REPORTER: And anything you wish -- I'm sorry -- that you had not done or that you'd done differently?Now, I had a strong reaction to this, something completely different from Todd's:
JIMMY CARTER: I wish I'd sent one more helicopter to get the hostages and we would have rescued them and I would have been re-elected.
CHUCK TODD: "I would've been re-elected." Every single losing presidential nominee always, they never get over it.Todd does a comic face-palm. I was surprised and nauseated by Todd's reaction. What I had thought was: Carter should regret letting one helicopter crash cause him to give up rescuing the hostages. The military could have done it, the hostages and all of would have been better off if we'd proven our courage, resolve, and strength, and I'm glad Carter says that forthrightly, and it is utterly fitting that he regret that to the end of his days.
SUSAN PAGE [USA Today reporter]: They never get over it. This is my tenth presidential campaign. You don't even have to be--
CHUCK TODD: Ninety-one. This is 30 years later.
SUSAN PAGE: Yeah.
CHUCK TODD: One more helicopter.
But Todd took the regret at losing the election out of its context and grouped it with the every other losing presidential nominee. None of them ever get over it.
And even if I go where Todd goes and just think of all those major-party presidential losers: There's nothing face-palmable about the regret they carry. So much hope and effort is invested in a presidential nominee. What a burden he carries to follow through. A disappointment on that scale must stay with you. And personally, I carry regret for all sorts of missed opportunities and dashed hopes scattered throughout my life. Presidential nominees may be special animals because they tried for such a high goal, but not because of their capacity for regret. "They never get over it." Who the hell would?
Posts
138 comments:
Electronic designs that anticipate the world have a "regretter" box added as a joke.
Would the operation have been successful with one or two more helicopters? If so, could they not have greenlit a second mission after the first one was aborted, or did the window of opportunity pass by?
A successful rescue certainly would have helped Carter, but I'm not so sure it would have been enough for him to win. By late 1980, Americans were sour on him, the gas shortages, the recession, and high inflation were all working against the incumbent. A successful military operation would have bumped up his numbers for a bit, but I doubt it would have carried him over.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
It wasn't a helicopter crashing that was the essential problem. A dust storm caused several to malfunction, and at a mid-route staging point, realizing they did not heave enough functioning helicopters to continue the mission, the decision to cancel the mission and return was made. After that decision a helicopter that had finished refueling was taking off and veered into the tanker plane on the ground. That is what led to the image of the charred fuselage, strewn wreckage and charred bodies that became emblematic of Carter's failure. Since the sandstorm difficulty affected the helicopters in about the same way, it would in all probability taken more than a single additional helicopter.
First off, I think he may have meant he wished he'd have sent more helicopters on the ill-fated mission, because the hostages, IIRC, were scattered and relocated after the failed attempt.
Second, for me the problem isn't with wishing he'd sent an additional copter. It's with his wishing he'd done so for the sake of his re-election prospects, instead of for the freedom of those held captive. Which is really petty.
I encourage people to read about Operation Eagle Claw, including accounts from Colonel Beckwith, the Delta Force leader at the time. One more helicopter might have made the difference. They basically brought only just enough hardware to do the job (plus one spare), and Murphy's Law finished them off.
It's entirely possible that that failed mission gave Carter significant negatives that never would have happened if it had succeeded instead. He might have ended up with a slight majority, and a relatively placid second term. (Of course, we might also have still had stagflation and a Soviet Union four years later than we did.)
"It wasn't a helicopter crashing that was the essential problem. A dust storm caused several to malfunction, and at a mid-route staging point, realizing they did not heave enough functioning helicopters to continue the mission, the decision to cancel the mission and return was made. After that decision a helicopter that had finished refueling was taking off and veered into the tanker plane on the ground. That is what led to the image of the charred fuselage, strewn wreckage and charred bodies that became emblematic of Carter's failure. Since the sandstorm difficulty affected the helicopters in about the same way, it would in all probability taken more than a single additional helicopter."
Yeah I had the impression it was the sandstorm that basically caused the mission to be aborted. Now, if the opportunity to do the rescue remained after the sandstorm settled (that is, cover wasn't blown, hostages remained in the same location, etc.) perhaps they could have re-launched the mission after a delay, or got to planning a new mission.
Rescuing the hostages would have prevented the landslide, but given the shape the economy was in I think Reagan would still have won handily. Carter beat Ford on the state of the economy, but it got substantially worse under his maladministration.
The regret shouldn't have been in not sending one more helicopter; the regret should have come from dithering about sending Eagle Claw until past the best season to send it. Beckwith and his men were ready to go well before the haboob season in Iran.
"First off, I think he may have meant he wished he'd have sent more helicopters on the ill-fated mission, because the hostages, IIRC, were scattered and relocated after the failed attempt."
That makes sense, if their cover was blown after the failed attempt it may have closed the window for any followup mission.
Focusing on how it affected his reelction prospects is honest but sort of disgusting. People died in the mission.
@Paul Brinkley, the accounts I've read were pretty unanimous that Eagle Claw was ready to go well ahead of the haboob season in Iran. Does that jibe with what you've read?
There's some connection between a former president telling the media what he regrets and a Catholic person confessing his or her sins but I can't quite put my finger on it right now.
"He might have ended up with a slight majority, and a relatively placid second term. (Of course, we might also have still had stagflation and a Soviet Union four years later than we did.)"
Ah, counterfactual time! Assuming Carter pulled out a win (perhaps with John Anderson taking a larger share of the anti-incumbent vote, maybe Reagan making some more campaign missteps), I figure the inflation would have been handled about the same as it was Carter's appointee (Volcker) who really killed it with his raising interest rates. But I doubt Carter would have cut income taxes as much as Reagan did, and to the effect that helped the recovery it might have been slower under Carter. A Republican probably would have won in '84 if the economy was still struggling.
As for the Soviets, I'm not sure Carter would have done much different in '81-'85 than Reagan did--he was beefing up military spending by the end of his term, as he was pissed about Afghanistan. The detente with Gorby really came mostly in Reagan's second term.
Since I personally knew three of the eight dead from Eagle Claw and one of Jimmy's mil planners on the NSC staff here's my take.The mission itself would have had a much better chance of being successful if there had not been internecine planning and operational battles among the services.Jimmy the Naval Academy grad forgot the first rule of the military-Unity of command.Actually he didn't forget it he just didn't delegate the necessary authority to anyone.HE should not have been making a decision about the number of helicopters in the first place.But stupid politicians like Johnson and Jimmah do make those type decisionsApparently He of the kill list too.
""They never get over it." Who the hell would?"
Gerald Ford. Bush 41. Neither of them a petty, sore, vain, proud loser.
