world

Carter defends his handling of Iran hostage crisis

55 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

So ol' Jimmy's happily installing some drywall on a house in Thailand and suddenly decides to comment about his handling of the Iran hostage crisis 30 years ago. Does he expect us to suddenly say, "Oh now that you've explained it that way I guess it wasn't the complete soup sandwich that we all know it was..."?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Carter has been repeatly criticized for this over the years by the crazy overzealous right who quickly forget that all the hostages were freed alive and well 20 minutes after Carter left office, as if it were a magic spell that got them released alive rather than all that negotiation by the Carter administration.

Righties are just not happy unless there are bombs and bullets and somebody dies. Results mean nothing to them unless it was gotten through violence. Just when you thought neanderthals were extinct...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Reagan team promised arms to Iran, in exchange for not releasing the hostages until after elections. The real soup sandwich are the nitwits that do not know their history and are impressed by the right wing defense/oil/corpo terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Carter will always be blamed/criticized for his action or inactions in 1979. The Iranians refused to release the hostages. Carter didn't give up trying to get them home. He was blamed for the attempted rescue when the helicopters crashed. But he tried with out starting an all out war.

I call it a win because we got them all back alive. And no collateral damage that may have cost up to 20,000 lives.

Looking at how the government has estimated so well in the recent past, remember the war that would last 6 months? We're still there. I'm glad Carter continued his negotiations. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

numbskull

Carter negotiated with the Iranians alright but it led to nothing, no results, zip. Actually it did lead to something, one utter failure of a rescue attempt and eight dead. His negotiation attempts were so bad that the 'magic spell' that secured the hostages' release was merely the fact that Carter was no longer the President. It wasn't the fact that Reagan was the new President, it was the mere fact that Carter no longer was. Kinda hard to argue that Carter's efforts secured their release when the Iranians specifically didn't release them until they no longer were dealing with him. He wasn't the solution, he was precisely the cause. If Reagan's inauguration was held any earlier the hostage realease would have been that much earlier as well, just as long as Carter was out of the picture...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

polypals

The theory that Reagan promised the Iranians arms in exchange for the hostages' release is a conspiracy theory, not fact.

The fact that the Iranians wished to punish Carter for his support of the Shaw is fact, not a conspiracy theory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, the US's attempts to negotiate with Iran since haven't exactly been stellar. This was just the begining.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and suddenly decides to comment about his handling of the Iran hostage crisis 30 years ago.

November 1979 -- November 2009. Suddenly? LOL! Being that it is the 30th anniversary, some reporters probably asked him to comment on the occasion.

The fact that the Iranians wished to punish Carter for his support of the Shaw is fact

"His support?" You make it sound as though it was Carter who established relations with him, when in fact the United States was an ally of the Shah for many decades, and through many administrations. Carter's "mistake" was to allow the Shah to come to the U.S. on October 22, 1979 for emergency medical treatment. (Urged by personal requests from Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller.) The embassy was seized two weeks after that. The implication is that the "correct" American thing would have been to betray our former ally -- to have handed him over from his hospital bed.

After the Shah died in Egypt seven months later, Carter's failure to have turned him over made the situation a personal one with the Iranian leaders, who wanted to see him defeated in the 1980 election -- to which the American people obliged.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After the Shah died in Egypt seven months later, Carter's failure to have turned him over made the situation a personal one with the Iranian leaders, who wanted to see him defeated in the 1980 election -- to which the American people obliged.

You're also forgetting that Reagan promised action, swift decisive action on the hostage situation, while running for office. Don't kid yourself, had they not been released, one of his first acts, would have been to deploy the military to Iran. Later on, to punish Iran they indirectly funded the Iraq/Iran war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits

He's in Thailand working on Habitat for Humanity projects and he's commenting on actions he took as President 30 years ago. This is normal? Even if reporters did ask him a question on the anniversary of one of his foreign policy failures it seems he feels the need to justify and defend what he did, or failed to do, based on his comments. Kind of reminds you of Japanese idols being asked questions about their marital status at movie permiers. Ig guess if that's what you're most known for...

