Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You know things are getting pretty bad when people try to make Carter look better just to qualify comparisons to the current hack-in-chief.

 

[S.J.]

Reagan's attempt to place blame on others and absolve himself of responsibility is as transparent as "what the definition of is, is."

What more proof is necessary than Reagan's own confession - note that Reagan admits "arms for hostages" took place and-----and "I am still accountable for those activities". See what Reagan's saying, he's saying he's guilty of being a piss-poor manager or-----or he's guilty of breaking the law.

And-----and don't forget; Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up' effectively ending any opportunity to put any of the participants in jail including the neurologically challenged Ronald Reagan.


The below excerpt was snipped from:
On March 4, 1987, President Reagan delivered a speech from the Oval Office on the Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy
"I've studied the Board's report. Its findings are honest, convincing, and highly critical; and I accept them. And tonight I want to share with you my thoughts on these findings and report to you on the actions I'm taking to implement the Board's recommendations.

First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.

Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."
.

You moron, we're talking about the 52 American hostages that were taken while Carter was president, not the Iran/Contra scandal. Try to keep up, will ya?

What hostages you think Reagan is talking about...? I know Republicans are covering their asses but no one has named these hostages or have tied Iran to them or have not gave a reason as to why we would want those hostages released so bad as to arm Iran with weapons.

Go study up on this, then come back and we'll talk about it. See you in a couple of months.

 

[TooTall]

Sorry, but Carter was one of the weakest and most ineffective presidents in U.S. history. Obama, however, will go down as the worst.

Bullshit ! he stood up to the Iranians(didn't give them weapons for hostages),stood up to the Soviets(didn't ignore their human rights abuses), stood up to OPEC(preached Energy independence, not climbing in bed with the Saudis), he stood up to the Federal Reserve bankers( didn't let Federal bankers rob American taxpayers blind)

None of which can be said about Reagan or Bush.

He didn't stand up to the Iranians since they kept 44 Americans hostage until he left office. The misery index was his legacy that robbed the middle class with 22% interest on home mortgages and rampant inflation.

I had to change jobs because of his policy of getting the company I worked for to limit raises to 5% while inflation was closer to 10%. I got the 5% and then got a 10% raise when I changed jobs.

 

[Star]

You moron, we're talking about the 52 American hostages that were taken while Carter was president, not the Iran/Contra scandal. Try to keep up, will ya?

What hostages you think Reagan is talking about...? I know Republicans are covering their asses but no one has named these hostages or have tied Iran to them or have not gave a reason as to why we would want those hostages released so bad as to arm Iran with weapons.

Go study up on this, then come back and we'll talk about it. See you in a couple of months.

Well... there ya go again!

There wouldn't have been a need to attempt a rescue if the Reagan people hadn't committed treason by cutting a deal with the Ayatollah Khomeini.


Without Reagan's Treason, Iran Would Not Be a Problem

The Daily Take
26 November 2013

<snip>

In 1980 Carter thought he had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr over the release of the fifty-two hostages held by radical students at the American Embassy in Tehran.

<snip>

Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr's help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.

But Carter underestimated the lengths his opponent in the 1980 Presidential election, California Governor Ronald Reagan, would go to screw him over.

Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election.

This was nothing short of treason. The Reagan campaign's secret negotiations with Khomeini - the so-called "October Surprise" - sabotaged Carter and Bani-Sadr's attempts to free the hostages. And as Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of this year, they most certainly "tipped the results of the [1980] election in Reagan's favor."

Not surprisingly, Iran released the hostages on January 20, 1981, at the exact moment Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

<snip>

Republicans have no decency and-----and conveniently forget that Reagan confessed-----confessed that his administration broke the law... remember when, in a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office, Reagan said: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." In his own words, Reagan's confession is Reagan's confession - please explain why you can't believe Reagan's own words?
.

 

[S.J.]