What Carter regrets most is that he lost. That's the kind of guy he is.
Not inflation, not his complete and utter ineptness in office, not the loss of Iran, not the hostage-taking to begin with, not his shenanigans in Korea, not Palestine = Apartheid.
Lacking humility, Carter was always too proud to learn. Once upon a time, Christians considered that a mortal sin. Guess it was not a major topic of discussion at Sunday school in Plains.
Mao Zedong used the phrase "paper tiger" to describe American imperialism.
He said, "In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger.
Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain (, or the sand)...
Carter would have been well served to leave his failure to be re-elected out of it. The quote does make it sound like that is what he regrets about the whole thing. That may not be true, but the quote certainly conveys that sentiment.
I thought Carter himself made the connection to losing his reelection.
Carter led the league in pettiness. It was terrible for those involved, but the hostage crisis solidified for all time the fecklessness of that crowd. Furthermore, the Dems were exhausted by that time, with Carter having been a total outsider (he would never lie to the American people!) and with Plan B being Ted Kennedy (D, Chappaquidick), who couldn't handle a softball question from Roger Mudd. Thank God for Carter, who gave us Reagan, who dialled back the regulatory state and won the Cold War. Nuff said.
Here's my question. Say they actually didn't have those problems in the desert and made it to Teheran. What was the likelihood of success there? Would it have mostly worked (a la Entebbe) or would it have been just one big clusterfuck in a dense urban area, like Mogadishu?
"Gerald Ford. Bush 41. Neither of them a petty, sore, vain, proud loser."
You should regret it whether you are petty, sore, vain, proud or not. You've taken on the responsibility for your party and you accept lots of money and support. It's not just personal to you. It's a great sense of obligation to millions of people to follow through on what they counted on you to do.
Better sweater..better predictions
I suppose that if Obama could be reelected, Jimmy could have been, too. The sandstorm may have been a blessing for the country, even though a disaster for those who were killed and those who remained captive. Just as the country would be in better shape today if we were in the third year of the Romney Administration, it would have been in worse shape in 1983 if we had been in the seventh year of the Carter Administration rather than the third year of the Reagan Administration.
Carter regretted not his monumental failure that caused the death of servicemen and the hostages but for the demise of his political career. What a creep!
Once he said he regretted not getting re-elected to push thru his "final solution" in the Middle East. Yes he said "final solution".
Carter did make the link between the failed rescue attempt and his failed reelection attempt. He goes on to say that as a consequence of losing, he got the Carter Center (which you would think he could have got by winning too, only four years later), and then indicates that it's a tough call which he would have preferred (the pain of losing the election versus the joy of the Carter Center).
It seems not to have crossed his mind that a successful hostage rescue would have had an impact beyond him personally; the hostages' lives, America's place in the world, taking the Iranian revolutionaries down a peg . . . .
I think this fits under the Taranto heading, "Why do bad things always happen to him?"
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems that Carter regrets not getting re-elected, not the embassy personnel being held hostage for 444 days. Maybe that's the problem with Carter.
"Don't cry for me, Argentina."
@Althouse, however much a man may regret it, a real man doesn't whine about. Meade seems to be a real man; discuss with him.
They named a submarine after him, not a helicopter, so it's all good.
What I wish Carter would regret:
By undermining the Shah of Iran, an ally who was attempting to Westernize Iranian society, I, Jimmy Carter, gave us the world the greatest sponsor of terror on earth and caused the deaths of thousands of Americans at the hands of the mullahs.
You are reading it wrong. He regrets not saving the world from Ronald Reagan. :)
Still clueless after all these years.
Yes, the Iranian rescue attempt was an epic failure. But, Jimmah still refuses to recognize that his 4 years in office before the Iranian rescue attempt was an epic failure, too.
He does seem like a decent man, though, much less sleazy than Clinton, much less ruthless than LBJ, much more grounded than Obama. I will give him that.
"I wish I sent one more helicopter."
A fitting epitaph for Carter, I hope they put it on his tombstone.
He also would have been re-elected had he not sold out the Shah and allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran. Had he supported the Shah there would have been no hostages and no need for helicopters.
Carter got what he deserved.
This is what his presidency felt like...
It was extremely risky anyway, and the worst case wasnt an accident in transit. Worst would have been something more like Black Hawk Down/Mogadishu. There are uncertainties in intelligence and its not clear that the coast was clear in Tehran.
Anne is right. Elections aren't about just one man and his ambitions.
"He also would have been re-elected had he not sold out the Shah and allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran. Had he supported the Shah there would have been no hostages and no need for helicopters."
I don't know a whole lot about this aspect of the Iranian revolution--I know Carter was critical of the Shah, but what exactly did he do that helped the Shah's overthrow? Did he cut off foreign aid or impose sanctions or something?
The Shah was no saint of course, but the result of his overthrow goes to show that sometimes you can replace a pretty awful leader with something far worse.
Why is it that former democrat presidents refuse to disappear from the public forum? Looking forward (gag) to the pronouncements from current office holder once he leaves office. Reflects a total lack of class.
I regret Ford not getting elected. Perhaps the Shah would not have been toppled and the resulting evil wouldn't have occurred.
Whether or not Ford would have cut tax rates as much as Reagan is an unknown but he would have lowered the rates. Volcker's policies would have been in place and the military would have had the buildup that lead to the downfall of the USSR.
Mary: "Ann, you forget what the voluntary military of the late 1970s was like. In retrospect you have confidence; that was before Reagan's America though."
That is certainly true. So much so that in the aftermath of this failed mission there resulted quite a few changes in org structure, communications, training etc.
Mary: "I don't think your generation invested much in the military, and likely they would not have succeeded in their task."
Clinton hollowed out the Reagan military in a massive way. Obama is doing the same. You can argue about whether or not this is good policy but there is no denying the numbers.
Regardless of those cuts however, in the years post-Operation Eagle Claw mission planning, there was (is?) quite a bit more emphasis on redundancy. Given enough redundancy in Operation Eagle Claw, it could have been successful as well.
You just have to be willing to accept losses.
Hesitancy in the face of "acceptable" (determined by the criticality of the mission) losses can be the actual cause of strategic (vs tactical) failure. See Gallipolli.
I lived through those times and can't speak for anyone but myself and those in my circle. We were surprised that Carter tried the rescue, but not surprised that it failed. By the late '70's we had little confidence in anything the government did.
A commenter above discussed Carter being hyper involved in tactical details ala LBJ. Remember it was reported at the time that he was such a control freak that actually spent time supervising the White House tennis court schedule.
Brando: "The Shah was no saint of course, but the result of his overthrow goes to show that sometimes you can replace a pretty awful leader with something far worse."
