Posted on 05/13/2012 12:15:44 PM PDT by SmithL
Carter has been a disaster as an ex-President too.
“It’s a unique legacy that he will leave. It would take a strenuous revisionist to argue that he was a successful president. A disaster might be too strong a word for his time in office, but the historical argument will be made within those margins. But in retrospect it may have been worth those four years just to get Carter into his true calling, as a former president...”
Fast forward, edited:
It’s a unique legacy that Obama will leave. It would take a strenuous revisionist to argue that he was a successful president. A disaster might be the appropriate word for his time in office, and the historical argument will be made within those margins. But in retrospect it will not have been worth these four years just to get Obama into his failed true calling as a community organizer.”
Is this another one of those belated April-Fools posts?
Carter may be alive, but he’s been brain dead for years. He’s an idiot.
Besides, he DID love his country and served with honor, distinction and bravery in WWII.
He didn’t deserve what the moonbat a-hole Chevy Chase did to him. Ford was a good man, a classy guy.
One should not speak ill of the dead, however, the record speaks for itself.
On or about 1975, though I had considered myself a Republican, President Ford's actions (or rather, inaction))left me so disgusted, that I foreswore my allegiance to the Party and have since considered myself an Independent Conservative.
From: A decent Interval / Who Lost Vietnam?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/vietnam2-decent-interval.htm
On June 27, 1973 Nixon vetoed a bill that would have stopped the bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the North Vietnamese supply lines through Laos and Cambodia. The House had sustained the President's veto. Nixon had denounced the "Cambodia rider,"saying it would "cripple or destroy the chances for an effective negotiated settlement in Cambodia and the withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops,"
On June 29, 1973, Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., rose on the floor of the House of Representatives and made an announcement that left his colleagues stunned. President Richard M. Nixon, Ford said, would sign a bill barring U.S. combat activities in all of Indochina -- North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnamese battlefields. Passage of this bill rendered worthless the promises Nixon had made in person to Thieu that the USwould punish Hanoi for breaches of the cease-fire. The level of violence had greatly intensified in South Vietnam, and this measure was tantamount to giving Hanoi a green light to conquer the country. Nixon later claimed that he had no choice but to accept the all-Indochina ban on U.S. bombing, writing that "it was becoming clear that the antiwar majority in Congress would soon be able to impose its will." The Democratic Congress prohibition on U.S. bombing in all of Indochina could be blamed for Communist victory in Vietnam.
It was soon apparent that even if President Nixon might wish to take military action against North Vietnam, the US Congress would not support him. Increasingly concerned over continuing US air strikes in Cambodia, Congress enacted legislation on 30 June cutting off funds, effective 15 August 1973, for all "combat activities by United States military forces in or over or from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia." The President's options for retaliation against North Vietnamese violations of the peace agreement were even further restricted when Congress passed the "War Powers Resolution" on 7 November 1973. This measure required the President to consult with Congress before introducing any US armed forces into hostile situations abroad.
MACV had prepared the South Vietnamese to take up the burden of the territorial security and light infantry war while assuming that American air power would be available to counter a more severe threat, as it had done in 1972. The Paris Agreement and the actions of the Congress took away American support, including air power. It was too late for the drastic changes in forces and strategy that South Vietnam would have needed to survive without the Americans, and it is doubtful whether Saigon's leaders could have conceived and executed such changes even given more time.
During FY 1973, the United States had contributed $2.27 billion for support of the RVNAF. For FY 1974, the Nixon administration sought another $1.6 billion, but Congress authorized only $1.1 billion. This reduction brought predictions of dire consequences. The US Defense Attache n Saigon reported in March 1974 that the RVNAF faced "a fuel and supply famine" while CINCPAC foresaw an "ominous situation in South Vietnam in the immediate future." d had the opportunity to change the nation's course in Vietnam when he assumed the presidency in August 1974. He did not do so, leaving the burden of ending the war to the US Congress.
In September 1974 the U.S. Congress appropriated only $700 million for South Vietnam for FY 1975, instead of the requested $1.0 billion. This left the South Vietnamese Army under-funded and resulted in a decline of military readiness and morale. To accommodate this reduction, stringent measures were implemented to reduce RVNAF operations and tighten its force structure. Numerous VNAF aircraft were deactivated and flying-hours cut by half.