What hostages you think Reagan is talking about...? I know Republicans are covering their asses but no one has named these hostages or have tied Iran to them or have not gave a reason as to why we would want those hostages released so bad as to arm Iran with weapons.

Go study up on this, then come back and we'll talk about it. See you in a couple of months.

Well... there ya go again!

There wouldn't have been a need to attempt a rescue if the Reagan people hadn't committed treason by cutting a deal with the Ayatollah Khomeini.


Without Reagan's Treason, Iran Would Not Be a Problem

The Daily Take
26 November 2013

<snip>

In 1980 Carter thought he had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr over the release of the fifty-two hostages held by radical students at the American Embassy in Tehran.

<snip>

Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr's help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.

But Carter underestimated the lengths his opponent in the 1980 Presidential election, California Governor Ronald Reagan, would go to screw him over.

Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election.

This was nothing short of treason. The Reagan campaign's secret negotiations with Khomeini - the so-called "October Surprise" - sabotaged Carter and Bani-Sadr's attempts to free the hostages. And as Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of this year, they most certainly "tipped the results of the [1980] election in Reagan's favor."

Not surprisingly, Iran released the hostages on January 20, 1981, at the exact moment Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

<snip>

Republicans have no decency and-----and conveniently forget that Reagan confessed-----confessed that his administration broke the law... remember when, in a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office, Reagan said: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." In his own words, Reagan's confession is Reagan's confession - please explain why you can't believe Reagan's own words?
.

First of all, your link is an opinion piece from a propaganda site with no proof whatsoever.

And second, the "confession", as you call it, had nothing to do with the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979. It was about the 7 Americans kidnapped by Iranian terrorists in LEBANON 5 years later. You're making a fool out of yourself. Do some research before you post and you might avoid this in the future. If you want to discuss either of the issues, fine, but first you need to get informed so I don't have to hold your hand through the whole thing.

Here are 2 links for you to read that might help you sort it out.

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Make sure you read the part about the "October Surprise" at the bottom where it says "Allegations that the Reagan administration negotiated a delay in the release of the hostages until after the 1980 Presidential election have been numerous. Gary Sick, principal White House aide for Iran and the Persian Gulf on the Carter administration’s National Security Council, in his book "October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan",[125] alleged that William Casey and possibly George H. W. Bush, went to Paris to negotiate delaying the release of the hostages until after the election. Such allegations, however, remain unproven".

This is the one that led to the sale of obsolete weapons sold to Iran. Not the same event.
Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly, you have the two confused.

 

[Flopper]

If Carter was so bad you would think neoconservatives wouldn't have to lie about how bad Carter was and how good Reagan was...

I do have platitudes that I could afford Carter, but I'll choose to focus on the singular most destructive element of his Presidency.

He set a stage, no- he set the table... of policy and opinion both public and legislative that effects our country to this day.

He put in motion a public opinion that has echoed through the decades since. He groomed lawmakers who shaped policy that to this day adversely effects the health, wealth, and vitality of our nation's economy.

And his successor, the one without a birth certificate, has parlayed Carter's policies into a modern-day economic Armageddon.

Energy policy from the Carter era lives and thrives through the non-birthed semi-negro.

And through those policies, sem-neg is determined to defeat the very industry that has pulled this nation through its most recent of economic travails.

Percentage depletion and intangible drilling costs are in sem-neg's crosshairs.

Should he prevail, you can kiss this "economic recovery" goodbye.

I would say a policy that leads to decreased energy demands in the US while increasing production to fuel the growing demand abroad is a good policy to follow.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Sorry, but Carter was one of the weakest and most ineffective presidents in U.S. history. Obama, however, will go down as the worst.

Carter took advantage of the prosperity of America gleaned from the innocence of the 50's and 60's and the coming together of the 70's. The nation could have taken off then with strong leadership, but how could it with the weakest character at the helm?

 

[Synthaholic]

Bullshit! He got bitch slapped by the Ayatollah

How, exactly?