As far as his support for the Shaw, yes, HIS support. He didn't initiate the US-Shaw of Iran relationship but he certainly fostered and continued it and as the President in office he was punished for it by the Iranians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reagan was running for election. He'd have said anything to win the election, even that he'd take military action swift and prompt. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess in twenty years' time we can look forward to Bill Clinton commenting on his, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" comment. Can't wait...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Carter negotiated with the Iranians alright but it led to nothing, no results, zip.

It led to the hostages keeping their lives and being released. But to people who don't value life nor freedom but value war, no surprise you call that zip.

Actually it did lead to something, one utter failure of a rescue attempt and eight dead.

Okay, so you would not have tried a rescue attempt? Yeah, right good luck holding on that position. I think now you are just being contrary as a reactionary.

It wasn't the fact that Reagan was the new President, it was the mere fact that Carter no longer was.

And now you are saying that Theocratic leaders of Iran did not like Carter, so neither do you? Please clear that up buddy. I would love to be able to call them and the Ayatollah either your pals or the people you think you should be appeased.

Kinda hard to argue that Carter's efforts secured their release when the Iranians specifically didn't release them until they no longer were dealing with him.

For 20 minutes? He was out of office for 20 minutes. Is this your argument?

He wasn't the solution, he was precisely the cause. If Reagan's inauguration was held any earlier the hostage realease would have been that much earlier as well,

So the only alternative you offer is to bend over for the Iranians, make a monumental change to the way a president gets into office, and hope the hostages get released a little early? Thats all you got?

I think we have reached the point in the debate where its really obvious somebody is just here to rave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USNinJapan is not a big Carter fan, but the helicopters were Navy, is that right? From the Nimitz as I recall? Operation Eagle Claw.

It was a Navy op and navy planned and Navy aborted.

So blaming Carter is somewhere in USNinJapan's job description.

What USNin should be explaining is how H. Ross Perot could get the job done, but the navy couldn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5SpeedRacer5

Operation Eagle Claw was Army planned and Army/White House aborted. You would blame the Navy for executing, or attempting to execute anyway, a flawed Army plan? BTW, the Navy wasn't even in commmand of those helos. The Marines Corps was.

What USNin should be explaining is how H. Ross Perot could get the job done, but the navy couldn't.

Why in the world would I do that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir. Your point is well taken, and it says something about the mood of the times. What is being distorted is that Carter was doing everything he could to get them back, and, as the article states, he was listening to advice, alot of NAVY advice, I might add, and thought better of getting more people captured there.

When the navy did do it, they bungled it. I appreciate USNinJapan's service, but he at least needs a disclaimer.

So Carter backed off again from the use of military force. There was very little criticism of Carter at the time. It was more like frustration. Reagan, who had done nothing up to that time but head a labor union and act as Governor of California, was going to come in and show everyone how it was done, and a lot of people were pretty sure that was going to get people killed. I admit it was impressive that they let the hostages go, and I remember the announcement of their release like it was yesterday. But to blame Carter for those 444 days belies the fact that it was a national problem and there were no easy answers. It is revisionist. It is monday morning quarterbacking. If the military could have done something, it would have. It tried. It failed.

The lesson might "seem" to be that bluster and arrogance are what really counts in this world, but that is only if you ignore Iran/Contra and the smoking guns it left all over the globe. Americans dealing under the table with Muslims? Shocking! Until you remember that Bin Laden got US and Saudi matching funds from the early 1980s, and Saddam got funds too. Carter opposed the people who took Americans hostage. Reagan gave them guns and money. We know how that turned out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eagle Claw was a highly joint mission, so feel free to blame all four branches of the service. Or you could blame the sandstorm. Or, you could blame Carter for failing to pilot one of the crafts personally, so that he could have used is magical presidential powers to quell the sandstorm. Or blame Carter for not handing those magical powers over to someone like Reagan sooner, who no doubt would have unleashed them if given more time than 20 minutes of being president for the crisis. And, of course, given the last 2 options which no doubt USNinJapan2 firmly believes, not one soul would have died!

And you know why Carter should have handed over power sooner? The Iranian revolutionaries didn't like him! Despite USNinJapan's silence, I have filed his handle under "bends over for terrorists."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just what Obama needs now, the old crackpot Carter spouting off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd like to know who, with the exception of aday, out of all you Carter experts, was actually of age to even comprehend what was going on. 1980? I hardly think battling each other here on JT on an event that took place that either happened before we were born or still in elementary school is going to prove anything that I can edit a wiki with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/110409.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gee, skip. My recollection is that most people of that time did not want to know what was going on. They still don't. People talked about the Shah, but nobody talked about Mossadegh.

