Jimmy Carter or George W Bush?

[Giant Saguaro]

Jimmy was certainly worse. Ultra naive foreign policy and extremist economic agenda; CIA cuts, military cuts, horrible leadership qualities - no, he's disaster city. He's the worst of all possible worlds. He did want a better world, though, I can't say he wanted a world that was worse off than when he came in. So I guess I can say he had noble intentions.

[Giant Saguaro]

Jimmy was certainly worse. Ultra naive foreign policy and extremist economic agenda; CIA cuts, military cuts, horrible leadership qualities - no, he's disaster city. He's the worst of all possible worlds. He did want a better world, though, I can't say he wanted a world that was worse off than when he came in. So I guess I can say he had noble intentions.

You're right, only an extremist would increase the number of jobs by over 10 million in one Presidential term while having the national debt as a fraction of GDP go down.

Well he OBVIOUSLY didn't do it himself, in reference to the jobs. I'll have to look somewhere to see what the tax rate was when he left office as I do not recall - it was ridiculous, and we had a slashed CIA and smashed military with an expanding Soviet Union to show for it. Reagan cut our taxes, built that military back up, restored many of the CIA's powers, and by the middle 1980s the economy was off and running, something Carter never managed to *oversee*, despite your assertion that Carter alone created 7 zillion jobs or whatever. Nonsense.

[Giant Saguaro]

Jimmy was certainly worse. Ultra naive foreign policy and extremist economic agenda; CIA cuts, military cuts, horrible leadership qualities - no, he's disaster city. He's the worst of all possible worlds. He did want a better world, though, I can't say he wanted a world that was worse off than when he came in. So I guess I can say he had noble intentions.

You're right, only an extremist would increase the number of jobs by over 10 million in one Presidential term while having the national debt as a fraction of GDP go down.

Well he OBVIOUSLY didn't do it himself, in reference to the jobs. I'll have to look somewhere to see what the tax rate was when he left office as I do not recall - it was ridiculous, and we had a slashed CIA and smashed military with an expanding Soviet Union to show for it. Reagan cut our taxes, built that military back up, restored many of the CIA's powers, and by the middle 1980s the economy was off and running, something Carter never managed to *oversee*, despite your assertion that Carter alone created 7 zillion jobs or whatever. Nonsense.

Unemployment was quite low and a lot of jobs were created under Carter, and indeed without running up a massive deficit, but high inflation partially compensated for the job creation.

Inflation and job creation were somewhat cancelling each other out, reducing the overall effects of both.

Well, I don't think inflation and job creation cancelled each other out because Carter asked for 2 things: labor leaders to hold down wage demands and companies not to increase prices. Neither worked to offset inflation. Prices continued to rise all the way through the middle of 1980, when Carter introduced new proposals, including more demands on wage freezes, restrictions on credit, and taxes on imported oil.

How anybody thought that would reduce inflation beats the hell out of me. And then  the guy has the balls to demand a resignation from all of his staff. I'm glad the American people demanded one from him in November '80. Disaster city.

[Giant Saguaro]

Um so deregulation of industries, phasing out of price controls, raising interest rates to match inflation rates, and keeping the budget deficit tiny compared to his successors is "extremist economic policy"? Boycotting the Olympics, beginning funding to the mujahadeen, getting the hostages released from Iran, increasing military spending, funding the MX and Minuteman missiles, restoring Radio Free Europe, the Camp David accords, establishing diplomatic relation swith China, launching the RDF program, is "ultra naive" foreign policy?

And I love how Carter gets blamed for not "overseeing" the fact that the forward C-130 gunships failed to warn the helicopters behind them that there was a haboob dust cloud in their flight path, thus causing two of the helicopters to break down. If that mission had worked you'd be hailing Carter as a hero. The President can't micromanage military plans. The man who sold the plan to him was a cowboy right out of Dr. Strangelove who detested bureaucracy and doing it by the book. He represented all the worst of conservtive gung-hoism.

Oh and the ayatollahs loved Reagan. They could count on him to sell them weapons.

And you think Carter handled the Iranian hostage crisis like a pro, I'm sure. Good "gung-hoism." He just did nothing. After 8 helicopters couldn't make it through a sandstorm. Pretty bad if that's the state of things.

