Obama Officially Worse Than Carter

I was around back then and I have an Iranian friend now who was in Tehran back then. He walked by the embassy every day on his way to work and saw the whole thing take place. The Iranians hated Carter because they knew he was weak, and they respected Reagan because they feared him. You have no evidence that Reagan, as a political candidate then later as a powerless President-elect, had any negotiations with the Iranians in opposition to US foreign policy. The Iranians saw exactly what the American public saw through television, newspapers and political campaign ads: a weak, appeasing, US president and a strong opposing candidate who was willing to kick ass.

Iran freed the 58 hostages five minutes after Reagan was inaugurated, supplies of spare parts were then funneled to Iran via Israel several weeks later. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all happened by magic?

The catalyst for the hostage crisis itself was the decision by Carter to allow the Shah to have cancer treatment in the US, a compassionate act that backfired. Although the real reason was the joint CIA-MI6 operation to depose Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, Persians have very long memories they still remember Alexander kicking Darius's arse at the Battle of Gaugamela.[h=1][/h]
 
Last edited:
Iran freed the 58 hostages five minutes after Reagan was inaugurated, supplies of spare parts were then funneled to Iran via Israel several weeks later. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all happened by magic?

The catalyst for the hostage crisis itself was the decision by Carter to allow the Shah to have cancer treatment in the US, a compassionate act that backfired. Although the real reason was the joint CIA-MI6 operation to depose Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, Persians have very long memories they still remember Alexander kicking Darius's arse at the Battle of Gaugamela.[h=1][/h]

What spare parts? :D

The catalyst was that they hated Carter, for whatever reason. They respected Reagan.
 
What spare parts? :D

The catalyst was that they hated Carter, for whatever reason. They respected Reagan.

Iran was in possession of aging F-14's and other hardware left over from the days of the Shah and needed spare parts. I find it fascinating that Iran was so desperate to get parts that they were willing to deal with Israel.
 
Iran was in possession of aging F-14's and other hardware left over from the days of the Shah and needed spare parts. I find it fascinating that Iran was so desperate to get parts that they were willing to deal with Israel.
But you lack evidence of quid pro quo.
 
Suspicions about a deal between the Reagan campaign and Iran over the hostages have circulated since the day of President Reagan's inaugural, when Iran agreed to release the 52 American hostages exactly five minutes after Mr. Reagan took the oath of office. Later, as it became known that arms started to flow to Iran via Israel only a few days after the inauguration, suspicions deepened that a secret arms-for-hostages deal had been concluded. Five years later, when the Iran-contra affair revealed what seemed to be a similar swap of hostages for arms delivered through Israel, questions were revived about the 1980 election. In a nice, ironic twist, the phrase `October surprise,' which Vice Presidential candidate George Bush had coined to warn of possible political manipulation of the hostages by Jimmy Carter, began to be applied to the suspected secret activities of the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign... In a Madrid hotel in late July 1980, an important Iranian cleric, Mehdi Karrubi, who is now the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, allegedly met with Mr. Casey [Reagan's campaign manager and later his Director of the CIA] and a U.S. intelligence officer who was operating outside authority. The same group met again several weeks later.... From Oct. 15 to Oct. 20, events came to a head in a series of meetings in several hotels in Paris, involving members of the Reagan-Bush campaign and high-level Iranian and Israeli representatives. Accounts of these meetings and the exact number of participants vary considerably among the more than 15 sources who claim direct or indirect knowledge of some aspect of them. There is, however, widespread agreement on three points: William Casey was a key participant: the Iranian representatives agreed that the hostages would not be released prior to the Presidential election on Nov. 4; in return, Israel would serve as a conduit for arms and spare parts to Iran. At least five of the sources who say they were in Paris in connection with these meetings insist that George Bush was present for at least one meeting. Three of the sources say that they saw him there... Immediately after the Paris meetings, things began to happen. On Oct. 21, Iran publicly shifted its position in the negotiations with the Carter Administration, disclaiming any further interest in receiving military equipment.... Between Oct. 21 and Oct. 23, Israel sent a planeload of F-4 fighter aircraft tires to Iran in contravention of the U.S. boycott and without informing Washington. Cyrus Hashemi, using his own contacts began privately organizing military shipments to Iran. On Oct. 22, the hostages were suddenly dispersed to different locations. And a series of delaying tactics in late October by the Iranian Parliament stymied all attempts by the Carter Administration to act on the hostage question until only hours before Election Day... On Jan. 15, Iran did an about-face, offering a series of startling concessions that reignited the talks and resulted in a final agreement in the last few hours of Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The hostages were released on Jan. 21, 1981, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Almost immediately thereafter, according to Israeli and American former officials, arms began to flow to Iran in substantial quantities... Moshe Arens, the Israeli Ambassador to Washington in 1982, told The Boston Globe in October 1982 that Israeli's arms shipments to Iran at this time were coordinated with the U.S. Government `at almost the highest of levels.' ... The allegations of these individuals have many disturbing implications for the U.S. political system. One is the tampering with foreign policy for partisan benefit. That has, of course, happened before and it may well happen again, but it assumes special poignancy in this case since it would have involved tampering with the lives and freedom of 52 Americans. Another implication is that leaders of the U.S. exposed themselves to the possibility of blackmail by Iran or Israel. Third, the events suggest that the arms-for-hostage deal that in the twilight of the Reagan Presidency became known as the Iran-contra affair, instead of being an aberration, was in fact the re-emergence of a policy that began even before the Reagan-Bush Administration took office."
Gary Sick - The Election Story of the Decade
New York Times, 15 April 1991

