Carter's policies precipitated the Iranian Islamic Revolution - so I disagree with your assertion that Carter did not overthrow a government. Carter's incompetency did not begin and end with his handling of the hostage crisis - it extended into most areas of both domestic and foreign policy. The man's presidency was a train wreck.

It wasn't Carter's Policies that started or precipitated that Revolution it was the Shah's policies .

It wasn't Carter's Policies that started or precipitated that Revolution it was the Shah's policies .

 

Rush Limbaugh said it was Clintons! :laugh:

 

If McCain stays behind in the polls, he's going to be saying all kinds of stuff. That's par for the course when you're losing, you shoot more threes!

It wasn't Carter's Policies that started or precipitated that Revolution it was the Shah's policies .

Yes, it was Carter's policies that changed the status quo. The Shah was an unpopular, brutal dictator but his government was stable and Iran was an ally prior to the arrival of the meddling Jimmy Carter on the scene.

Yes, it was Carter's policies that changed the status quo. The Shah was an unpopular, brutal dictator but his government was stable and Iran was an ally prior to the arrival of the meddling Jimmy Carter on the scene.

 

I don't remember that. Iran, as I recall, was as unstable as any of the old Arab states that were propped up from the west. I also recall that it was the Shah's own government that allowed Khomeni to return from exile and started all of this. The backlash at the US was not because of Carter but was from decades of CIA support of the Shah's regime that ran not unlike a KGB atmosphere. Our policy throughout the 50's through the 70's was to prop up despots like the Shah and military leaders in South America so the communists would not take those countries. Carter just happened to be in the office when the Iranians said, "Enough is enough." How he handled it post Shah is a different matter.

I don't remember that. Iran, as I recall, was as unstable as any of the old Arab states that were propped up from the west. I also recall that it was the Shah's own government that allowed Khomeni to return from exile and started all of this. The backlash at the US was not because of Carter but was from decades of CIA support of the Shah's regime that ran not unlike a KGB atmosphere. Our policy throughout the 50's through the 70's was to prop up despots like the Shah and military leaders in South America so the communists would not take those countries. Carter just happened to be in the office when the Iranians said, "Enough is enough." How he handled it post Shah is a different matter.

I remember it the way that the Shah ddid, based on newspaper and magazine coverage at the time. Carter did not just happen to be in office when the Iranian government fell - he was an active participant.

 

The exiled monarch had become unpopular in much of the world, especially in the liberal West. Ironically, these included his original backers who had the most to lose from his downfall. U.S. President Jimmy Carter had supported the Shah, and visited Iran in 1977. Carter overlooked the fact that Iran had significant oil reserves. According to the Shah in his memoir, General Robert Huyser, a top NATO official, came to Iran unannounced with the primary mission of paralyzing the army.[27] Huyser's role was also confirmed by the Shah's top military officials and his last prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar who was assassinated in France immediately after the revolution. Huyser later received a medal from President Carter. Huyser later wrote a book, Mission to Tehran, denying the events and claiming that his mission was intended to protect the Shah and stabilize Iran. This was consistent with the official policy of US and UK that the western alliance with the Shah was genuine. This provided the basis for the Islamic Republic of Iran's accusation that the West backed the Shah. Still, according to some supporters of the Shah,[who?] the leaders of US, UK, France, and Germany in the summit held in Guadeloupe came to an agreement with the US proposal to remove the Shah.

 

.

.

.The role of the U.S.: I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted... What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran?... Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country - Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Wikipedia

I remember it the way that the Shah ddid, based on newspaper and magazine coverage at the time. Carter did not just happen to be in office when the Iranian government fell - he was an active participant.

 

Do you think those are the answers of the bitter and disposessed? I would expect no different answer from the Shah because he sowed the seeds for his own demise and to his dying day sought someone else to blame.

 

This is no different than the Vietnamese leadership that said the same thing in exile. They never once thought part of the plight and problem was their own rulership practices and their inability to mobilize their own people for self defense.

Yes, it was Carter's policies that changed the status quo. The Shah was an unpopular, brutal dictator but his government was stable and Iran was an ally prior to the arrival of the meddling Jimmy Carter on the scene.

 

 

Wow! Sounds like Sadaam Hussein and Iraq, before the arrival of the meddling Georg Bush on the scene. :eek:

 

Now, I know...Iraq was not our ally...but the rest fits.

Do you think those are the answers of the bitter and disposessed? I would expect no different answer from the Shah because he sowed the seeds for his own demise and to his dying day sought someone else to blame.

 

This is no different than the Vietnamese leadership that said the same thing in exile. They never once thought part of the plight and problem was their own rulership practices and their inability to mobilize their own people for self defense.