There were groups of people who were going crazy to get them out. Many were Republicans and military people. There were others who were ok to be patient with it. And every night, the countdown on the evening news.

Age is not wisdom, and I run across a lot of people with selective amnesia. Carter did his best just as the military did. He blames himself for the failed military mission because he was CinC, but I don't. He gave the go ahead because he knew it was what America wanted and the military told him they could do it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5SpeedRacer5

What is being distorted is that Carter was doing everything he could to get them back, and, as the article states, he was listening to advice, alot of NAVY advice, I might add, and thought better of getting more people captured there.

When the navy did do it, they bungled it. I appreciate USNinJapan's service, but he at least needs a disclaimer.

Yes indeed, Carter was doing everything he could to get them back and nothing came of it. The only condition it seems that the Iranians would accept was that he was no longer in command. Pretty sad when you're absence and non-involvement are the only conditions for resolution of a situation.

Why do you insist on blaming the Navy for this failed operation? Because a part of it was carried out from a Navy ship? The plan itself was developed and commanded primarily by Army personnel; Major General James B. Vaught (Army) was the Joint Task Force commander, Colonel Charles A. Beckwith (Army) was the Ground Assault Commander, Colonel James H. Kyle (USAF) commanded the fixed wing contingent and Lieutenant Colonel Edward Seiffert (USMC) was in charge of the helicopter force. The helicopters that were used in the mission were indeed Navy RH53D helos but they were loaned to the Marines for this mission and were flown by Marine pilots. The Navy piece of this mission was the launch platform USS Nmitz and its battlegroup, which is about the only part of the exercise that didn't end in disaster. As for the advice Carter was getting regarding his military options, that would have been coming from his SecDef Harold Brown and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General David Jones (USAF).

I don't think I'm the one who's in need of a disclaimer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are they talking about old Mr. Carter, the peanut farmer that builds houses for the homeless? Pleasant chap.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USNinJapan2,

Sore subject for you? Out of 24 posts, yours make up a third of them.

You have all but done backflips to convince anyone who'll listen that Carter was the beginning, middle, and end of the entire mess, with Reagon's "fear-inspiring" ascent to the presidency. Oh, if only history were that neat and tidy.

Your efforts to ignore or minimize a looooooong-standing relationship between the Shah and both the United States AND British governments make your arguments more than a bit disingenuous.

At the end of the day, the only people responsible for holding, then releasing those 53 American were the Iranian students who stormed the US Embassy and the Iranian government that backed them. And they played American voters like a violin.

Maybe it's some sort of kneejerk "Navy pride" thing that prompts you to gloss over the historical particulars, but hey, everyone's gotta' have a torch to carry, I suppose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Carter - "I could have destroyed Iran with my weaponry..."

Yeah, his weaponry...

"I didn't want to kill 20,000 Iranians"

There were more than 20,000 Iranians in 1979, Jimmy.

"The hostages were released on Jan.20, 1981, just minutes after the swearing in of President Ronald Reagan."

Guaranteed the hostages would have continued to languish in Iran if Carter had been re-elected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have all but done backflips to convince anyone who'll listen that Carter was the beginning, middle, and end of the entire mess, with Reagon's "fear-inspiring" ascent to the presidency. Oh, if only history were that neat and tidy.

Carter was responsible. What was it that Truman always used to say. "The Buck Stops Here." He was the one who made the call, good advice or bad, and he is the one who bears responsibility for the outcome. Rather like Bush. Bad intel or no, he made the call to go into Iraq, and all the good and bad things that come along with it, are ultimately his responsibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He didn't initiate the US-Shaw of Iran relationship but he certainly fostered and continued it and as the President in office he was punished for it by the Iranians.

It was Nixon who really took the US relationship with the Shah up about three notches. Sold Iran billions in military hardware and technology, including nuclear. (That's where Iran's nuclear program really got started.)

The Shah was a BIG friend of U.S. conservatives who saw him as a bulwark against the Soviets in the region. Had Carter not allowed the Shah into the U.S. for medical treatment, the conservatives would have castigated him for throwing a staunch U.S. ally under the bus. You seem to be suggesting that Carter should have done just that.