On 18 December 1974, based on President Ford's ineffective response and his hamstringing by Congress, North Vietnam's leaders meet in Hanoi to form a plan for final victory.
The NVA launched the first attack shortly after the first of the year against Phuoc Long Province in MR 3. After a seven-day siege, Phuoc Binh fell on 7 January 1975. After the seizure of the province, Hanoi sat back to judge the American reaction. There was none. On 8 January 1975 the North Vietnamese Politburo ordered a major offensive to "liberate" South Vietnam by NVA cross-border invasion.
Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified to Congress on 14 January 1975 that the U.S. was not living up to its earlier promise to South Vietnam's President Thieu of "severe retaliatory action" in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty.
But on 21 January 1975 President Ford told a press conference that the United States was unwilling to re-enter the war.
Rather than working out a plan to end the war and remove those South Vietnamese who had worked with the Americans over the years, the Ford administration, led by the President himself, his Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, and Graham Martin, the U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam, chose to pursue a deliberate policy of denial, one designed to place the blame for the loss of South Vietnam on the shoulders of Congress. The resulting tragedy left thousands of Vietnamese to face life as the clear losers in a civil war.
While there is enough blame to go around, most notably, the DEMON-RATS in Congress (thereafter and since, to be known as the Party of Surrender and Defeat) we had a SIGNED Agreement (Paris Peace Accords, in which we PROMISED to come to South Vietnam's defense if No. Vietnam attempted a takeover) which we (read: The WUSS, RINO, Ford) REFUSED to honor and that coupled with our earlier bugout under "Peace with Honor" Tricky Dicky Nixon (aided and abetted by the Scumbag, Globalist Kissinger) started many of us Nam Vets to question "What is all worth it," and "Why did we have to sacrifice (58,000+) military" for naught.
I can GUARANTEE our Military Warriors will in the very near future, be asking themselves same questions about their service (and losses) in Iraq and AfGan.
Likewise, the Iraqis and Afhanis who "TRUSTED" us (FOOLS) and cooperated or worked with us, much like the Hundreds of Thousands of Vietnamese who did the same, will be left hanging and will no doubt suffer the same consequences as the Vietnamese did after the North took over the South....if not worst left to the "tender" mercies (/sarc) of the Islamofascist who will end up controlling both countries
Ford wasn’t all light and goodness, he was pro-abortion, strongly so.
http://www.rescueattempt.com/id24.html
Sunday, March 16, 2008
http://alanpetersworld.blogspot.com:80/2008/03/jimmah-idiot-carter-architect-of-our.html
JIMMAH THE IDIOT CARTER - ARCHITECT OF OUR TERRORIST PROBLEMS
Iran: Carter’s Habitat For Inhumanity
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY (with AntiMullah editorial comments)
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini’s successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.
Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today’s war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.
This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing “human rights” was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets.
As he’s done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 “political” prisoners.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.
The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah’s firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to “The Real Jimmy Carter,” a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: “Kho-meini’s regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah’s Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years.”
The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: “we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.
Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow.
And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America’s lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.
On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: “America cannot do a damn thing.”
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arrangd their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election).
Indeed, America under Carter wouldn’t do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.
When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: “He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him.”
Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and inteligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, (”Green Belt” contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130’s bringing in weapons.
Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter’s foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.
According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter’s spiteful response was: “F*** the Shah. I’m not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he’ll be safe.”
In October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.
If the Shah had remained in power, it isn’t likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein’s forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter’s Khomeini).
Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.
Carter’s Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.
It was Carter’s Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon.
And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.
The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to “buy” the election for their “mole” Jimmuh Carter).
And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, “set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11.”
Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party’s presidential nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.
The reason? Carter had “quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had.”
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
(Alan Note: And Carter’s liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba’s Castro, Venezuela’s Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place).
*********************************************************************
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46 Monday, March 15, 2004
Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year
© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA
Exclusive:
Rôle of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,1 GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.
The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.
Pres. Carters anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.
The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was trying to be helpful. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.
The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent management fee a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carters friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the personal management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.
Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters as well as in some US minds at the time and later that Carters actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
Sensing that Irans exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Irans sea exports unimpeded.
Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, megalomaniac projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.
In late February 2004, Islamic Irans Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehrans Amir Kabir University, Irans Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.
Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.