One looks in vain for any articles in the legacy press at that time decrying the horrendous economic and foreign policy conditions Reagan "inherited".
Nobody forced Carter to add "...and I would have been reelected." The answer was complete without it. He "stepped in it" all by himself. And yes, unless delivered after a pause, with a wink or a chuckle, that addition just illuminates the resentful bitter man he is. It's almost a parody of Richard the III on Bosworth Field.
In this case, and each following their own instincts, both Todd and Althouse are correct.
One big item in Carters favor: He did advocate for Zero-based budgeting.
Of course, the dems in Congress were not having any of that.
Imagine what a difference that particular change might have meant in terms of actual policy as well as messaging.
I wish I'd sent one more helicopter to get the hostages and we would have rescued them..
Actually, that's wrong. It's highly likely one or more of the hostages would have been killed.
and I would have been re-elected.
That's not true, since it was Jimmy Carter's overall mismanagement (in the sense of getting a different result that what he anticipated) that was a factor, and if hostages had been killed, it woiuld have still have been mis-mananagement about Iran.
There was the economy, where Jimmy Carter "fought inflation" by getting the prime rate up to 20% and causing a recession and no lower inflation - and he was indeed responsible because he had caused the vacancy in the Chairmanship of the Federal Reserve Board so he could appoint Paul Volcker; there was the energy crisis, where his strategy was to beat a shortage to the punch (!); there were the totally unnecessary gasoline lines.
Now Iran was a big factor because it was a case study in Jimmy Carter's ability to understand things. If he would have said I can't get the hostages out safely, that would have been one thing. But, he kept on predicting he would get them out soon and being proved wrong every week. Week after week his predictions didn't come true.
President George HW Bush in 1992 suffered a little of the same thing in not being able to recognize a recession (although there part of the problem was a difference between the economists's definniton of a recession (an economic decline) and the popular definition (the period from when the decline starts till things are back to where they were before))
As others have said, if he had left it as "My regret is not sending an additional helicopter so we could have brought those brave Americans home earlier," that would have been great.
Explicitly connecting it to his re-election was boorish and creepy.
Jimmy Carter really did think this not getting the hostages out had a lot to do with his not winning re-election.
I believe he conconcted the "October Surprise" story to improve his reputation.
Yes, Jimmy Carter himself.
All three people involved in getting the story goinbg had a connection to him:
Barbara Honnegger, Abbie Hoffman (friend of Amy carter) and, finally, Gary Sick.
Jimmy Carter actually edited Gary Sick's book about the October Surprise.
Presidents should be limited to one term to minimize such unpleasant political calculations. Four years might be too short to accomplish anything, so let's make it a six year term.
The president should be president and commander-in-chief, not campaigner-in-chief, not fundraiser-in-chief. He should not play politics with our foreign relations and national security.
The list of Carter's failures is long indeed. Along with the hostage crisis, let us not forget: inflation, gas lines, skylab falling, giving away the canal, turn down your thermostats, advice from his daughter, his middle east policy, I could go on...
We won't even go into how tasteless his post Presidential years where with his constantly stilling his nose into things and bad mouthing any/all Republican Presidents.
Until recently "worst President ever". I suspect he thanks God nightly for getting Obama elected...
Right, Todd.
"Palestine: Peace not apartheid"
"I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, and that what does exist in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land and not on racism. So it was a very clear distinction."
..........
Uh huh..depends on what the meaning of is is.
"I regret Ford not getting elected."
I think Ford was a far better president than Carter, but if Ford had been elected in '76 it's unlikely Reagain would have ever been elected. Ford likely would have run for reelection in 1980, and it's near impossible to beat an incumbent president for the party's nomination. If Ford won the general that year, his VP (Bob Dole) would have been a favorite in 1984 for the nomination, while Reagan would have been 73 and out of office for a decade which would have reduced his chances significantly. Reagan's moment was 1980, and Carter and general conditions (detente with USSR out of favor, foreign policy failures, economy) paved the way for him.
Maybe he should have thrown the shah, and his cancer under the bus...
Sammy F: "I believe he conconcted the "October Surprise" story to improve his reputation."
Well, one Robert Cook bought that story hook, line and sinker.
He's ninety one years old and suffers from brain cancer. I'd give him some slack. LBJ was a far worse human being, and LBJ's failures as President had a far bigger body count. LBJ was definitely the worst president of my lifetime.
So, no regrets about his support of the PLO, the North Korean regime, the Cubans, and any other dictator who spat on the US or its allies? No regrets for the inflation rate during his term of office? OPEC? Iran's return of the Ayatollah?
And he thinks one helicopter was the problem? The man was and is blind to his moral and political and policy failures.
Much better. Keep up the good work.
The thing I've noticed in regards to Carter's recent announcement about brain cancer is That the Left wants to paint the Right as "hating Carter" I don't "Hate Carter". I may carry a grudge about some of the things he did in office, But as a person, and human being, he sets a great example. He's always practiced what he preached, I believe what he preaches is wrong, but we would be a better country if more of our leaders had his level of sincerity.
mikee said...
So, no regrets about his support of the PLO, the North Korean regime, the Cubans, and any other dictator who spat on the US or its allies? No regrets for the inflation rate during his term of office? OPEC? Iran's return of the Ayatollah?
No, because his focus is on what cost him re-election, and he wants to find asmnall thing.
You left out the worst thing:
Keeping Pol Pot in Cambodia in power an extra two years.
Jimmy Carter preventing Thailand from invading in 1977. (it;s hard now to find references for that, but he did)
And when Vietnam, responding to border provocations, finally did, he condemned it and got the United Nations to continue to give Pol Pot - or his coalition government - a seat in the General Assembly - something that was responsible for an additional half a dozen or more years of minor warfare.
Pol Pot had a strip of terrirtory near the border, and a war was fought for the sake of a vote in the United Nations General Assembly. (Reagan continued Carter's policy on Cambodia)
Carter is a very good man who was a very bad president. If he had put a period after helicopter he could have inched his way back but as another commenter noted he regrets his loss more than he regrets the hostages having to suffer
Fwiw I was on the USN destroyer USS Waddell in the Arabian gulf in late 1979 when Iran fell to the revolutionaries, and spent the Christmas that was supposed to be in Perth Australia floating around in the Gulf instead. There were big changes in the Navy after Reagan was elected, which is ironic since both Carter and Reagan were former naval officers.
Cuban Bob said...
"I regret Ford not getting elected."
Brando:
"I think Ford was a far better president than Carter, but if Ford had been elected in '76 it's unlikely Reagain would have ever been elected. Ford likely would have run for reelection in 1980,"
No, that was impossible, poweing to the 22nd Amendment. By january 20, 1977, Ford had served more than half of a presidential term. Because he lost, he was eligible for Vice President in 1980 (the Vice President having the same qualifications for election as the president) but would not have been had he won.