The real question may be was the embassy takeover and detention of 52 Americans worth the price of demonstrating honor and loyalty to an ally of the United States. I think so, although it appears that many would trade that away for far less.

Safety of the hostages was paramount in President Carter's mind. Most people do not recall how, early into the crisis, Khomeini declared that the hostages should be considered spies, and therefore subject to the death penalty. Since the supreme Iranian leader's wishes were not carried out, it would appear that someone got to him (or circumvented him) knowing that if any of those people were harmed, there would have been a heavy price to pay.

As with the military, anyone entering the foreign service and signing up for duty in a nation that is hostile to the U.S. has to be ready to face what might come. (And that includes conservative Americans at home making your plight into political hay.) In February of 1979, our ambassador to Afghanistan was kidnapped and held for ransom. He was killed by Islamists when Afghan security forces tried to rescue him.

Had a Reagan or Bush type used force from the outset, it is likely that most if not all of the 52 would have been lost. Loyalty to U.S. allies, like the lives of those serving America, come very cheap to those types. The deadliest day for U.S. Marines since Iwo Jima came under Reagan's watch -- and he couldn't hightail it out of Beirut fast enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@LFRAgain:

Maybe it's some sort of kneejerk "Navy pride" thing that prompts you to gloss over the historical particulars, but hey, everyone's gotta' have a torch to carry, I suppose.

There is something going on when the tragic deaths of eight U.S. servicemen on a very noble mission to rescue U.S. hostages are held up as some kind of personal failure on President Carter. Carter himself was a genuine Navy veteran who genuinely appeared to value American life as well as human life. (That's real service, as opposed to putting on a uniform and getting in front of Hollywood cameras.)

Compare that with the noble [sic] mission to protect the PLO in Beirut that ends up in total failure with over 200 Marines wiped out under the leadership [sic] of America's greatest acting president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What was it that Truman always used to say. 'The Buck Stops Here.'"

That is the first time a conservative has uttered those words in 9 years. The irony never ceases!

Skip, Classic post. Yeah, JT is chock full of historians and policy wonks!

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd like to know who, with the exception of aday, out of all you Carter experts, was actually of age to even comprehend what was going on. 1980?

By 1978, I had already served seven years in the Navy. Obviously, being in the Navy does not necessarily qualify me to have comprehended what was going on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, Taka313, whaddya think of ol' Jimmy's bungling of the Iran hostage crisis?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I remember those dark days of Carters leadership. The appeasement to the Iranians and always trying to look good to everyone. Truely the first President who was style over substance.

He is so similar to Obama, though more compentent. The Iranian crisis could have been ended with the use of military force. Carter was a weak ditherer, which emboldens the enemy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Truely the first President who was style over substance.

Carter had style? That's the first time I have ever heard that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Iranian crisis could have been ended with the use of military force"

All it took, though, was the swearing in of Reagan. Amazing, huh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRagain

You have all but done backflips to convince anyone who'll listen that Carter was the beginning, middle, and end of the entire mess, with Reagon's "fear-inspiring" ascent to the presidency. Oh, if only history were that neat and tidy. At the end of the day, the only people responsible for holding, then releasing those 53 American were the Iranian students who stormed the US Embassy and the Iranian government that backed them. And they played American voters like a violin.

I have not argued anywhere on here that the credit for the rescue should go to Reagan or anyone else. What I have argued is simply that the only thing Carter did to affect the outcome of the hostage situation in a positive way was to leave office because that was condition for release on the Iranian side. Unlike others here, I don't give Carter credit for the release because all he did was get out of the way.

Your efforts to ignore or minimize a looooooong-standing relationship between the Shah and both the United States AND British governments make your arguments more than a bit disingenuous.

I don't believe I've done anything of the kind. Allowing entry into the US of the exiled Shaw was one of the primary bones the Iranian students and their government supporters had to pick with Carter's administration. That's all I've said about it. I certainly don't think I've ignored or minimized the greater role of the Shaw in US-Iranian relationship simply because I didn't delve any deeper into the subject in any of my posts.

Maybe it's some sort of kneejerk "Navy pride" thing that prompts you to gloss over the historical particulars, but hey, everyone's gotta' have a torch to carry, I suppose.

