not sure, but I don’t think he was the pilot or the mechanic of that particular aircraft. I do know I’d rather live in a house Carter built than a pile of brush amassed by the Cheerleader Prince.

Comment by Squegeeboo

Hate him for not selling weapons to terrorists, like Reagan?

Riight.

I see your views are well thought out and make sense.

There for, all I am left with, is:
Yah, well what about that time Carter was attacked by a swimming bunny? And he told my parents to put on a sweater, prob. because he hates America.

In other words, you win this time.

I don’t think this counts as a Muslim immigrant (per Wiki):

The older of the pair, born John Allen Williams, age 41 at the time of capture, had joined the black supremacist Nation of Islam some years earlier and changed his name to John Allen Muhammad in October 2001. The younger man was born Lee Boyd Malvo, but also calls himself John Lee Malvo and had posed as Muhammad’s son (17 years old at the time of his arrest).

Nevertheless, you can’t label it a bad example because the actions of the two snipers weren’t exactly considered the work of a larger group of international terrorists. My point is valid.

As for the hostage rescue attempt, they couldn’t forecast a sandstorm because, per a report on the Defense Technical Info Center’s web site, the Air Weather Service had lost the use of several transmission sites after the fall of the Shah. They used historical data instead (you can debate the decision to proceed with the plan, based on this info, but apparently no one in the chain of command suggested that Carter abort because of it), but the info was not shared with all the people involved in the rescue attempt.

This report also confirms, as I mentioned before, a terrible communication problem between the chain of command and those involved in the rescue attempt. The report sums up this failed rescue attempt this way:

The problems were initiated at the NCA/NSC level. The policy makers at this level could not agree on a course of action to take in regards to the hostages. Because of these disagreements,
unity of effort suffered and cooperation on the matter dwindled
among some agencies. In short, this affected the President’s decision making process. He was unable to take swift, aggressive action, and when he finally did make a decision to attempt the rescue, it was caveated with notes of caution and timidness. Whether this was borne out of concern for the hostages or fear
of failure is of little consequence; his decision lacked confidence and that spread to his subordinates……The impact is clear at the tactical level as being antonymous to the principles of command and control: interoperability problems, confusion with the chain of command, decentralized direction resulting from compartmentalization, and a lack of common doctrine.

That one was a Muslim immigrant wasn’t it? Not to say your point wasn’t valid, just one bad example if I remeber correctly.

As for Carter’s failed rescue attempt, you can’t put the blame on him.
…
were due to equipment breakdown in a desert environment and communication problems between the various armed forces that were involved.

Due to him Ok’ing the mission during a sandstorm.

Comment by Squegeeboo — September 26, 2007 @ 11:55 am

At least he tried to rescue the hostages, unlike the Reagan administration who was illegally involved in weapons for hostages deals, and unlike Bush Sr. who did nothing to rescue the hostages held during his and Reagan’s administrations (including Terry Anderson, held from 1985 until 1991).

As for Carter’s failed rescue attempt, you can’t put the blame on him. I suggest you read former NBC News anchor John Chancellor’s book Peril and Promise: A Commentary on America, in which he mentions that the failure(s) were due to equipment breakdown in a desert environment and communication problems between the various armed forces that were involved.

(Sorry if this is a repost)

Those Americans who are afraid of their own shadows are that way because the Republicans have told them to be afraid, and they have complied. Visions of mushroom clouds, “we’ll be attacked again if the Democrats retake the White House/Congress,” unnecessary increases in the terror threat level…take your pick.

When it all comes down to it, we in America are much more likely to be attacked by our own people than we are from a foreign terrorist, whether it is another high school shooting, a college campus shooting, a disgruntled employee at the local Food Mart, or the kidnapping and murder of an innocent child, teenager, or young adult. Add it up; start with the first WTC attack, and add the number of major “terrorist attacks” on American soil (I count three: the first and second WTC attacks, and the Oklahoma City bombing). Next, add up the attacks by ordinary Americans (school shootings, etc.). I can easily count three (I guarantee there are many more): Columbine; Va. Tech; and the Beltway sniper shootings in Va. in October 2002.

His brilliant handling of the Iranian hostage crisis?

Comment by Squegeeboo

What the f*ck are you talking about, Squeege?

What’s this “solid reason to hate Carter?” Not making politically-based arms deals with terrorists?

Can you mail it to me?

Comment by Squegeeboo — September 26, 2007 @ 10:15 am

Depends what you mean by “better.” Driving countries into debt slavery with IMF loans and structural adjustment policies is less bloody, but far more damaging to countries and livelihoods.

Read John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Fascinating and frightening read.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298097,00.html

I applaud GM / UAW reaching this deal. When Dana Corp. shuttered its doors, the UAW accepted 71% of the pension liability from GM, but only after everyone lost their jobs. Now, the UAW has the future of their pensions in their own hands, and GM is able to compete with its foreign rivals, so no one will lose their jobs.

The UAW might just invest in GM, given the current lows of its stock price, which are sure to rise on this news, and their future potential to succeed.

I wish Democrats could compromise with Republicans for the greater good, just as the UAW compromised with GM for the greater good. It isn’t a question of idealogy, it is a question of reality and opportunity.

As for creating a national healthcare program, to bail out union pension plans, I am against that, as I was against bailing out sub-prime lenders. Both these institutions have lost money, due to poor policies, and both are now retooling for new realities. If Hill’reh wants to create mandatory insurance that everyone pays for, subsidies should be based on “means” testing, and with this union pension plan now in place, all union members already have the means to pay.

Or maybe that was their cunning plan all along. With out the ‘79 revolution, we wouldn’t have a new evil enemy now to keep the general populace afraid of their shadows, and a solid reason to hate Carter.

Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 26, 2007 @ 10:29 am

Let me fix that for ya…

“I’m barely able to understand ordinary speech anywhere”.

There… a FAR more honest statement! BTW, yer a FRAUD!

Comment by Theresa — September 26, 2007 @ 9:45 am

It constantly amazes me the things Bush and the Repubs managed to accomplish while the rest of America was sleeping.

The National Guard has always been a key component in state governors’ toolboxes. It can be argued that THEY are the “well-regulated militia” mentioned in the second amendment, as a defense against possible tyranny from Washington. When they are handed over to the president (who already has all the REST of the military), it kind of defeats that purpose, doesn’t it?

Comment by Squegeeboo — September 26, 2007 @ 10:15 am

It’s an ugly world these days. Come to think of it, it’s always been an ugly world. Seems at times the US could be a little more “benign” in the way it tries to wield influence, like for instance, In Iran… (from Wiki).

From 1952-53, Iran’s democratically elected nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began a period of rapid power consolidation, which led the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to a brief exile and then into power again. Much of the events of 1952 were started by Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum.

Established by the British in the early 20th century, an agreement had been made to share profits (85% British-15% Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. Due to alleged profit monopolization by the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, the Iranian Parliament had unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empire’s largest company.

The United States and Britain, through a now-admitted covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran, helped organize protests to overthrow Moussadeq and return the Shah to Iran. The operation failed and the Shah fled to Italy. After a second successful operation he returned from his brief exile. Iran’s fledgling attempts at democracy quickly descended into dictatorship, as the Shah dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch.

During his reign, the Shah received significant American support, frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American Presidents. The Shah’s close ties to Washington and his bold agenda of rapidly Westernizing Iran soon began to infuriate certain segments of the Iranian population, especially the hardline Islamic conservatives.

Because of their eventual ascension to power during the 1979 Revolution, Operation Ajax is considered as one of the worst CIA “blowbacks” ever.

GIGO… Garbage In, garbage out…