It is hard to see how things would have gone. All we know is that things would have been as unknowable as they are now for our future.
As for president, maybe Bob Dole would have been elected in 1980, if the Democrats came up with a bad candidate.
Michael said...
Carter is a very good man
Actually, he isn't, although what made him such a bad president was more his reliance on experts.
Jeff Teal said...
Since I personally knew three of the eight dead from Eagle Claw and one of Jimmy's mil planners on the NSC staff here's my take. The mission itself would have had a much better chance of being successful if there had not been internecine planning and operational battles among the services. Jimmy the Naval Academy grad forgot the first rule of the military-Unity of command. Actually he didn't forget it he just didn't delegate the necessary authority to anyone. HE should not have been making a decision about the number of helicopters in the first place. But stupid politicians like Johnson and Jimmah do make those type decisions. Apparently He of the kill list too.
I was in the Air Force stationed in Germany when this mission went down. Carter was a supreme micro-manager according to many reports that I've read. He got to the level of scheduling who could use the White House tennis courts. There's no way he was going to stay out of the planning for this mission.
One thing to remember is that in the late 1970s, many of the military systems were pretty well worn out following heavy use in Vietnam. There was a critical and chronic shortage of spare parts needed to perform maintenance. From memory, some 20% of all the US tactical aircraft in Europe was grounded on any given day due to lack of spare parts. The operational plan was to strip those planes for parts in an attempt to keep the rest flying. There was also a serious shortage on munitions. From what I read, had the USSR attacked, NATO only had enough munitions to last for a few days. After that, the options were pretty well down to going tactical nuke and/or surrendering. Carter wasn't a widely respected CinC. Far from it. His cutting our pay raises by 10% below the rate of inflation two years in a row didn't help our opinion of him, either. This was at a time when inflation was running about 15-17% and our raises were capped at 5 - 7%. Morale pretty well sucked, at least among the people I knew at the time.
Brando: "The Shah was no saint of course, but the result of his overthrow goes to show that sometimes you can replace a pretty awful leader with something far worse."
It wasn't the overthrow of the Shah that brought Khomeini to powrr, but the overthrow of Shapour Bakhtiar. And the Shah couldn't have stayed. He had gotten into a routine of firing on demonstrators.
Just like the Bolsheviks didn't replace the Czar, but the Kerensky government, so Khomeini didn't replace the Shah.
Jimmy Carter had sent Alwexander Haig to the Iranian generals to urge them not to stay out of politics and not make a coup. They turned over the governmenbt to Khomeini on February 11. As a reward they were all mostly executed.
"I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel."
That's from what's come to be known as Carter's (televised) "malaise" speech.
To suppose Carter could have sent "another helicopter" is to suppose Carter was not Carter. So, yes, perhaps if Carter had not been Carter then not-Carter might have won the election.
For Carter's presidency was all about declinism, about recognizing that what had once possible was no longer possible. Not only was Carter reconciled to what he perceived as a great decline in American economic and military power, but in so many ways he welcomed and was encouraged by that decline. The counter-factual fails because a Carter who could or would have risked another helicopter would have been a not-Carter, someone very different from the actually-existing Carter.
And our current president, well, yes, he looks so much better on TV than Carter ever could. But in all the ways that matter doesn't he, too, not merely recognize but welcome the decline of American influence and power in the world?
One more helicopter? How about a carrier group, the Air Force, and divisions of special forces/marines? The Iranians had declared war on us and Carter could not recognize that. You should hit them with everything you've got. The hostage rescue could have been part of an overall effort to bring the nascent caliphate to its knees (a quick takeover of Kharg island might have accomplished that}. Carter's Iran hostage rescue was Bay of Pigs redux with a dem president dinking around and not using the military force available to him.
"Nobody forced Carter to add '...and I would have been reelected.' The answer was complete without it. He 'stepped in it' all by himself. And yes, unless delivered after a pause, with a wink or a chuckle, that addition just illuminates the resentful bitter man he is."
He made the more explicit point in a previous answer to this question, that, had he been re-elected, all the ills that befell the nation as a result of the Reagan Administration (and all the administrations that came after) would not have happened.
Whether he's wrong or right no one can know. Certainly, other ills caused by other bad administrations following his speculative second term would have occurred, as they always do. But, would the world be in as calamitous a state otherwise than presently? Possibly...possibly not.
The thing Carter regrets is a fact of history. It is his reason for regretting it that is disturbing.
Carter says, "and I ..." instead of "and they..."
He made the more explicit point in a previous answer to this question, that, had he been re-elected, all the ills that befell the nation as a result of the Reagan Administration (and all the administrations that came after) would not have happened.
Which is simply the "and I" writ large. The vanity of the man. Thank God we have elections to vote out our saviors.
"No, that was impossible, poweing to the 22nd Amendment. By january 20, 1977, Ford had served more than half of a presidential term. Because he lost, he was eligible for Vice President in 1980 (the Vice President having the same qualifications for election as the president) but would not have been had he won."
You're right--I did the math wrong. Considering that, though, Dole would have been in a stronger position in 1980 for the nomination, but assuming Reagan beat him but the economy was still poor that year (plus the three term itch), the Dems might have had a good chance of taking the White House.
"Jimmy Carter had sent Alwexander Haig to the Iranian generals to urge them not to stay out of politics and not make a coup. They turned over the governmenbt to Khomeini on February 11. As a reward they were all mostly executed."
I wasn't aware of that part--though it would mean not so much Carter throwing the Shah under the bus as doing it to potential military dictators. In which case his blunder was more a naive belief that with the military standing down, Iran would march towards democracy.
Jeff Teal said...
Jimmy the Naval Academy grad forgot the first rule of the military-Unity of command. Actually he didn't forget it he just didn't delegate the necessary authority to anyone.
I blame Admiral Rickover for teaching Jimmie that micromanagement was the key to Success.
Rickover was the father of the nuclear Navy and the world's worst micro-manager.
James Earl Carter said:
I wish I'd sent one more helicopter to get the hostages and we would have rescued them.
Re-inforcing failure. AKA the Sunk-cost Fallacy.
Jimmy Carter edited the manuscript of Gary Sick's 1991 book before publication. I can't find a reference. Nobody else had a motive for spreading this story as much as Jimmy Carter did.
Jimmy Carter continued to claim as recently as three years ago that it might be true.
http://www.meforum.org/3219/gary-sick
Asked in an interview in 2011 whether he still believes the October Surprise allegations, Jimmy Carter replied, "I don't know the facts … I've read Gary Sick's book and talked to him. I don't really know."[46]
Footnote 46 is:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/jimmy-carter-as-a-nation-were-bad-at-making-tough-decisions/238882/
As I said, Jimmy Carter didn't just edit that book, he shaped it.