As I said, I remember the events that led to the fall of the Shah exactly as the Shah described it. I am sure that he was bitter about being betrayed by Carter but that does not mean that he misplaced the blame.

 

We remember the Carter presidency quite differently. I remember an out of touch president who constantly preached human rights reforms to friend and foe alike and used American funding as a carrot and a stick. I realize that liberals have attempted to revise the history of the Carter presidency over the years and make him appear as somebody who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I have not forgotten Carter's activist role in world events.

 

Jimmy Carter pledged to reform US foreign policy... and look what happened

Americans have, of course, been here before: in 1976, sickened by Watergate, they elected a naïve and inexperienced peanut farmer from Georgia to clear away the cynicism that came to define the Nixon era. From the moment he took office in January 1977, President Jimmy Carter made it clear that he wanted to make a new start in America's relations with the rest of the world. Gone was the hard-nosed Realpolitik of Henry Kissinger. Mr Carter transformed US policy by insisting that human rights be placed at the top of the agenda - with disastrous results.

 

The main reason the Shah of Iran, a key ally in Washington's attempts to keep the Soviet Union at bay in the Gulf, had managed to survive was the ruthless efficiency of his CIA-trained Savak security service. But after Mr Carter hosted a state visit in Washington for the Shah and Empress of Iran in November 1977, the Pahlavi dynasty was encouraged to release hundreds of political prisoners, with the result that, two years later, the Shah was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution. We are still trying to come to terms with the consequences.

 

One of the less appealing aspects of Mr Obama's campaign has been the support he has attracted from Mr Carter who, seemingly oblivious to his handling of the Iran debacle (which culminated in 66 Americans being held hostage in Tehran for 444 days), has not been shy about offering his advice. Mr Carter was at it again this week, counseling Mr Obama against making Hillary Clinton his running mate.

Wow! Sounds like Sadaam Hussein and Iraq, before the arrival of the meddling Georg Bush on the scene. :eek:

 

Now, I know...Iraq was not our ally...but the rest fits.

No, the rest does not fit. First of all, Iran was an ally not an enemy of the US. Carter had difficulty making that simple distinction. President Bush does not.

 

We did not replace a brutal dictator with a vacuum into which Islamic terrorists rushed in to fill unopposed. Bush was smart enough to realize that we could not topple the Iraqi government and allow Saddam Hussein's henchmen to fight for control of the country.

 

Carter's administration was split over whether to support the radical Islamists or to support the Shah by urging him to crack down on dissenters. In the end, he did neither and infuriated the new government by allowing the Shah to come to the US for medical treatment.

 

Carter was, and he remains, a buffoon. The clown has no business conducting his own freelance foreign policy initiatives and Bush should be ashamed of himself for not at least revoking Carter's passport.

As I said, I remember the events that led to the fall of the Shah exactly as the Shah described it. I am sure that he was bitter about being betrayed by Carter but that does not mean that he misplaced the blame.

 

We remember the Carter presidency quite differently. I remember an out of touch president who constantly preached human rights reforms to friend and foe alike and used American funding as a carrot and a stick. I realize that liberals have attempted to revise the history of the Carter presidency over the years and make him appear as somebody who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I have not forgotten Carter's activist role in world events.

 

Jimmy Carter pledged to reform US foreign policy... and look what happened

Americans have, of course, been here before: in 1976, sickened by Watergate, they elected a naïve and inexperienced peanut farmer from Georgia to clear away the cynicism that came to define the Nixon era. From the moment he took office in January 1977, President Jimmy Carter made it clear that he wanted to make a new start in America's relations with the rest of the world. Gone was the hard-nosed Realpolitik of Henry Kissinger. Mr Carter transformed US policy by insisting that human rights be placed at the top of the agenda - with disastrous results.

 

The main reason the Shah of Iran, a key ally in Washington's attempts to keep the Soviet Union at bay in the Gulf, had managed to survive was the ruthless efficiency of his CIA-trained Savak security service. But after Mr Carter hosted a state visit in Washington for the Shah and Empress of Iran in November 1977, the Pahlavi dynasty was encouraged to release hundreds of political prisoners, with the result that, two years later, the Shah was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution. We are still trying to come to terms with the consequences.

 

One of the less appealing aspects of Mr Obama's campaign has been the support he has attracted from Mr Carter who, seemingly oblivious to his handling of the Iran debacle (which culminated in 66 Americans being held hostage in Tehran for 444 days), has not been shy about offering his advice. Mr Carter was at it again this week, counseling Mr Obama against making Hillary Clinton his running mate.

 

 

That's the truth. :thumb:

Huh....:confused:

 

 

But what will be his message of truth tomorrow...and next week...and the next. It is ever changing.

 

I was referring to his statement about Jimmy Carter.