He was a great man and a true patriot. His vision of an America that lived up to its true ideals and his naive belief that as President he would have support of the Military caused his ultimate demise. Among his first official acts as President he fired the Head of the C.I.A. (George H. W. Bush) and replaced him with Stanfield Turner. He commissioned Turner with the job of purging the Agency of Right Wing elements that had replaced democracies with dictatorships in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Chile. He cut off aid to the longest lasting and most oppressive Dictatorships in history; Somoza of Nicaragua.
Shortly after long time friends of Bush in Saudi Arabia staged an artificial oil shortage and caused the U.S. economy to go into spiraling inflation. Then with the help of a company called Easco, owned by former C.I.A. officials; Theodore Shakley, and Thomas Cline, the Shiite revolution of the Ayatollah Khomeini over through the Government and took the U.S. embassy that was gaurded by 106 Marines with out a shot being fired. These two totaly related instances are just part of the covert destruction of the Carter Presidency
2007-07-26 04:32:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by The real Ed-Mike 3
·
3⤊
5⤋
I'm old enough to remember.
He was a victim of history. The 1970 sucked ***. Inflation and unemployment were killing everyone. Presidents have very little to do with the economy. They work on cycles.
The big 'screw up' was Iran. He did launch a military raid to try and save them, yet he seems to forget that. When he was interviewed years later, he was asked if he was glad he had taken a "soft approach" to the hostage crisis, and he said yes.
Well, for a soft approach, there were a lot of bodies littering the desert. He needs to take responsibility for that.
But the biggest mistake was that he should continued on a military solution to the problem. Even if that meant the loss of the hostages. By allowing the Iranians to walk all over the US, he set the stage for all future Islamo-Fascist attacks against us. He taught the bad guys they could get away with it.
A military strike in 1980 would have been political suicide. Viet Nam was more than just a movie then. Congress and the people would have eaten him alive had he done. But as a former military man himself, he knew what would happen if you show weakness to your enemy.
He traded the security of the nation to preserve his legacy. He wanted to go down a a mediocre, caretaker president instead of a war monger.
2007-07-26 11:57:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by Joseph G 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
A long, long time ago, when Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States the world was far different than now. The USSR was still a dangerous adversary, an adversary that made an attempt to become a major player in the middle east...where the oil was and still is. The russians 'invaded' Afghanastan as part of their bid to accomplish this end. Carter issued the 'Carter Doctrine' that stated that the middle east was in the US sphere of influence and we would go to war to protect our interests there. He instituted the 'Rapid Deployment Force' and sent a fleet of ship to the area. He began to arm the Afghan resistance. He armed the Shah of Iran. He allowed OPEC to form so the Shah could pay for those arms. He then attempted to move the US toward a non-oil only energy policy..a policy canceled by the Reagan administration. Carter was ahead of his time...check it out! I wish I had the room to elaborate on this subject...hey!, maybe FOX will run a special explaining it all....yeah...right!
2007-07-26 11:49:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Noah H 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Despite the views of conspiracy theorists, the military had nothing to do with Carter's dismal performance as president. He was simply not the right person for the job because he did not have the skills to survive politics in Washington.
That said, I do think that Jimmy Carter is a great American. He embodies an ideal that we should all strive for when it comes to helping our fellow citizens and persons. His work with Habitat for Humanity is inspiring. He is a much better leader outside the political spectrum.
2007-07-26 11:38:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by John W 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Jimmy Carter was a brilliant scholar and businessman who got overwhelmed by the office of the Presidency. He was overwhelmed because he was too hands on and didn't delegate well. Crisis after crisis spun out of control. I liked the man but the job was too big for him.
2007-07-26 11:43:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Deep Thought 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't consider Carter a great president because I feel his staff was not that great. He could have picked better. I do regard him as one of the most caring Presidents we had in my life time. I think he is a good man and cares about all of America, not just the chosen few.
2007-07-26 11:38:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by grumpyoldman 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
One of our worst presidents. In addition to being a terrible leader, he indecisive and a socialist. You can't blame him for the oil embargo but anyone old enough to remember the Iran Hostage Crisis can confirm he was an inept president. I think his greatest achievement is Habitat for Humanity.
2007-07-26 11:42:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by J.R. 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
THE CONSPIRACIES KILL ME EVERY TIME.
JIMMY CARTER WAS THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN. HE ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE OF EXTREMIST MUSLIMS. HE SHOULD HAVE WIPE THE FLOOR WITH IRAN AND HE JUST SAT BACK AND LET THE HOSTAGES ROT. WHILE THE EXTREMIST IN IRAN SOLIDIFIED THEIR POWER. HE WAS WEAK. THE BEST THING HE WAS WAS START HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. HE SHOULD START TO BUILD HIMSELF A TOMB HE SEEMS TO BE ON HIS LAST LEG.
2007-07-26 11:42:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by strike_eagle29 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
A mediocre president but a great humanitarian. Probably did more after leaving office than any other prez in terms of philanthropic work.
2007-07-26 11:37:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Baysoc23 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Carter gets too much of the blame for the economic conditions that existed under his watch.
He surely didn't help matters but the economic crisis was the culmination of decades of bad economic policy.
2007-07-26 11:35:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by truthisback 3
·
2⤊
1⤋