I did find this just now: (and you wouldn't find something more open)
https://consortiumnews.com/2011/05/12/jimmy-carters-october-surprise-doubts/
In an interview for a new book, Conversations with Power by Brian Michael Till, Carter expresses uncertainty about the old political mystery known as the October Surprise case, but he reveals that he has discussed the matter with his former national security aide Gary Sick, who embraced the suspicions in a 1991 book, October Surprise.
“I have never taken a position on that because I don’t know the facts,” Carter told Till. “I’ve seen explanations that were made by George H.W. Bush and the Reagan people, and I’ve read Gary Sick’s book and talked to him about it. I don’t really know.”
But as I said, Jimmy Carter had the manuscript of that book, and edited it and approved it before publication. Somewhere ther's a reference for that.
Regrets, I have a few.
More than a few, actually.
Ah, counterfactual time! Assuming Carter pulled out a win (perhaps with John Anderson taking a larger share of the anti-incumbent vote, maybe Reagan making some more campaign missteps), I figure the inflation would have been handled about the same as it was Carter's appointee (Volcker) who really killed it with his raising interest rates. But I doubt Carter would have cut income taxes as much as Reagan did, and to the effect that helped the recovery it might have been slower under Carter. A Republican probably would have won in '84 if the economy was still struggling.
Carter BARELY beat Ford in 1976 with a bad economy and the whole Nixon pardon and his being basically thrust upon Nixon by Congress thing. As the weakest incumbent humanly possible, Carter got about 50.1% of the vote. I see no reason to believe he'd improve in a re-election.
I don't know a whole lot about this aspect of the Iranian revolution--I know Carter was critical of the Shah, but what exactly did he do that helped the Shah's overthrow? Did he cut off foreign aid or impose sanctions or something?
From what I remember, he was publicly supportive of the Ayatollah. And without the US President saying that we're behind the Shah, flawed as he was, it opened the door for the crazies.
Jimmy Carter also tried floating the idea that maybe the mission was sabotaged (by people who didn't like him in the military?)
In the interview with Till, Carter also expressed continued uncertainty as to why a crucial helicopter for the U.S. hostage-rescue operation in April 1980 turned back rather than fly on to Tehran, a decision that forced the surprise assault to be scrubbed, a huge embarrassment for the Carter administration.
To carry out the mission, Carter had ordered eight helicopters to take part, including two as backups. As the mission proceeded, two helicopters developed mechanical troubles, cutting the number to the minimal of six. But one helicopter had turned back “with no reasonable explanation,” Carter said, forcing the rescue to be called off when the number of available helicopters dropped to five.
The so-called “Desert One fiasco” raised questions about Carter’s competence and ever since then rumors have persisted regarding possible sabotage of the operation by military and intelligence personnel who were hostile to Carter’s presidency.
First, Godspeed on Pres. Carter's cancer treatments, but still...
If Pres. Carter had been re-elected the Social Security Administration would still be forwarding the embassy hostages' benefit checks to a Tehran postal box.
Although when Yasir Arafat tried to involve himself in the story, in 1996, Jimmy Carter stopped him, (probably becaus ethe story was too crazy and wouldn't help him.)
Also in this article:
https://consortiumnews.com/2011/05/12/jimmy-carters-october-surprise-doubts/
<
If Pres. Carter had been re-elected then Pres. Mondale would have given the "Tear Down this Wall" speech from somewhere west of the Rhine.
@AA: "You should regret it"
For a while, maybe. Assist in the party's self-asessment, sure.
But your original point was a different one: "They never get over it."
Sensible adults do. Bitter losers don't.
Carter was a bitter loser. Bitter first and foremost because he, a superior human being, had been spurned by the American people. It was an intolerable scar. Motivated everything else he did and said.
If Pres. Carter had been re-elected then I would have finally gotten the hang of "odd/even gas rationing days".
If Pres. Carter had been re-elected then Dan Ayrkroyd could have continued minting Comedy GOLD
It wasn't the sandstorm that doomed the rescue attempt, it was rampant military incompetence.
See Richard Gabriel's "Military Incompetence: Why the American Military Doesn't Win."
"But, would the world be in as calamitous a state otherwise than presently? Possibly...possibly not."
I'll go with possibly.
"all the ills that befell the nation as a result of the Reagan Administration". I'm not coming up with a huge list, sorry.
Peter at 12:29, well said:
"To suppose Carter could have sent "another helicopter" is to suppose Carter was not Carter. So, yes, perhaps if Carter had not been Carter then not-Carter might have won the election."
Same as:
NIxon, "If I had turned off that damn tape recorder"
Ford, "If I hadn't pardoned that assh**le"
Dukakis, "If I hadn't gotten on that tank"
GHW Bush, "If I hadn't said 'read my lips'"
John McCain, "If I hadn't picked Sarah Palin"
Starting with Carter, I'm doubting a change in outcome.
Brando: 8/24/15, 12:42 PM
"Considering that, though, Dole would have been in a stronger position in 1980 for the nomination, but assuming Reagan beat him but the economy was still poor that year (plus the three term itch), the Dems might have had a good chance of taking the White House."
Not a 3-term itch, but a 4-term itch.
But if Gerald Ford had been elected in 1976, the ecoinomy would not have been bad in 1980!!
Very often a president is not really responsible for the state of the economy, but Jimmy carter really was.
On the other hand, you wouldn't have had the argument:
"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
That was a really strong argument in 1980, because Jimmy carter had been endorsed by the AFL-CIO on the grounds he was a Democrat = would be good for the economy.
Carter had spoken about the "misery index" (inflation+unemployment) Things weer far worse in 1980.
Lots of people had voted for Jimmy Carter just because of taht, and in 1980 they voted the other way. Four years - or three and half years - is long enough to try.
"Jimmy Carter had sent Alwexander Haig to the Iranian generals to urge them not to stay out of politics and not make a coup. They turned over the governmenbt to Khomeini on February 11. As a reward they were all mostly executed."
I wasn't aware of that part--though it would mean not so much Carter throwing the Shah under the bus as doing it to potential military dictators. In which case his blunder was more a naive belief that with the military standing down, Iran would march towards democracy.
It was really a belief that the danger to democracy came only from the military.
Khomeini actually had fiorst nominated Mehdi Barzagan as his Prime Minister, and Barzagan was a reasonable man. Khomeini was almost tamed, and might ahve stayed dthat way had the military, afarid of more shootings notturned the government over to Khomeni.
The U.S. Embassy was overrun in February, but it was returned.