Reagan was a traitor.

You Reagan worshipers should do a little research and stop believing Limbaugh/Coulter history rewrites. All it takes is a little time and brains.... ahhh never mind.

Propaganda is a powerful tool.
 
Israel sent spare F-4 parts to Iran shortly after Reagan was inaugurated. However, CIA agent Robert Sensi who worked the Middle East told Larry Kolb that members of the RNC did indeed make back door approaches to the Iranians, intimating that the Reagan administration would be agreeable to selling parts and some weapons to Iran. Also, Haig indicated that it would be ok with the US to sell SOME parts for F-4's, but all shipments had to be approved by the US ahead of time. The Israeli's, and this is confirmed by a state department leak of documents, don't submit the lists and by the middle of the 80's Israel was shipping billions of dollars a year in weapons to the Iranians with the Reagan administrations consent, or blind eye.
 
The interesting thing about the "Obama worse than Carter" spin is that it isn't because Obama' approval rating has dropped all that significantly over the past few weeks, but that Carter's approval rating jumped almost 20 points from November 1979 to December January 1980 in response to the Iran hostage situation.

So, yes, it's is technically true that Obama has a worse approval rating than Carter at this point in his presidency, but so did Bush I and Clinton. Reagan was tied. Because Carter's approval rating was uncharacteristically high.
 
I don't believe the tooth fairy exists but I can't prove it.

That's because proving a negative isn't realistic. Either you can prove something happened or you don't have the evidence to support your position. Saying "prove you didn't" is not the way things work in a society with assumed innocence.
 
The interesting thing about the "Obama worse than Carter" spin is that it isn't because Obama' approval rating has dropped all that significantly over the past few weeks, but that Carter's approval rating jumped almost 20 points from November 1979 to December January 1980 in response to the Iran hostage situation.

So, yes, it's is technically true that Obama has a worse approval rating than Carter at this point in his presidency, but so did Bush I and Clinton. Reagan was tied. Because Carter's approval rating was uncharacteristically high.

True. A 43% is 10 lower than GWB though and he barely scraped by beating one of the weakest candidates I have seen in a long while.
 
That's because proving a negative isn't realistic. Either you can prove something happened or you don't have the evidence to support your position. Saying "prove you didn't" is not the way things work in a society with assumed innocence.

Can I just get this straight? Are you saying that Reagan didn't send arms secretly and illegally to Iran?
 
So you read the first word and didn't read the rest. Why? Do you get a sick feeling in your gut when facts dispute your beliefs?
That's my point, you have no facts. In the first word of your post you admit that you lack actual evidence.

In this thread Tom and I have been going back and forth over this same issue. In his post 11 he states that the alleged activity is "widely speculated". Neither one of you has any evidence.
 
Back
Top