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

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
www.truth-out.org...



Republican attempts to sabotage a Democratic president's deal with Iran are nothing new, however.
Just ask Jimmy Carter.

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.
Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as he explained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitor earlier this year, had successfully run for President on the popular position of releasing the hostages:
"I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign.... I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote.... Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking]."

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.


Sorry for the long quote. In these days of detente with Iran (and break with Isreal) it is important to look at the history of events.

Many members will not remember Reagan's October Surprise nor the promise of Jimmy Carter's presidency. If we had followed President Carter's Energy Plan, we'd be sitting pretty good right now. The horrors that started with Reagan might have been avoided.

It's a conspiracy all right - a classic back room conspiracy. The republican's stole two elections that year (in very un democratic manner - with lies and deceit) one in the US and one in Iran.

Oh - the progrom began way eariler but this was a huge turning point towards corporate control of the US and the world.




posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


My recollections of this were that public opinion of president Carter's (non) handling of the hostage situation is what cost him the election. He basically let a bunch of terrorists take over our embassy and did nothing about it.

He can say whatever he wants but he left our people hanging in the wind. People I knew then felt he should have gone in and taken them back. It was humiliating to say the least and personally I couldn't care less about his months and months of quibbling with the Iranians to "Please give our people back." That was an act of war.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Reagan was a B grade actor and commercial shill on national TV.
Beyond his treasonous October Surprise he was ushered into the White House on the wings of the National Association of Manufacturers to be the friendly face of corporate America to the American public.
Hook
Line
and sinker

By his second term he was well into Alzheimer's.

All hail Ronald Reagan. Bow low all you who worship the invisible hand of the free market and it's messiah.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

FyreByrd
the promise of Jimmy Carter's presidency.


Endless malaise? Continued stagflation?

Mull this over for a moment... if Gerald Ford had never pardoned Richard Nixon, Carter wouldn't have ever been elected in the first place. It was only public outrage over Nixon walking away scott free over Watergate (which, in hindisght, is hundreds of times less eggregious than much of the illegal crap presidents since Nixon have pulled off) that caused voters to side with "Good Guy Jimmy" in 1976. He was grossly unqualified to be POTUS and the threat of his *ahem* Energy "Policy" was what caused the massive fuel crisis in the 70s in the frist place. (It was also a huge player in creating a Middle East that has been hostile towards the USA ever since)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Iran shouldn't be a problem anyways, they aren't doing anything wrong.

Reagan was a puppet, so no surprise that he was a horrible POTUS.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


My recollections of this were that public opinion of president Carter's (non) handling of the hostage situation is what cost him the election. He basically let a bunch of terrorists take over our embassy and did nothing about it.


Not just that but a completely failed attempt at a rescue that cost lives, dismantling of the military budget, OPEC ran all over us, attempted conversion of the US economy to 'service based' etc. A complete failure as a leader, bankrupt farmer. I noticed another poster put Regan as a B actor. In my thinking places him light years ahead of Carter. The only president to ever be such a failure is the one in office right now; Carter will be 2nd worst president in modern times.


MG



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


My recollections of this were that public opinion of president Carter's (non) handling of the hostage situation is what cost him the election. He basically let a bunch of terrorists take over our embassy and did nothing about it.

He can say whatever he wants but he left our people hanging in the wind. People I knew then felt he should have gone in and taken them back. It was humiliating to say the least and personally I couldn't care less about his months and months of quibbling with the Iranians to "Please give our people back." That was an act of war.


The polls of the time said differently.

From the original article :



But those are just the most obvious results of the October Surprise. Again, if Carter were able to free the hostages like he and Bani-Sadr had planned, Carter would have won re-election. After all, he was leading in most polls in the months leading up to the election. And if Reagan were never elected, America would be a much more progressive nation.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Sorry, Reagan carried all but three states in that election and would have won anyway as polls at end of primaries had him up at 58% well before the election.

Ascribing his win solely to hostage crisis is trying to rewrite history. Bani-Sadr was only in office last half of the hostage crisis - what did Carter accomplish during the first half when he did not have someone to pawn off failure on?

This is also the idiot that let Soviets invade Afghanistan by showing utter weakness and incompetence which a case could be made about that leading to genesis of Al-Qaida. Carter sat on his hands when that happened.

Carter himself was responsible for Iran's revolution when he screwed over the shah in support of his "green crescent" policy, one which has born poison fruit ever since.

IMHO he now sits at a solid second place as the worst president in our country's history. He reprised his role by helping Hugo Chavez steal an election in Venezuela and look how that's turned out.

America has been cleaning up Carters messes since he left office and it continues today.

Reagan was "Can Do" while Carter was "Make Do" and a very high majority of Americans agreed about the difference.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 

How is Iran the problem?

Last I checked, the only nation in the World attacking other nations is the USA.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

burdman30ott6

FyreByrd
the promise of Jimmy Carter's presidency.


Endless malaise? Continued stagflation?