You can read all about it if you buy this issue:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Readers-Digest-September-1979-Phil-Donohue-Neil-Boyd-/331375482395
It's the first article.
here is aWikipedia entry about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kraus
It was Feb. 14, 1979 when the United States Embassy in Tehran was first stormed. One Marine was shot and injured, taken away. He spent a week in detention, where he was tortured for sensitive information on the Embassy. He was accused of shooting Iranian civilians and stood trial in what he referred to as a Kangaroo court.[2] He was sentenced to death.[3] Within a week, United States President Jimmy Carter and Ambassador William Sullivan secured his release, and he returned to a hero's welcome.
History didn't end there, though.
There were big changes in the Navy after Reagan was elected
There were big changes throughout the military after Reagan was elected. Prior to Reagan the military was suffering badly from poor morale, overuse and neglect after Vietnam. Reagan's administration did a lot more than just spend money when it came to the military. He professionalized it and modernized it.
John McCain, "If I hadn't picked Sarah Palin
Palin actually gave McCain a boost. It's doubtful he would've ever won no matter who was his VP choice, because he was facing down history.
"Carter BARELY beat Ford in 1976 with a bad economy and the whole Nixon pardon and his being basically thrust upon Nixon by Congress thing. As the weakest incumbent humanly possible, Carter got about 50.1% of the vote. I see no reason to believe he'd improve in a re-election."
Yeah, I think Carter was unlikely to get reelected in 1980 in any case--besides the economy and foreign disasters (Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Iran) he also had a challenge from the far Left. Which is really something because they seem to love him these days!
But Reagan didn't have it all that easy--he was still considered suspect by the then-still-influential moderate wing of the GOP, and John Anderson threatened to siphon off plenty of anti-Carter votes. He benefitted from a late swing in popular opinion and a strong performance in the debate, which reassured moderates that he wasn't the boogeyman his critics made him out to be. (And picking Bush for VP helped balance the ticket too)
"Palin actually gave McCain a boost. It's doubtful he would've ever won no matter who was his VP choice, because he was facing down history."
It's debatable whether Palin helped or hurt McCain (it depends on how many Palinites would have not voted if she was not on the ticket vs. how many anti-Palinites actually didn't vote the ticket, and whatever people tell exit pollsters they may vote differently when the election is actually on the line). But I agree McCain was doomed to lose that year anyway. All the conditions were lined up for the Dems that year.
A relative was in a Marine heavy helicopter squadron at the time and trained with some of the members of that ill fated mission. In the past he told me that the Carter DoD so starved the military of spare parts needed for already aged equipment & training dollars they were forced to triage the non-working helicopters and limit flying hours. His unit won an award due to the fact that the squadron was 45% operational. Flight hours were so limited, pilots failed to keep their certifications. They just didn't train for these situations and, as noted above, morale and professionalism was at an all time low. I don't think it was about just one more helicopter.
Reagan improved things but remember the losses such as they were in Grenada where a pinned down GI used had to use his AT&T calling card (remember those?) to call back to Ft Bragg to order an air strike and aircraft losses were roughly equivalent to aircraft lost to the Nazis during daytime raids.
@Paul Brinkley, the accounts I've read were pretty unanimous that Eagle Claw was ready to go well ahead of the haboob season in Iran. Does that jibe with what you've read?
That part, I don't remember, but I don't remember it not being the case.
I found Carter very impressive in the rest of his news conference, but the "one helicopter" comment was directed to his desire to be reelected. I hate to agree with Todd over Ann, but here, he was right and she is wrong. It still kills him that he was not re-elected and, presumably, that he has been considered a failure as president.
I think Carter is a good man who too often has exercised poor judgment. Iran is high on the list of his bad judgments, but there have been many others, such as the whole Israel/Palestinian issue.
My recollection is that the rescue mission was poorly designed, combining different branches of the military and leaving little margin for error on the equipment. Even with the minimum number of hostages, it did not have a high likelihood for success. Carter had diminished the military and then designed/approved a flawed mission.
One funny story about Carter. He was famous when running for president and as president for carrying his own garment bag. I don't know if it is true, but some guy supposedly connected told me it was always empty and just a prop.
"Levi Starks said...
Fwiw I was on the USN destroyer USS Waddell in the Arabian gulf in late 1979 when Iran fell to the revolutionaries, and spent the Christmas that was supposed to be in Perth Australia floating around in the Gulf instead. There were big changes in the Navy after Reagan was elected, which is ironic since both Carter and Reagan were former naval officers."
Reagan was Army.
McCain lost his best - and maybe only - chance to win when he decided not to stick the Rev. Wright up Obama's ass and twist, but rather just to ignore the subject.
I'm sure he had good reasons for doing so, but this was far more impactful than his choosing Palin as a running mate.
"Carter's Iran hostage rescue was Bay of Pigs redux with a dem president dinking around and not using the military force available to him."
And Somalia redux as well.
I don't think we can single out Carter to blame for the rise of radical Islamic governance and terrorism in the years since his presidency but its pretty hard to put the finger on anyone else.
It's interesting his regret was not preventing the crisis rather than a later failure. He always was a small thinker.
His regret should have been not putting a thousand marines with a million rounds in the Embassy. If they had been properly staffed and shot the first guy to climb over the wall they never would have been taken hostage in the first place.
in Grenada where a pinned down GI used had to use his AT&T calling card (remember those?) to call back to Ft Bragg to order an air strike
I remember this from the movie Heartbreak Ridge, but I'm skeptical it actually occurred.
His regret should have been not putting a thousand marines with a million rounds in the Embassy. If they had been properly staffed and shot the first guy to climb over the wall they never would have been taken hostage in the first place.
They had to give Iran a chance to do their duty...but, yeah, they should've been prepared to unleash Hell quickly.
If Obama attempts to open an embassy there, then his hatred of the US will be undeniable.
Mondale would have been more "Do you need some more cement for that wall? I'm all about détente. We'll sell you more. And razor wire, too, if you need it."
I think you are very wrong about the hostage rescue, Ann Althouse. The most likely scenario, even with one or two or three more helicopters, was a partial or complete slaughter of the hostages. The American force was too weak (and the possible problems too high) to assure a smooth rescue and return, even if they had been able to land in Tehran. Carter and the hostages were very lucky that the rescue never got that far. It was most likely to fail, with devastating results.
"I don't think we can single out Carter to blame for the rise of radical Islamic governance and terrorism in the years since his presidency but its pretty hard to put the finger on anyone else."
We can't single out Carter...because US middle east foreign policy over the last several decades is to blame. Every administration is to blame. Our intervention in the affairs of the middle east countries, and our close friendship with the despotic Saudis--all driven by oil--is to blame, our training and arming fighters to act as our proxies against Russia in Afghanistan is to blame.