Navy pride, perhaps, but it did irk me that 5SpeedRacer5 claimed that the disastrous Operation Eagle Claw was a Navy planned and executed operation and that the Navy was responsible for its failure when the facts are otherwise. Out of curiosity, which historical particulars are you saying I glossed over?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Allowing entry into the US of the exiled Shaw [sic] was one of the primary bones the Iranian students and their government supporters had to pick with Carter's administration. That's all I've said about it.

And that is what is called "minimizing." The reduction of selective historical "facts" in or to reach or promote a false conclusion, or to leave a false impression.

Allowing the Shah to enter the U.S. was seen by the Iranians -- who already experienced one U.S.-sponsored coup to overthrow a popular government which installed the Shah in the first place -- of a possible U.S. attempt to reinstate him by military force. They could not know that such a plan was never considered.

After a brief takeover of the embassy in February of 1979, mainly by leftists in support of the revolution, President Carter cut back the embassy staff to less than 100 from over 1,000.

It is just as important to look at the historical record to note what Carter did not do: Carter did not immediately send emissaries to Saddam Hussein to make him the U.S.'s latest "buddy" in the region. Carter did not send U.S. Marines on a totally senseless mission to Beirut to protect the PLO, and then aborted it just as soon as over 200 were wiped out in a single swat. Carter did not then proceed to trade arms for hostages with the very elements who were behind the killing of U.S. Marines. Carter did not blithely and quickly excuse the U.S. buddy, Saddam Hussein, after he killed 37 sailors in a missile attack on the USS Stark.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The whole episode should be considered history - except that we have Carter redux in the white house now....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny, I have a Persian friend who constantly tells me that the US overblowing of the hostage crisis solidified the power of the hardliners in post revolution power. Had we sought out and supported moderates things could be much different between the west and Iran and for the poeple of Iran as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny, I have a Persian friend who constantly tells me that the US overblowing of the hostage crisis...

To overblow means to make too much out of. Your friend is suggesting that the U.S. made too much out of the fact of an embassy being siezed and Americans being held hostage?

In 1979 and beyond, open U.S. support of any faction within Iran would have meant the kiss of death for them. Perhaps a second opinion from another Persian is in order.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Jimmy Carter refused the demand and retaliated with economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. All efforts to negotiate the release of the hostages were rebuffed. The United States attempted a commando raid to rescue the hostages, but the mission failed when three helicopters broke down. During the mission eight United States servicemen died in a helicopter crash. If the helicotper did not crash, the history might have been different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unlike others here, I don't give Carter credit for the release because all he did was get out of the way.

Yeah, out of the way for 20 minutes and that's all it took. Can you hear yourself?

Are any of you contortionist anti-Carter people going to offer an alternative, or are you just going to continue to embarrass yourselves in other ways? Or, are you finally going to get those rabies shots?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Funny, I have a Persian friend who constantly tells me that the US overblowing [sic] of the hostage crisis solidified the power of the hardliners in post revolution power."

You don't say. Is special Persian friend named Carter?

They seized our embassy.

It was an act of war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was an act of war.

Yes it was. And if one is incapable of doing any thinking outside of the book of war, it would necessitate war, even though it was done by revolutionaries/students and not the official government, the country of Iran is still responsible for the actions and inactions. You seem almost disappointed that there was not a war! As I said earlier, some people just can't understand success unless its gotten by force and/or violence. If you had gotten your war and a bunch of hostages had been killed along with thousands of soldiers and even more Iranian civilians, I think I can predict what this debate would be about. It would be about people like yourself saying how war was necessary to free the hostages and maintain American dignity, while people like myself would be saying both were possible without war! And they were!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

During the mission eight United States servicemen died in a helicopter crash. If the helicotper did not crash, the history might have been different.

The mission was aborted due to a sandstorm. The crash occured after the mission was aborted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would be about people like yourself saying how war was necessary to free the hostages and maintain American dignity, while people like myself would be saying both were possible without war! And they were!

Really great post!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really great post!