A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power Ayatollah Shariatmadaris warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Irans Investment Organization, who said: We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in State and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources. Not even after 25 years.
Historians and observers still debate Carters reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.
The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carters 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to buy the presidency for Carter.
In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US most powerful ally in the Middle East, this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carters next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.
Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.
Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carters focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.
Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by students of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.
The mostly rent-a-crowd group of students organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargans revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. He helped us, now we help him was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.2
Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man as he was and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian pope and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.
Carters mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic green belt to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.
Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadaris dilemma and shares the same quietist Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistanis Khomeini equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Husseins forces. Sadrs son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.
According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that Reagans successor, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.
Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name Alan Peters is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of Ayatollah Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.
Some articles have appeared on the Internet concerning Jimmy Carter that the public should be aware of. Here are the opening paragraphs with the links to the original articles:
Jimmy Carter Under Fire for Recruiting Soviets Against Reagan
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2002
WASHINGTON Former President Jimmy Carter owes an explanation to the American people for his behavior during the Cold War, says the author of a new book.
“Reagans War reveals new information that Carter, as president and later as a private citizen, sought the help of an avowed foreign enemy of this country to undermine Reagans candidacy in 1980 and, even more shocking, tried to cripple President Reagans foreign policy in 1984.
The former Democrat president, who had been ousted by voters four years earlier, wanted the Soviets to help him put a Democrat back in the White House.
Speaking Tuesday at a seminar at the Institute of World Politics, the books author, Peter Schweizer, said Jimmy Carter owes a full explanation, and then depending on his answer, a decision could be made as to whether the former president “stepped over the line from pure dissent to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
NewsMax.com CEO Christopher Ruddy has written that Carter “may well have committed treason by enlisting the help of the Soviet Union in the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections.
“Its a fair question for him [Carter] to give his account of what happened, and a response, which he has not done, the author told NewsMax.com. “Then, you know, depending on his reaction and response, there needs to be further discussion. The other thing potentially that perhaps ought to be asked [is] that Moscow release any files it has on the meetings.
“All we have right now, Schweizer added, “is based on these accounts by [former Soviet Ambassador] Dobrynin. And it begs the question: Is there any more material based on his [Carters] dealings with Moscow?
‘Carter Won’t Forget’ Soviet Assistance
Schweizers book, which is going straight to the top of the best-seller list, reveals that during the 1980 campaign when Reagan was gaining in the polls, Carter “dispatched [pro-Soviet industrialist] Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy for a secret meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin to ask for Soviet help with Jewish emigration and other potential vote-getting issues for a sitting president. The Soviets were promised that “Carter wont forget that service if he is re-elected.
Schweizer reports that when Reagan was running for re-election in 1984, Carter himself visited Ambassador Dobrynin warning there “would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan was in power.
Carter wanted the Soviet Union to help the Democrats regain the presidency. History shows his prophecy about no hope for a nuclear arms agreement to be wrong. It was a part of Reagan’s success in ending the Cold War on Americas terms.
Asking Carter to explain to Americans this part of his stewardship is most “reasonable, in Schweizers view. When he asked the former president about this, all the author got was “No comment.
location: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/201145.shtml
Peter Schweizer, a Hoover Institution research fellow, has just written a new book, “Reagan’s War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism.”
This book may well force historians to revise the history of the Cold War.
Schweizer, after scouring once-classified KGB, East German Stasi and Soviet Communist Party files, discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Soviets not only played footsie with high-ranking Democrats, they also worked behind the scenes to influence American elections.
In “Reagan’s War,” Schweizer shows how the Democrats worked with Moscow to try to undermine Reagan before and after he became president.
Jimmy Carter’s Dirty Tricks
Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984, former President Jimmy Carter dropped by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin’s residence for a private meeting.
Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan’s defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, “There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power.”
Using the Russians to influence the presidential election was nothing new for Carter.
Schweizer reveals Russian documents that show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy.
Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was “clearly alarmed” at the prospect of losing to Reagan.
Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter’s standing in the polls.
‘Carter Won’t Forget That Service’
“Carter won’t forget that service if he is elected,” Hammer told Dobrynin.
Carter was not the only Democrat to make clear to the Russians where their loyalty lay. As the election neared in 1984, Dobrynin recalls meetings with Speaker of the House Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill.