Michael said...
Carter is a very good man who was a very bad president.
I don't think I agree with this. Carter was so anti-Semitic he coached Arafat on how to appeal to the western media and political left. But at least he wasn't an ideologue which may be what you're getting at.
Robert Cook said...
"I don't think we can single out Carter to blame for the rise of radical Islamic governance and terrorism in the years since his presidency but its pretty hard to put the finger on anyone else."
"We can't single out Carter...because US middle east foreign policy over the last several decades is to blame. Every administration is to blame. Our intervention in the affairs of the middle east countries, and our close friendship with the despotic Saudis--all driven by oil--is to blame, our training and arming fighters to act as our proxies against Russia in Afghanistan is to blame."
Or maybe Islam is to blame.
But since it is us horrible soldiers that did it please take your holy self and join those poor Muslims we have been turning into violent radicals. They will stand with you in solidarity I am sure. Don't let us ruin your pearly white and clean soul.
Robert Cook said...
"I don't think we can single out Carter to blame for the rise of radical Islamic governance and terrorism in the years since his presidency but its pretty hard to put the finger on anyone else."
We can't single out Carter...because US middle east foreign policy over the last several decades is to blame.
Radical Islamists are to blame for the rise of radical Islam.
Sure not *everything* wrong in the Middle East is Jimmy Carter's fault. Heck, most of what's wrong in the Middle East isn't the fault of any American -- people in the Middle East aren't children or straw men or political props.
However, Jimmy Carter bears a lot of the blame for both the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the way the Hostage Crisis went. Those aren't just ancient history. As Iran sprints towards nuclear ICBMs it's worth remembering that the foundational myth of the current Iranian state is of that Hostage Crisis. It's the myth of a gaggle of university students bringing the United States to its knees. That's how Iran sees itself in the world -- we are a gigantic superpower, but decadent and corrupt. Iran is like those university students. Death-to-America is their "Let Freedom Ring". And Jimmy Carter bears a lot of the blame for that.
Rick said...
in Grenada where a pinned down GI used had to use his AT&T calling card (remember those?) to call back to Ft Bragg to order an air strike
I remember this from the movie Heartbreak Ridge, but I'm skeptical it actually occurred.
8/24/15, 2:33 PM
It may not have occurred but I heard that story too.
I was at Ft. Stewart (24th ID) at that time and we were mobilized when all that went down. We mustered and were made ready to go but my company was not sent. It wound up being over before we were needed.
Heard the AT&T calling card story though, then.
It was the proudest vote of my live (then and since) when I got to pull the lever for RR.
because US middle east foreign policy over the last several decades is to blame.
Damn the US for resisting the domination of the world by the USSR and Communism. The world would be perfect if we had just surrendered.
Well maybe Islam is to blame, its pretty high on the list for a lot of problems for the last 1400 years but I'm thinking about who could have changed the dynamics of the last 40 years and its hard to think of another person.
The crux of the story about the soldier using his phone credit card to call in fire support from the Navy is this: at the time, communications between the services was spotty at best. Air Force and Army radios tended to work well together, as did the Marine and Navy radios. However, Army radios didn't work well (or at all) with Navy radios. The soldier needed fire support from the Navy and couldn't make contact. As a result of that, a series of laws and regulations were enacted to mandate the use of enterprise architecture to enable and enforce interoperability between systems. I'm an enterprise architect.
I don't think you can blame Ford for Vietnam's ending. Congress decided to ignore our agreements and he couldn't force them to spend money.
Of course, that's back when Dems ran Congress and they are a markedly more effective bunch than the shitbrick Republicans we have.
I agree Carter's biggest fault was how he handled Iran. It went from a trusted friend to a devil enemy on his watch. I said his judgment was bad. This is the biggest example. He thought it would be okay for Kohmeni [sp?] to be allowed to come back in.
The liberal media gave up long ago trying to make Carter look good, but on the Iran issue, they have given him a pass. Instead, they blame a 1953 coup, which was only a modest factor. The Shah lost the support of the military and America did not guide the situation to a better ending.
On presidents, I think you should judge them mostly on big picture issues:
Truman - good on ending the war (subject to debate on morality of atomic bomb) and helping Europe recover - failure in Korea
Eisenhower - pretty good on cold war tension and ending Korea.
Kennedy -- pathetic on many things, but excellent in the Cuban missile crisis
Johnson - disaster on Vietnam and war on poverty - excellent on civil rights
Nixon - very good on China and foreign policy - obviously ethic problems
Ford - not much of significance - awful on Vietnam and okay on leading us out of Nixon days
Carter - good on Israel/Egypt - awful on Iran and pretty much everything else
Reagan - excellent on cold war and leadership
Bush I -- excellent on end of cold war and Iraq War I
Clinton - not much of significance - awful on morality-- [objective person does not credit president for economy]
Bush II -- failure on Iraq in long term, even though one could argue Obama at fault - good on post 9/11 leadership
Obama -- failure on Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and Russia - failure on health of country - made country more divided - will be beneficiary of massive media favoritism in short term - long term no chance, UNLESS he gets lucky and Iranian revolution throws out Mullahs - less likely to happen now - was not ready to be president and his university leftism has no place in office of president
It wasn't the overthrow of the Shah that brought Khomeini to powrr, but the overthrow of Shapour Bakhtiar.
The Shah apponited Bakhtiar as Prime Minister. The mullahs, not the Shah, opposed Bakhtiar.
And the Shah couldn't have stayed.
So says the commentor.
He had gotten into a routine of firing on demonstrators.
I can’t find this documented. Could us readers have a link or should we assume this statement is false?
Jimmy Carter had sent Alwexander Haig to the Iranian generals to urge them not to stay out of politics and not make a coup. They turned over the governmenbt to Khomeini on February 11. As a reward they were all mostly executed.
A search for Haig in regards to Iran yields nothing so I’m thinking his trip to the “Iranian generals” is not true. What’s true is that Carter stopped supporting our ally the Shah.
And all along I thought that the killer swamp rabbit was his downfall.
A smart man would have regretted getting involved in the military planning details to begin with. That should have been left to the military experts. The ones with current practical experience.
That's the most honest thing I've ever heard a politician say.
One more helicopter?
Take a he'll of a lot more than 'one more helicopter' to save Jimmy 's presidency.
Just a fact, not a wish.
The problem wasn't so much not rescuing the hostages, as allowing the Iranians to take our entire government hostage
Jimmy Carter had sent Alexander Haig to the Iranian generals to urge them not to stay out of politics and not make a coup. They turned over the governmenbt to Khomeini on February 11. As a reward they were all mostly executed.
