President Carter: Heroic Peacemaker, or Naive Fool???

[LTARGlok]

If you recall some years ago Carter was bamboozled by a group of mindless overzealous radicals intent on destroying democracy and chose to carry their message to the world.

Four years later we elected R. Reagan

Carter did give the US Military the green light to try to rescue the embassy hostages, so it is not like he rolled over and played dead in any way.   It was not his fault that the attempt failed due to an accident at the staging airfield.

It was interesting, though, that the Iranians did finally release them just before Reagan assumed office.   For some reason, the Iranians did not want to deal with Reagan.

.

[Saxman]

As I said before, at least some information shows the release was already agreed to under Carter's administration, the Iranians just waited for Reagan to take office as a political "@$%& you" to Carter.

[Tango]

As I said before, at least some information shows the release was already agreed to under Carter's administration, the Iranians just waited for Reagan to take office as a political "@$%& you" to Carter.

May be true, but everyone knows that they didn't want to take on Reagan. He would have done what should have been done when they attacked our embasy.

[SIK1]

Carter did give the US Military the green light to try to rescue the embassy hostages, so it is not like he rolled over and played dead in any way.   It was not his fault that the attempt failed due to an accident at the staging airfield.

It was interesting, though, that the Iranians did finally release them just before Reagan assumed office.   For some reason, the Iranians did not want to deal with Reagan.

.

Carter only gave the go ahead a year and a half after the fact, and then only because he wanted to save his presidency. If he was a true leader he would have went after our people immediatly after their capture. A United States embassy is sovereign ground. When the militants invaded that compound they were in essence invading American soil. And still he did nothing. At least Ross Perot went after his people and he is just a business man.

The answer to the topics question is neither. He is an idiot, and a traitor who should be forgotten as quickly as possible.

[LTARGlok]

The answer to the topics question is neither. He is an idiot, and a traitor who should be forgotten as quickly as possible.

Well, he is certainly technically not a traitor, no matter what he may do.   For under the US Constitution, a war has to exist in order for a charge of treason to apply.   It also has to be a deliberate act, that he meant to betray our nation.   You cannot be guilty of treason if your betrayal is not deliberate, and not intended to harm the United States.

And since Hamas and Syria have not declared war on the United States, and Carter's intention is to help the peace process, any charge of treason will simply not apply to him.

.

[Mr No Name]

It was interesting, though, that the Iranians did finally release them just before Reagan assumed office.   For some reason, the Iranians did not want to deal with Reagan..

because reagan would not deal with them, he would have killed them, as he should have

[Mr No Name]

carter = idiot then, idiot now

[FrodeMk3]

My question is, that nearly 30 years' after his presidency ended, how does he figure that talking with anyone on a diplomatic level is gonna get him somewhere? He can't say anything that the U.S. government will be bound to, so why should Hamas play ball? I'm sure that Hamas realizes that anything that Carter says or does isn't on a(n) official level?

[Holden McGroin]

He can't say anything that the U.S. government will be bound to, so why should Hamas play ball?

Public Relations 101: Talk to someone with no power to cause you harm and no harm will come to you... and you get some favorable news coverage.

[Maverick]

Yep what he said. ^

This guy carter has no more authority to treat with a foriegn power or group than does Richard Simmons or Jeff Dunham's puppet Peanut (only not as bright). He cannot obligate the US to consider anything he decides to talk about when he is overseas or even locally. In short he is simply a private citizen who happens to have a Secret Service escort.

[SIK1]

Well, he is certainly technically not a traitor, no matter what he may do.   For under the US Constitution, a war has to exist in order for a charge of treason to apply.   It also has to be a deliberate act, that he meant to betray our nation.   You cannot be guilty of treason if your betrayal is not deliberate, and not intended to harm the United States.

And since Hamas and Syria have not declared war on the United States, and Carter's intention is to help the peace process, any charge of treason will simply not apply to him.

.

Wow you really read a lot into what I said. I did not say he should be tried for treason, I said he was a traitor. The two are not mutually inclusive.

trai-tor 1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation, or duty  2: one who commits treason  Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.

The road to Hades is paved with good intentions. Especially when a moron is driving the paving machine.

[Rich46yo]

Carter only gave the go ahead a year and a half after the fact, and then only because he wanted to save his presidency. If he was a true leader he would have went after our people immediatly after their capture. A United States embassy is sovereign ground. When the militants invaded that compound they were in essence invading American soil. And still he did nothing. At least Ross Perot went after his people and he is just a business man.

The answer to the topics question is neither. He is an idiot, and a traitor who should be forgotten as quickly as possible.

Yep, that rescue mission had more to do with his bad Polling numbers then it did the defense of his country, or, the welfare of the hostages. Carter was a lot like Klinton was, and Hillary would be. The foundation of his policy decisions was public opinion Polls. Especially in an election years. Hows that for a decisive leader? Also dont forget that right before he gave the go for that silly rescue mission he had just lost two states to Teddy Kennedy during the Democratic primary. Losing to Teddy Kennedy? Hows that for unpopular?

Carter further weakened Americas defense by appointing a moron to run the CIA, Stanfield Turner.

Boy has it been that long ago? It was a totally different world back then wasnt it?

There were shady arms transfers and sales to Iran to help get the hostages out. Both the Carter and Reagan administrations were in on it. But its also true that Reagan let the Iranians know that if they didn't release the hostages he was going to act and that he considered the hostages not surviving as acceptable losses.

[LTARGlok]

Wow you really read a lot into what I said. I did not say he should be tried for treason, I said he was a traitor. The two are not mutually inclusive.

trai-tor 1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation, or duty  2: one who commits treason  Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.

The road to Hades is paved with good intentions. Especially when a moron is driving the paving machine.

You are right, there are indeed two accepted definitions of the word traitor.   And I should not have assumed that you were using the one that refers to treason.

My mistake here.   

.

[AWMac]

I still believe we elected the wrong Carter brother...

Billy would have been much more fun in office.

 

Mac

[Shamus]

You ever try any of that Billy beer? bleh!!

shamus