O’Neill told Dobrynin that no effort should be spared to prevent “that demagogue Reagan” from being re-elected.
location:
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/10/16/214040
Jimmy Carter and the 40 Ayatollahs
Diane Alden
Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2002
By Middle East standards the Shah of Iran was a progressive democrat. In the eyes of President Jimmy Carter and certain foreign policy factions in the State Department and various think tanks, the Shah represented the heart of darkness.
In an article in May 2002, NewsMax’s Chris Ruddy pointed out:
“Remember Carter’s human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini? “No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah’s top military commanders about 150 of them to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
“The Shah’s military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah’s first acts.
“By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.”
[See: Jimmy Carter’s Trail of Disaster.]
As has been reported in NewsMax previously, Carter still receives a great deal of money from the Arab world for his Carter Center in Atlanta.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/170201.shtml
Carter Sold out Iran 1977-1978
As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the worlds most oppressive regimes, would greatly contribute to the creation of the Marxist/Islamic terror network challenging the free world today.
At the time, a senior Iranian diplomat in Washington observed, President Carter betrayed the Shah and helped create the vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America. Under the guise of promoting human rights, Carter made demands on the Shah while blackmailing him with the threat that if the demands werent fulfilled, vital military aid and training would be withheld. This strange policy, carried out against a staunch, 20 year Middle East ally, was a repeat of similar policies applied in the past by US governments to other allies such as pre Mao China and pre Castro Cuba.
Carter started by pressuring the Shah to release political prisoners including known terrorists and to put an end to military tribunals. The newly released terrorists would be tried under civil jurisdiction with the Marxist/Islamists using these trials as a platform for agitation and propaganda. This is a standard tactic of the left then and now. The free world operates at a distinct dis-advantage to Marxist and Islamic nations in this regard as in those countries, trials are staged to show the political faith of the ruling elite. Fair trials, an independent judiciary, and a search for justice is considered to be a western bourgeois prejudice.
Carter pressured Iran to allow for free assembly which meant that groups would be able to meet and agitate for the overthrow of the government. It goes without saying that such rights didnt exist in any Marxist or Islamic nation. The planned and predictable result of these policies was an escalation of opposition to the Shah, which would be viewed by his enemies as a weakness. A well-situated internal apparatus in Iran receiving its marching orders from the Kremlin egged on this growing opposition.
By the fall of 1977, university students, working in tandem with a Shiite clergy that had long opposed the Shahs modernizing policies, began a well coordinated and financed series of street demonstrations supported by a media campaign reminiscent of the 1947-1948 campaign against Chinas Chiang Ki Shek in favor of the agrarian reformer Mao tse Tung. At this point the Shah was unable to check the demonstrators, who were instigating violence as a means of inflaming the situation and providing their media stooges with atrocity propaganda. Rumors were circulating amongst Iranians that the CIA under the orders of President Carter organized these demonstrations.
In November 1977, the Shah and his Empress, Farah Diba, visited the White House where they were met with hostility. They were greeted by nearly 4,000 Marxist-led Iranian students, many wearing masks, waving clubs, and carrying banners festooned with the names of Iranian terrorist organizations. The rioters were allowed within 100 feet of the White House where they attacked other Iranians and Americans gathered to welcome the Shah. Only 15 were arrested and quickly released. Inside the White House, Carter pressured the Shah to implement even more radical changes. Meanwhile, the Soviets were mobilizing a campaign of propaganda, espionage, sabotage, and terror in Iran. The Shah was being squeezed on two sides.
In April 1978, Moscow would instigate a bloody coup in Afghanistan and install the communist puppet Nur Mohammad Taraki. Taraki would proceed to call for a jihad against the Ikhwanu Shayateen which translates into brothers of devils, a label applied to opponents of the new red regime in Kabul and to the Iranian government. Subversives and Soviet-trained agents swarmed across the long Afghanistan/Iran border to infiltrate Shiite mosques and other Iranian institutions. By November 1978, there was an estimated 500,000 Soviet backed Afghanis in Iran where, among other activities, they set up training camps for terrorists.
Khomeini, a 78-year-old Shiite cleric whose brother had been imprisoned as a result of activities relating to his Iranian Communist party affiliations, and who had spent 15 years in exile in Bath Socialist Iraq, was poised to return. In exile, Khomeini spoke of the creation of a revolutionary Islamic republic, which would be anti-Western, socialist, and with total power in the hands of an ayatollah. In his efforts to violently overthrow the government of Iran, Khomeini received the full support of the Soviets.