Mull this over for a moment... if Gerald Ford had never pardoned Richard Nixon, Carter wouldn't have ever been elected in the first place. It was only public outrage over Nixon walking away scott free over Watergate (which, in hindisght, is hundreds of times less eggregious than much of the illegal crap presidents since Nixon have pulled off) that caused voters to side with "Good Guy Jimmy" in 1976. He was grossly unqualified to be POTUS and the threat of his *ahem* Energy "Policy" was what caused the massive fuel crisis in the 70s in the frist place. (It was also a huge player in creating a Middle East that has been hostile towards the USA ever since)


I agree that the public was outraged by Gerald Ford's pardoning of Nixon (his crimes at the time are now considered good business).

Carter was making inroads on the the economic difficulties; however he was not pursuing a quick fix - flash in the pan solutions to systemic problems (which we still have btw) but seeking long term solutions which by their very nature act over the long term and consistantly. Not as sexy as flash bang but much more effective. We'll never know will we.

He handled the fuel crisis well and had we followed his energy plans even a little, we would be more self-reliant energy-wise perhaps even globally.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The only people Iran is a problem to is the Jews, they want and will do anything to hold on to their Nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.
Just because Israel says Irans a problem doesn't make it so.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by missed_gear
 


President Carter is the only President who ever commanded a nuclear submarine! That says a lot about his character, leadership, and education! He was the smartest President we have ever had.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I do remember this, Reagan really only came on strong in polling in the last week or two. Prior to that he trailed by 4-5 points or so...I'm going by memory and 34 years is a long time ago.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Afghanistan became the Vietnam of the Soviet Union. Had they not been ground down during the campaign there, President Reagan would never have been able to claim he defeated them.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


I think he was Exec. Officer and qualified for command, but didn't actually command a boat...regardless, he is no dummy.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RocksFromSpace
 


That's sort of an oversimplification....

Iranians are Persians. Most of their Gulf region neighbors are Arabs. Arabs and Persians have a long, long "rivalry" and aren't completely friendly. to one another. Iran is also Shi'a by a vast majority whereas most of their neighbors are Sunni. So there is considerable friction between Iran and their Arab neighbors. For example, the Saudis aren't at all happy with the idea of Iran having a nuke right next door.

I'm not saying you're wrong on Israel, just sayin' that Iran has some other neighbors that aren't exactly the type they'll let borrow sugar, or come over for a pool party.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
FyreByrd

And if Reagan were never elected, America would be a much more progressive nation.


The above is reason enough to celebrate Reagan's victory for virtually everyone who doesn't depend on taxpayer redistribution for their personal wellbeing.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Carter gets a bum rap being followed as he was by 12 years of Republicans in the White House. Carter was fighting to preserve the environment, end corporate tax loopholes and start a sound energy plan less reliant on oil. He also brokered the Camp David Accords - no small feat between Menachim Begin and Anwar Sadat.
Carter's greatest enemies were the Saudis - they hated Carter and saw him as a threat to their profits. The CIA was pulling all kinds of dirty tricks to manipulate him in favor of the oil companies including releasing phony reports saying that Russia would need to import 3 million barrels a day of imported oil by 1985.
He inherited a stagnant economy still in recovery from Vietnam and the warhawks would have done anything to get him out of power.

Some have said the operation to rescue the hostages was sabotaged and there seems to be some evidence to back that assertion. Stranger things have happened. I can't hold him accountable for that failure if indeed it was one. I don't know why people say he was unqualified. I thought any US citizen could run for President? If you can run a nuclear submarine I think that shows sufficient command ability. I wouldn't have a problem with a small time farmer becoming President. I don't know why some folks think you have to be a governor or corporate CEO to do the job. That's why they have advisors. Nobody can be an expert on everything.

Give me a person of good intent and character every time over someone with a bunch of titles. I think Carter will be remembered as one of the most honest people to ever hold the office.

OP, I tend to agree Iran was a pivotal point in our foreign policy. The sad fact we didn't hang a few people over Iran/Contra was our biggest mistake. Those same crooks are the ones running (and ruining) everything now.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

groingrinder
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Afghanistan became the Vietnam of the Soviet Union. Had they not been ground down during the campaign there, President Reagan would never have been able to claim he defeated them.


I agree with that also, but in 79' they were emboldened by weakness shown by Carter and his policies.

As an aside Its really funny to see someone trying to reform Carters dismal record in office. Someone has to be the revisionist though.

Probably someone 30 years from now do the same for Obama.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Asktheanimals
I don't know why people say he was unqualified. I thought any US citizen could run for President? If you can run a nuclear submarine I think that shows sufficient command ability. I wouldn't have a problem with a small time farmer becoming President. I don't know why some folks think you have to be a governor or corporate CEO to do the job. That's why they have advisors. Nobody can be an expert on everything.


Eligible and qualified are two completely different things. The current ruling jackass was fully eligible (sorry birthers), but certainly has demonstrated a total lack of qualifications to hold the office. I feel the same about Carter. Carter was governor of Georgia, by the way. That didn't seem to help him much in DC, however. I'm not as well versed on Carter's cabinet members as I am on some of the other presidents, so it's possible that Carter's main flaw was that he sucked at deligating. It's also possible that his presidency was similar to GWB's last 2 years in which he had excellent advisors but chose to stop listening to them. Regardless, 1976 to 1980 was the standard bearer for miserable, failed presidencies until 2008 rolled along. For 28 years (probably more like 16 years since I didn't really start following politics until high school), I didn't think national "leadership" got much more inept than Jimmy Carter. (Hindsight = OOPSIE!)





top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join