How's 444 days of holding 52 American diplomats, and parading them around blindfolded and shackled for starters? Or how about his planned RESCUE MISSION that ended in disaster:

Hostage rescue mission ends in disaster ? History.com This Day in History ? 4/24/1980

52 Americans were held, then released alive.

299 Servicemen were KILLED under Reagan, and he didn't do a damn thing about it - he cut and ran, with no retaliation. Reagan was weak.

Carter never gave in to the terrorists, while Reagan later sold them weapons.

And that rescue mission? Planned by Oliver North.

 

[Synthaholic]

Carter didn't cause the mass inflation we were experiencing, and Volker's goal to get it under control stymied the economy. It was something that was going to take some time no matter who was in office. Had Carter been re-elected, the economy would have taken off much as it did under Reagan. All too often we actually believe that a president is the reason for a good or bad economy when in fact, most of the time it is just based on cycles. Government can have some affect on the economy, but more often than not, it just takes time for things to turn around.

Volcker raised interest rates sky high and introduced a deliberate recession to cool inflation (or stagflation).

It was a very bold move and not popular politically.

But it's why the economy took off shortly after Reagan took office.

However unemployment was high as a result. So what did Reagan do? Cut taxes.

That didn't work.

So Reagan raised taxes and started spending like crazy. The government started hiring. And lo and behold, unemployment went down.

It was a "miracle".

Yes, because we all know high taxes make the economy take off like a rocket!

More "facts" from a liberal...

The economy was great in the 1950s and 1960s, when taxes were higher on the elites.

 

[Synthaholic]

If Carter was so bad you would think neoconservatives wouldn't have to lie about how bad Carter was and how good Reagan was...

I do have platitudes that I could afford Carter, but I'll choose to focus on the singular most destructive element of his Presidency.

He set a stage, no- he set the table... of policy and opinion both public and legislative that effects our country to this day.

He put in motion a public opinion that has echoed through the decades since. He groomed lawmakers who shaped policy that to this day adversely effects the health, wealth, and vitality of our nation's economy.

And his successor, the one without a birth certificate, has parlayed Carter's policies into a modern-day economic Armageddon.

Energy policy from the Carter era lives and thrives through the non-birthed semi-negro.

And through those policies, sem-neg is determined to defeat the very industry that has pulled this nation through its most recent of economic travails.

Percentage depletion and intangible drilling costs are in sem-neg's crosshairs.

Should he prevail, you can kiss this "economic recovery" goodbye.

I would say a policy that leads to decreased energy demands in the US while increasing production to fuel the growing demand abroad is a good policy to follow.

(Pssst! Mr. H. works in the energy business!)

 

[namvet]

How, exactly?

How's 444 days of holding 52 American diplomats, and parading them around blindfolded and shackled for starters? Or how about his planned RESCUE MISSION that ended in disaster:

Hostage rescue mission ends in disaster ? History.com This Day in History ? 4/24/1980

52 Americans were held, then released alive.

299 Servicemen were KILLED under Reagan, and he didn't do a damn thing about it - he cut and ran, with no retaliation. Reagan was weak.

Carter never gave in to the terrorists, while Reagan later sold them weapons.

And that rescue mission? Planned by Oliver North.

oh did he??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Km3dx7wppA]President Jimmy Carter - Statement on Iran Rescue Mission - YouTube[/ame]

since this peanut fucker stripped our military the concesus was we should have given the job to the IDF. since they were far more well equipped and knowledgeable of terrorists hyjacking than this 3' 4" midget bastard from GA

 

[Synthaholic]

since this peanut fucker stripped our military

Translation: "I couldn't mooch as much free shit from the taxpayers any more!"

Operational readiness was never compromised, Goober.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

How, exactly?