Thank you. And you have done well in proving that Carter was a great president for what he didn't do. Like I keep saying, some people just cannot see the benefits or greatness of restraint. All they understand are firefights. And I wish we could pack them off to Antarctica to enjoy their small minded violence and leave the rest of us in peace with our great presidents!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As prescient and profound as Eisenhower's farewell address (in which he warned Americans about the military-industrial complex) was President Carter's much-maligned "malaise" speech of July 1979 -- which occurred between the two embassy takeovers in Iran.

Never had the words of the prophet Isaiah (30:9-10) proven more true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

victimcrat: "They seized our embassy it was an act of war" Well and maybe true but our reaction led to a 30 year "cold war" was it worth it? Is it worth it now to refuse to negotiate with Iran, tell the Japanese to get their oil from elsewhere etc? American's on the whole don't get it we have to deal with Iran like it or not and bombing their nuclear facilities won't cut it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Numbskull 12:43.Thank you. And you have done well in proving that Carter was a great president for what he didn't do. Like I keep saying, some people just cannot see the benefits or greatness of restraint. All they understand are firefights. And I wish we could pack them off to Antarctica to enjoy their small minded violence and leave the rest of us in peace with our great presidents! .

I disagree. "Done well in proving Carter was a great president for what he didn't do"? A Joke. Carter's an outsider who really didn't understand the levers of national governance; or Carter surrounds himself with a "Georgia friends" whose weaknesses are the same as his own; or Carter is a bad manager who hasn't been able to sort out decisions that a president must make from those that should be settled at lower levels; or Congress is so uncontrollable that it will not allow any president to exercise the reins of leadership; or the bureaucracy has grown beyond the span of presidential control; or many of the nation's problem's are highly intractable; or even all these reasons taken together—although there is truth in all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330, it might be possible for you to pack more accusations in there, but you certainly could not have less substance or proof! In no way am I impressed with your pile of bland unsubstantiated accusations obviously done in nothing more than mean-spiritedness. Why don't you take up what Carter did not do with Yabits? It was his post I was commenting on. You will note that his post contains specifics! Yours doesn't!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

numbskull:

Carter's history of involvement with the Middle East conflict is no less troublesome. It was Carter who brokered the first in a series of largely ineffective and in the long run incredibly damaging Arab-Israeli peace treaties. Far from pushing peace, such agreements have only strengthened the disdain toward Israel from its Arab neighbors and led to further violence. Carter's claim to fame in the peace process arena was the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty signed at Camp David by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. While the alleged peace between Egypt and Israel has held up to this day, increased hostility in Egypt toward Israel and Jews has been the true legacy. At some point, one has to come to the logical conclusion that a peace treaty that inspires hatred is not worth the paper it's printed on. Instead, Carter received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his efforts in the Middle East, among other locales. Such efforts continue with Carter's apparent fondness for Hamas, the terrorist group turned government, which, he insists, will become a "non-violent organization" despite all indications to the contrary. Before that, it was his cozy relationship with Palestinian dictator Yasser Arafat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hamas, the terrorist group turned government,

You must be against the American revolution, where a group of terrorists to the British Empire started a government. And dude, no one could have made the Israeli-Arab situation worse than it already was. Besides, Israel has earned most the hatred it receives fair and square. And here you seem to want to cheat them out of it! So, I keep asking this, but what you have prefered? What is your grand solution on this fine Monday morning Mr. armchair quaterback?

And I am still not Yabits and this thread is not about Israel-Arab relations that I don't think God himself could fix.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

numbskull;

One has to wonder if Carter's single minded obsession with Israel as the root of the problems in the world, not to mention the stubbornly one sided view of the Middle East conflict to which he has a history of subscribing -- has any anti-Semitic underpinnings.

But this was hardly the first time that intimations of anti-Semitism have tainted Carter's career. In an article titled "Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem," by Jason Maoz, senior editor at Jewish Press, reveals that "during a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the Jewish community, and snapped, 'If I get back in, I'm going to [expletive] the Jews.'" Maoz also references the 1976 presidential campaign during which Carter, fearing that his opponent Senator Henry Jackson had the Jewish vote in the Democratic primaries locked up, "instructed his staff not to issue any more statements on the Middle East. 'Jackson has all the Jews anyway we get the Christians.'"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330

As informative as your posts are, you may as well be preaching to a horse...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Carter illustrates typical liberal democrat behavior. Make a mess of things, and then spend the rest of your life trying to explain them away. Obama will be busy once he's ousted from office.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites