First thing he should’ve done was back our ally, the Shah, instead of cutting off support and letting the Islamists get control of Iran in the first place. Barring that, he should’ve recalled all embassy personnel from Iran when things first started going down hill BEFORE the embassy was stormed. When it became apparent that the embassy was in danger, he should’ve sent reenforcements for the Marine Guard and withdrew the staff by helicopter. He also could’ve given the guards permission to engage anyone violating the perimeter of the Embassy grounds. Once the Embassy had been overrun, he could’ve immediately began preparations for and then executed a rescue mission within the first 2 weeks when it would’ve had a better than 50% chance of success. Ross Perot was able to launch a rescue mission to get some of his employees who were hiding in the Canadian Embassy out of Iran. And no he didn’t buy their release. He paid and equipped a group of professional soldiers to go into Tehran and bring his people out. Which they did.

>

In that respect you would be wrong. The circumstances are profoundly different. Under international law, embassies are the sovereign territory of the nation that they represent. They are NOT subject to the laws of the host country, nor are they considered to be a portion of that country. The Iranian militants who seized the US embassy in Iran were in effect invading the sovereign territory of the US. Would you expect the President to issue them an apology for invading a federal building in Miami and taking the occupants hostage? While the incidences that you quote happened in questionably another country’s air space or coastal waters, the US embassy in Iran was US territory NOT Iranian territory. Just as the Iranian Embassy in Washington wasn’t subject to US law, it was Iranian sovereign territory.

When terrorists seized the Iranian embassy in London, the British didn’t sit back and negotiate on behalf of the terrorists. Once they got permission from the Iranian government, SAS troopers stormed the building killing the terrorists and saving the hostages. When the US embassy in Tehran was seized, the Iranian government took the side of the terrorists and refused to help end the hostage situation or even allow the US military to do so.

Carter’s presidency, widely renowned for its crowning achievement, The Camp David Accords, which established a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, was not however, a Carter initiative.

Carter’s intentions and policy commitments were geared towards arranging a Geneva Peace Conference with all the parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute present, in addition to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

Carter dispatched Cyrus Vance, his Secretary of State, to Moscow to get the Soviets to co-sponsor the conference. On May 21, 1977, Secretary Vance and Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko issued a joint statement that the “elimination of the continued source of tension in the Middle East constitutes one of the primary tasks in ensuring peace and international security.”The statement specified moreover the conviction of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. that in order to achieve the goal, “an important role belonged to the Geneva Conference on the Middle East.”

Carter decided to coordinate his Middle East efforts with the Soviets on the premise that keeping them out of the picture could provoke them to undermine any American sponsored moves. This typical Carteresque strategy of appeasing dictatorships and dictators (Carter never met a dictator he did not like) backfired time and again.

In the case of the Geneva Conference, Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s President, who five years earlier expelled the Soviets from Egypt, did not want the Soviets involved in negotiations, much less in a multilateral negotiations. Sadat understood that the Soviets would press the Arabs to be uncompromising (he also knew that Carter would press Israel for concessions) and was turned off by the thought that radical voices in Syria and Iraq would undermine Egypt’s position as the leader of the Arab world.

Sadat was dead-set against going to Geneva. And, in order to scuttle the idea he had to get Israel to reject it.

On November 7, 1977, Anwar Sadat made an historic trip to Jerusalem providing Israelis with one of the most euphoric days in their collective memory. Sadat’s dramatic move and Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s personal opposition to Geneva and Soviet participation scuttled the idea of the conference. Carter quickly jumped on the Begin-Sadat bandwagon and the rest is history. It is important to acknowledge that the Camp David Accords – Carter’s premier presidential achievement – happened in spite of his misjudgment.

Dershowitz:

Carter has tried hard to turn the mideast conflict into a religious one. He constantly refers to Israel as the “Holy Land,” which he defines as follows:

“It became increasingly clear that there were two Israel’s. One encompassed the ancient culture and moral values of the Jewish people, defined by the Hebrew Scriptures with which I had been familiar since childhood and representing the young nation that most American envisioned.”

Carter condemns Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring those of every religion the right to worship as they please consistent, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt’s brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.

Carter goes out of his way to point out that some Christians are separated from their churches by the “Apartheid Wall,” without mentioning that it was Muslim terrorists who used Christian churches as terrorist sanctuaries.

Carter even blames Israel for the “exodus of Christians from the Holy Land,”; totally ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah and the repeated assassination of Christian leaders by Syria
His bias against Israel is no where else more mistaken then his belief that Palestinians have agreed to a two-state solution all along while Israel has refused.  That my friends is called delusion.  Israel accepted the Peel Commission recommendation that they receive only a sliver of land in 1938 while the Palestinians rejected it.  It accepted the Partition Plan of 1947, while the Palestinians rejected it.  The Palestinians rejected all the concessions made by Israel in 2000. 

You see a pattern here? 

The Arab states will not accept anything but the total annihilation of Israel, that’s it in a nutshell (pun intended).  Jimmy Carter can’t or won’t see it.  No where does his bias shine through more deeply then when he makes excuses for the Palestinian terrorist acts against Israel:

The security barrier is a desperate, deeply imperfect and, God willing, temporary attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from detonating themselves amid crowds of Israeli civilians. And it works; many recent attempts to infiltrate bombers into Israel have failed, thanks to the barrier.

The murder of Israelis, however, plays little role in Carter’s understanding of the conflict. He writes of one Hamas bombing campaign: “Unfortunately for the peace process, Palestinian terrorists carried out two lethal suicide bombings in March 1996.” That spree of bombings — four, actually — was unfortunate for the peace process, to be sure. It was also unfortunate for the several dozen civilians killed in these attacks. But Israeli deaths seem to be an abstraction for Carter; only the peace process is real, and the peace process would succeed, he claims, if not for Israeli intransigence.

Jimmy Carter has hugged and kissed all the worst of the worst throughout the world over the decades.  He shared a Nobel Peace Prize with a terrorist for god’s sake.  But the left and the MSM have applauded his every move. 

Please tell me. What is my basic ignorance? I don’t know what you are referring to.

You all know things that I do not (Just as I know things that you don’t know); and I listen to what you say so that I might educate myself. I have found as I grow older that most people don’t listen to others (so that they might educate themselves). You guys might never listen to me and learn; but I can still learn from you.

I have learned a lot from you guys already. I am using you all and many others to educate myself.

(”You all”: I’m from the South. You as a plural irritates us so we say ‘you all’ where as technically “you”is sufficient)

That’s a pretty big stretch.

There is certainly some truth to that statement; but I think the same will be true of the President 30 years from now. I think President Bush has created a situation that America will still be dealing with in 30 years. And; in a much more significant and negative way than what we are dealing with in Iran. (Yes; Iran. I know the difference between the two unlike so many people that I talk to)

Are there any similarities between President Carter in Iran and President Bush in Iraq?

THANK YOU Framrartyoffic great story.
sad, this War will be lost, for political reason of the one world ideals.

Carter is total evil.