Skip to comments.Rôle of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Posted on 03/15/2004 7:44:03 AM PST by Eala
click here to read article
Now I can believe there were those around him who were looking to score some big bucks, but overall, Carter simply stumbled through his foreign policy dealings. He never had a clue.
very old bump
Carter was a Clinton...with the exception of the Monica-affair...you can draw various comparisons of the two and their slime. There is no doubt that Carter was the more incompetent of the two...but with Bill, you always had Hillery in the background to dual-think situations.
Every time I think I hate Jimmie as much as it is possible, I delve down and find new resevoirs of revulsion toward that weasel. The worst president ever. I think even worse than Bill Clinton and Warren Harding. He is despicable.
What a looooser and complete oddball!
When Jimmy Carter pulled the rug from under the Shah, he begin the chain of events that are still going on today.
The hostages were fortunate that none of them were murdered.
In my cynical opinion, that might have been the plan. I don't see any chance that the "rescue" in the spring of 1980 could have ever succeeded, but OTOH there was an excellent chance it would result in all the hostages being killed . . . and the end of the day-by-day countdowns on the evening news, well before the November election.
All that is required to know someone is to look at their enemies.
This article was published a year and a half ago, where is the substantiation?
Carter was/is a pos and possibly our worst POTUS but he did not bring down the shah, neither did the russians.
Rent-a-crowds don't stand around after the bullets start to fly as the iranians did week after week. The shah was in power only because we put him there (A Roosevelt and a Schwarzkopf were in charge of the operation) in a US orchestrated coup of a legitimate (although too nationalist) leader. To believe that reza was the beloved leader of the people who risked death to overthrow him or to believe that the vast majority of iranians just stood by during the months that it took him to fall is the height of revisionist absurdity.
The shah was a crook and a despot with his own mini-gestapo. And he was weak; CIA documents clearly state so, describing him as being "pathologically afraid" of taking part in the coup. Roosevelt (Teddy's grandson) had to resort to using reza's own sister to shame him into action. Schwarzkopf (Norman's dad) had to meet with him secretly to persuade him. A coded phrase was used by Ike in a broadcast address to try to convince reza that the US backed him at the highest levels, and still he hesitated. Once the coup began to turn bad he fled to Italy and had to be nearly dragged back when things turned around. All this is available in de-classified CIA documents.
iranians threw reza out. They got worse than they bargained for but that doesn't change the history of it. Now this forum is full of shahistas in exile who swear that iran is America's best friend on the planet and who castigate Bush for not doing enough to help the "poor iranians" (as one such described them). Bush challenged them twice to rise and stand. So far they have not. They had the balls to face the SAVAK bullets to rid themselves of the shah. When they have had enough of the mullahs they weill do it again.
No one wants to see any people living under a tyrannical boot but iran gave this gift to themselves (and to us). It is up to them to throw it off, not the 82nd Airborne.
I believe that you are on to somrthing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.