The problem was Carter didn't know WHAT he wanted to do. He sat on it and sat on it and sat on it. His decision to send 8 helicopters in there was a "roll of the dice." And Vance took the fall.

[Giant Saguaro]

Um so deregulation of industries, phasing out of price controls, raising interest rates to match inflation rates, and keeping the budget deficit tiny compared to his successors is "extremist economic policy"? Boycotting the Olympics, beginning funding to the mujahadeen, getting the hostages released from Iran, increasing military spending, funding the MX and Minuteman missiles, restoring Radio Free Europe, the Camp David accords, establishing diplomatic relation swith China, launching the RDF program, is "ultra naive" foreign policy?

And I love how Carter gets blamed for not "overseeing" the fact that the forward C-130 gunships failed to warn the helicopters behind them that there was a haboob dust cloud in their flight path, thus causing two of the helicopters to break down. If that mission had worked you'd be hailing Carter as a hero. The President can't micromanage military plans. The man who sold the plan to him was a cowboy right out of Dr. Strangelove who detested bureaucracy and doing it by the book. He represented all the worst of conservtive gung-hoism.

Oh and the ayatollahs loved Reagan. They could count on him to sell them weapons.

And you think Carter handled the Irania hostage crisys like a pro, I'm sure. Good "gung-hoism." He just did nothing. After 8 helicopters couldn't make it through a sandstorm. Pretty bad if that's the state of things.

Actually, there were more rescue attempts. There was one cancelled after the election and when it seemed a deal for the hostages' release had been made through. But Iran at the time didn't have a centralized government; it was going through a lot of power struggles and their foreign minister, who was in charge of negotiations lost power to the hardliners and he was executed a couple years later. You try to negotiate in a situation like that. And I contend it's not exactly easy to rescue 52 people in the middle of the enemy's capital city hundreds of miles from the shoreline either. Even if there was a hostage crisis in the middle of D.C. it would be a difficult situation, let alone Tehran.

And yes, he did get the hostages back alive. It felt horrible, while it was happening, but that feeling was always going to be transitory. What wasn't going to be transitory was the lives of those 52 people and their families back home. If you were in that embassy you'd thank your stars it was Carter in the oval office and not some trigger happy wingnut.

To be truthful, I'd be worried about what the guy was willing to give away or to what extent he was willing to wait. And finally, I'd thank my stars for the one that actually got me out. The revolutionaries actually continued to hold the hostages until the day Carter left office. Any deals were made easier once it became obvious that Carter was gone, because that was part of what the revolutionaries demanded: they'd release on return of the shah (which couldn't be trusted) or when Carter was ousted.

I think the situation with the helicopters in the sandstorm was a summation of sorts of the Carter admin's lack of financial support for the military. We had all kinds of faulty equipment and didn not have the people or hardware to fix it all. That's pathetic.

[Giant Saguaro]

Um so deregulation of industries, phasing out of price controls, raising interest rates to match inflation rates, and keeping the budget deficit tiny compared to his successors is "extremist economic policy"? Boycotting the Olympics, beginning funding to the mujahadeen, getting the hostages released from Iran, increasing military spending, funding the MX and Minuteman missiles, restoring Radio Free Europe, the Camp David accords, establishing diplomatic relation swith China, launching the RDF program, is "ultra naive" foreign policy?

And I love how Carter gets blamed for not "overseeing" the fact that the forward C-130 gunships failed to warn the helicopters behind them that there was a haboob dust cloud in their flight path, thus causing two of the helicopters to break down. If that mission had worked you'd be hailing Carter as a hero. The President can't micromanage military plans. The man who sold the plan to him was a cowboy right out of Dr. Strangelove who detested bureaucracy and doing it by the book. He represented all the worst of conservtive gung-hoism.

Oh and the ayatollahs loved Reagan. They could count on him to sell them weapons.

And you think Carter handled the Irania hostage crisys like a pro, I'm sure. Good "gung-hoism." He just did nothing. After 8 helicopters couldn't make it through a sandstorm. Pretty bad if that's the state of things.