How's 444 days of holding 52 American diplomats, and parading them around blindfolded and shackled for starters? Or how about his planned RESCUE MISSION that ended in disaster:

Hostage rescue mission ends in disaster ? History.com This Day in History ? 4/24/1980

52 Americans were held, then released alive.

299 Servicemen were KILLED under Reagan, and he didn't do a damn thing about it - he cut and ran, with no retaliation. Reagan was weak.

Carter never gave in to the terrorists, while Reagan later sold them weapons.

And that rescue mission? Planned by Oliver North.

So...Oliver North is what America hinges on?

 

[Synthaholic]

How's 444 days of holding 52 American diplomats, and parading them around blindfolded and shackled for starters? Or how about his planned RESCUE MISSION that ended in disaster:

Hostage rescue mission ends in disaster ? History.com This Day in History ? 4/24/1980

52 Americans were held, then released alive.

299 Servicemen were KILLED under Reagan, and he didn't do a damn thing about it - he cut and ran, with no retaliation. Reagan was weak.

Carter never gave in to the terrorists, while Reagan later sold them weapons.

And that rescue mission? Planned by Oliver North.

So...Oliver North is what America hinges on?

No, just America's failures.

 

[S.J.]

How, exactly?

How's 444 days of holding 52 American diplomats, and parading them around blindfolded and shackled for starters? Or how about his planned RESCUE MISSION that ended in disaster:

Hostage rescue mission ends in disaster ? History.com This Day in History ? 4/24/1980

52 Americans were held, then released alive.

299 Servicemen were KILLED under Reagan, and he didn't do a damn thing about it - he cut and ran, with no retaliation. Reagan was weak.

Carter never gave in to the terrorists, while Reagan later sold them weapons.

And that rescue mission? Planned by Oliver North.

Link?

 

[Pogo]

If Carter were still posing as a president there would still be American hostages in Iran.

Yeah ummm... it was the Carter Administration that got them out of there, history-man.

 

[HenryBHough]

If Carter were still posing as a president there would still be American hostages in Iran.

Yeah ummm... it was the Carter Administration that got them out of there, history-man.

Revisionist much?

 

[Pogo]

Actually...Carter brokered a lasting peace accord between Egypt and Israel ( w Began and Sadat at Camp David) ...something no prez was able to do before... Also was the first to establish a National Energy Policy, established the Panama Canal Treaties, Boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow after the USSR invaded Afghanistan, bailed out Chrysler, signed the Airline deregulation Act, removing gov control of that industry, deregulated the American Beer Industry and had the balls to try rescue U.S.hostages from Iran, although that particular effort didn't work out...
All in all..not to shabby for a 1 term prez, although he seems to be remembered just for that failure and a sucky economy...not his many accomplishments.
He was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and started the Habitat for Humanity Project, which he continues to be involved in...but that was after his presidency.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Damn, you're ignorant! The peace treaty led to Sadat's assassination. He boycotted the 1980 Olympics. Ooh, that really hurt the Russians, didn't it? (gave them more gold medals). Bailed out Chrysler. They made a shitty product and they got even shittier after the bailout.

Yeah, they then went on to develop the K-car and the minivan. How'd they work out?

And the Panama Canal? He gave it away!!! How stupid was that???

That was a treaty that had been under negotiation for 13 years, during which Panama had severed diplomatic relations -- a country which, by the way, we created by starting an undeclared war with Colombia, which is where the concept of "Panama" came from.

So Carter was doing the right and honorable thing there.

How stupid is that?

 

[Pogo]

If Carter were still posing as a president there would still be American hostages in Iran.

Yeah ummm... it was the Carter Administration that got them out of there, history-man.

Revisionist much?

Not at all, you take it if you want it revised.
You'll have to get over the small problem of Warren Christopher. Good luck with that.

 

[Vigilante]

If Carter were still posing as a president there would still be American hostages in Iran.

Yeah ummm... it was the Carter Administration that got them out of there, history-man.

Please elaborate!