Nureddin Klanuri, head of the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party, in exile in East Berlin, stated, The Tudeh Party approves Ayatollah Khomeinis initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council. The ayatollahs program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party. Khomeinis closest advisor, Sadegh Ghothzadeh, was well known as a revolutionary with close links to communist intelligence. In January 1998, Pravda, the official Soviet organ, officially endorsed the Khomeini revolution.
American leaders were also supporting Khomeini. After the Pravda endorsement, Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, held a press conference where he reported on a trip to Iran and a Paris visit with Khomeini. He urged the US government to take no action to help the Shah so that Iran could determine its own fate. Clark played a behind the scenes role influencing members of Congress to not get involved in the crisis. Perhaps UN Ambassador Andrew Young best expressed the thinking of the left at the time when he stated that, if successful, Khomeini would eventually be hailed as a saint.
Khomeini was allowed to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism. Khomeini unleashed the hybrid of Islam and Marxism that has spawned suicide bombers and hijackers. President Jimmy Carter, and the extremists in his administration are to blame and should be held accountable.
Chuck Morse
Is the author of
Why Im a Right-Wing Extremist
www.chuckmorse.com
http://www.americanewsnet.com/cmntrs/cmntrs04.htm
ansel12, I didn’t say he was all light and goodness. I said he wasn’t the clown and buffoon people made him out to be.
After he left office and didn't have anything else to do but listen to his wife talk, sure. But that would be a mischaracterization of Ford's position as president.
Ford believed states should be allowed to legislate as they saw fit. His position, as distinct from his wife's, wasn't wildly out of line with Reagan's in 1976.
“Carter has been a disaster as an ex-President...”
No former president comes even close to matching the unmitigated anti-American POS disaster that is Jimmy Carter. He is only surpassed by the present albino president as an unmitigated anti-American POS disaster as president.
There is a special place in Hell reserved for Carter...and it is to keep it especially warm for his father the Devil...probably fueled by peanut oil.
I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
But that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
Was Ford a RINO? Sure. Was Nixon a RINO? Yeah. Was Eisenhower a RINO. Probably.
The only two Presidents in the last century who wouldn’t be called RINO’s were likely Coolidge and Reagan. And on this forum, even then.
I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
But that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
Was Ford a RINO? Sure. Was Nixon a RINO? Yeah. Was Eisenhower a RINO. Probably.
The only two Presidents in the last century who wouldn’t be called RINO’s were likely Coolidge and Reagan. And on this forum, even then.
But an absolute shoe-in for the "Worst President" ever. He will sky rocket to the top of the list!!!
“The only two Presidents in the last century who wouldn’t be called RINO’s...”
Hopefully you are referring to Presidents who were elected as ‘Republicans’...
I have certainly become more of a State’s Rights advocate over the last 15 years.
I now look at the 17th Amendment as a grave mistake. We are seeing the fruits of that now.
Nice liberal take on things, you even dragged in Reagan.
While not radically and passionately pro-abortion like Mitt Romney, Ford was believed to have only played pro-life for politics, even in the 1976 campaign they portrayed his wife as openly pro-abortion, he eventually went public with a pro-abortion position, he just didn’t promote it like Romney.
Carter ran as pro-life and anti-abortion in a contrast with Gerald Ford.
Stephen F. Hayward, PhD., who last year wrote a book on Carter noted Carter’s political exploitationÂof abortion in the past. In an interview with National Review, Hayward recalled of Carter’s abortion stand: “The 1976 campaign was the first national election after the Roe decision, and the politics of the issue were still sorting themselves out. Remember that Gerald Ford was pro-abortion, while many Democrats, including Sargent Shriver, one of Carter’s rivals, were pro-life.
September 17, 1976: The U.S Congress approves the Hyde Amendment, barring the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. The Amendment is attached as a rider to the Health & Welfare appropriations bill, subsequently vetoed by President Gerald Ford.
Reagan promoted a Federal ban on abortion, Ford came out for abortion.
Consider the Source
Mister Carter, the personification of the word "appeasement", gave away the Panama Canal! And, we got nothing (except for some ridicule) for it.
That said, the current WH occupant is even worse.
.
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.