Mostly executed is much worse than partially executed. Studies show that mostly executed persons have more chronic health issues than the partially executed. They also suffer from statistically greater rates of divorce and bankruptcy.
What gets me is the reporter apologizing for asking a non-flattering question.
That guy was always one of something short on everything.
Three thoughts:
1) Some criticism of Israel is a justified response to its misdeeds.
2) Some criticism of Israel is unfair and/or disproportionate, but not rooted in antisemitism.
3) Jimmy Carter is a vile Jew-hater, and the more he suffers, the better.
Patti McGuire.
Carter won his Presidency based on her centerfold in his Playboy interview.
Certain Americans tied him in with such a beautiful wholesome yet nude girl.
She might indeed have been the Prime Wholesome Seventies Nude Girl.
If Donald Trump gave a Playboy interview with Patti McGuire as the centerfold I would vote for him.
I would link but you are all going to Google anyway.
I am Laslo.
Carter's guilty of the "Hypothesis contrary to fact" fallacy. Maybe another helicopter would've saved the hostages, maybe that would've tipped the election back to him (unlikely ...Anyone recall 13% inflation?), maybe a lot of things. But definitely not a guaranteed result.
This shows me Carter needs an imaginary "fact" to help him deny his overall failure as a president.
Had Carter sent another helicopter, there would have been that many more hostages. The team was poorly trained and that experience led to Special Forces being developed with teams including multiple services. Read The Guts To Try, which is the story of the mission and all the problems.
From Steven F. Hayward's "The Real Jimmy Carter" is this:
He is a maddeningly contradictory figure. He first achieved statewide office in Georgia with a cynical race-baiting campaign, and then immediately proclaimed that the time had come for the South to repudiate its racist ways. An avatar of morality and truthfulness, Carter bends the truth and has a singularly nasty side to his character that ultimately contributed to his loss in 1980. Longtime NBC and ABC broadcaster David Brinkley observed of Carter: "Despite his intelligence, he had a vindictive streak, a mean streak, that surfaced frequently and antagonized people." Eleanor Randolph of the Chicago Tribune wrote: "Carter likes to carve up an opponent, make his friends laugh at him, and then call it a joke.... [He] stretched the truth to the point where it becomes dishonest to call it exaggeration." New York Times reporter James Wooten called Carter "a hyperbole addict." And Gary Fink, author of a generally favorable study of
Carter's governorship, notes that "Carter usually claimed the moral and ethical high ground" but "practiced a style of politics based on exaggeration, disingenuousness, and at times outright deception."
Carter seldom, if ever, repents of his nastiness or asks forgiveness. Instead, when called out for an egregious personal attack, he displays the advanced skills of evasion that made him such an effective presidential candidate, at least until the public caught on in 1980.
The man with the legendary smile can be unfriendly and cold. "There were no private smiles," said one disgruntled campaign aide in 1976. Carter's personal White House secretary, Susan Clough, recalled that Carter rarely said hello to her as he walked by her desk. Not a "Happy Thanksgiving," or a "Merry Christmas." Nothing, she says. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. judged Carter to be a "narcissistic loner." "Carter was never a regular guy," Patrick Anderson observed; "the sum of his parts never quite added up to that.... Carter talked his way into the presidency, yet in some profound way he never learned the language of men."
I was surprised and nauseated by Todd's reaction.
I was surprised and nauseated by Carter's statement. It sounds like he regrets not sending one more helicopter to save the hostages, not because the hostages needed to be saved, but because it cost him his re-election. He regrets it because it ended his political career, not because the people they were trying to save had to languish in prison for several more months. Rescuing the hostages was not a means to another, more important, end. It was -- or should have been -- the end itself.
Maybe I'm just misreading Carter's answer. I hope so.
"I remember this from the movie Heartbreak Ridge, but I'm skeptical it actually occurred."
http://www.legion.org/honor/217662/how-military-got-its-mojo-back
(see 5th graf)
Operation Eagle Claw was a complicated nutty plan and would most likely had failed had the first part gone to plan.
The real idiocy of the whole Iran hostage deal is that the US embassy was taken over TWICE. After the first time, the British embassy warned the US that they had intelligence that another take-over was planned and encouraged the US to evacuate. They offered a room for a small group, including the Ambassador. It's important to note that the CIA in Iran was hopelessly incompetent (yet another reason Eagle Claw would have failed.)
The embassy had almost NINE months to evacuate all but absolutely essential personnel and to remove politically damaging documents.
The President has no business micromanaging a tactical-level detail like that. Like LBJ, Carter, Obama and the layers of hacks they brought into the decision loop, he probably did contribute to the failure of the mission, particularly when he flubbed his REAL responsibility, which was to determine whether the embassy staff should not have been pulled out earlier.
McCain lost because he's McCain. Because he declared Reverend Wright, father Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan and the rest of Obama's cadre of racist America-haters off-limits to examination and exposure. Because he "suspended" his campaign and let the media declare him a quitter and incompetent. Because at the last debate he declared that his opponent would make a "great president". If it wasn't for Palin generating all the excitement and enthusiasm in his campaign, McStain wouldn't have won even %40 of the vote.
What a putz. Carter is also a jew-hater. So how much lower can he go?
My response would have been: "I wish I'd sent one more helicopter to get the hostages and we would have rescued them"
Good men died on that mission. And his concern is his re-election?
I hope his death is slow and painful.
As Hillary's foundering campaign fades into irrelvance, Joe Biden, 72, is soon expected to enter the race.
But why not draft Jimmy Carter, 90, instead? He is easily the most popular living Democrat. He has more spunk than Biden and tells us he still burns with desire for that elusive second term.
I was thinking along the lines of rightguy2 upthread: We should have made it clear in private diplomatic communications that we will use force to ensure the return of our citizens:ff
1. Say goodbye to your oil export business. We will keep your export facilities out of commission till the hostages are returned.
Not enough pain?
2. How about no electricity or running water for the next round of punishment?
3. We can keep this up longer than your regime will last.
It'll be a sad day if Peanut Brain succumbs. Dictators all over the world will go into mourning.
dbp:
After the "student militants" act of war against us, President Carter should've given them 72 hours to return the hostages into safe hands or else they will face the most severe consequences. And then w/in 24 hours bomb one of their military facilities into rubble just for the hell of it. Let them think you're angry enough and crazy enough to nuke the whole nation.
Unfortunately, in such a situation you must consider any hostages as already dead. Perversely, it's the best chance to coerce their safe return. If you negotiate with them, you just foster and promote more terrorism.
Dithering and wringing your hands is playing under their rules, letting them control the situation. Diplomats don't like to hear this, but it's the other side who took this out of the diplomatic sphere.
Levi Starks -- Reagan was a former naval officer? Which movie?
Post a Comment