Actually, there were more rescue attempts. There was one cancelled after the election and when it seemed a deal for the hostages' release had been made through. But Iran at the time didn't have a centralized government; it was going through a lot of power struggles and their foreign minister, who was in charge of negotiations lost power to the hardliners and he was executed a couple years later. You try to negotiate in a situation like that. And I contend it's not exactly easy to rescue 52 people in the middle of the enemy's capital city hundreds of miles from the shoreline either. Even if there was a hostage crisis in the middle of D.C. it would be a difficult situation, let alone Tehran.

And yes, he did get the hostages back alive. It felt horrible, while it was happening, but that feeling was always going to be transitory. What wasn't going to be transitory was the lives of those 52 people and their families back home. If you were in that embassy you'd thank your stars it was Carter in the oval office and not some trigger happy wingnut.

To be truthful, I'd be worried about what the guy was willing to give away or to what extent he was willing to wait.

That's fantastic Saguaro, you're really one stand up guy. When your own life is on the line you only think of little details of negotiations at the political level. Real selfless of you. (/sarc) In any case you needn't have worried because the Iranians didn't get any of their demands. Nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. The hostages were released because the Ayatollah decided keeping them wasn't benefitting anymore. Iraq had attacked Iran and  the Shah was dead and the Iranians had bigger things to worry about. They would have been released had Carter been re-elected as well. In any case, even if we go by your interpretation, electing Reagan was just capitulating to America's enemies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh give me a break. The helicopters didn't drive into the haboob becaue of 'lack of financial support'. They drove into the haboob because the commanders on the ground grossly misjudged the situation and failed to warn the people behind them. The equipment wasn't faulty in the least. The commanding officer moreover thought he could do everything "by the gut" and had complete contempt for regulations until the mission was already finished.

Haha, I have to chuckle at some of that. I'm not usually drawn into debates, but good one. First, you can't tell me a hostage situation, especially of that caliber, is a time to wax philosophical about what's best for mankind. Uh-uh. You just want out.

Now... well, here's the thing. Carter was cautioned about any military operations being successful; he slashed about 6 billion out of there right away (which was a LOT then) with a proposed slash of something like 52 billion over the next 7 years. Canceled a number of bombers, without consultation pulled nukes out of I believe South Korea, and also, I believe, canceled the Trident submarine. Cut a whopping 41% of the military budget aimed at the Navy, and of course his good buddy Walt Mondale voted against almost everything, most perplexingly, the Nimitz class. There were lots of people in the military then who were super pissed over this stuff and there really was not, for one of the first times, adequate technical support for the military, because that involves training, people, and eqiupment. $. Later in his term this became a real issue, and he ended up promising in speeches now and again to not cut the military budget anymore than he had. Because if he did they'd have been using crossbows and chain mail while the Soviets were so armed to the teeth that they decided their tactic would be if they needed to strike something, no matter how small, they'd just wipe out a whole grid square. And NONE of the concessions Carter made did he ask of the Soviets. Sure didn't ask them to cut their Navy 41%.

Carter sat on it (he couldn't make a decision - the only time he was resolved to do something was when he was giving something away, and he only did that 4 or 5 times), was cautioned that Desert 1 could go haywire, but was persuaded by the more "conservative" wing of his administration to attempt a rescue. Had he listened to wingnut Vance, he would REALLY have done nothing, and I don't know in retrospect if that would have been better or worse, seeing as how ill-prepared he had them. He sent them in with relatively short notice and without proper support or training. Some ops were canceled late, others not. The only thing the Commanders did was try to their best to execute his orders with what he gave them when he gave it to them. And the way Carter handled it is something only an idiot would do, as you mention the complexity of an operation like that, which is correct, and is probably about the only observation I agree with you on. So the choice was don't do it at all or do it half-assed, and a shame he did it the latter.

The hostage situation... don't see it that way at all. Carter was able to "negotiate" a "release" a few days before he left office because the only way the revolutionaries would release the hostages was if / when he DID leave office. Kind of a no-brainer. That was their criteria - that and the previous "choice," which was the return of the shah. So Carter can make the agreement at this point, which is academic, and say it happened on his watch, and the revolutionaries STILL didn't release them till the day he left office. You have no way of knowing what they would have done had Carter been re-elected, and I don't really want to think about what would have happened period had Carter been re-elected.