed to the crisis.
The former president has commented in the past on how military action had been an option but that he feared a death toll in the tens of thousands, according to Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo.
posted by no_slappz at 9:37 AM
3 Comments:
What's sad is that Obama makes Carter looks good in comparison.
Winfred,
Too true.
However, it a took a while for Carter to show he was utterly foolish. However, given that Obama is outdoing him now, it is likely he will continue outdoing him.
Trouble with Iran may sink Obama the same way it sank Carter. But now the stakes are higher.
Will Obama become an ex-president like Carter? A shrill scold showing his pro-muslim anti-Semitic nature whenever possible?
no_slappz, still foolish after all these years!
Post a Comment
<< Home