Doug Miller wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote:

Gee, doesn't that just **** you off? A guy who walks the walk instead
of just talking it.

This from one web site:
"Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his
"decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solution to international
conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote
economic and social development."" The only other US Presidents to
receive the Nobel Peace Prize were Roosevelt in 1906 and Wilson in
1919. Probably safe to say that Bush won't be holding his breath
waiting for a nomination.

What exactly did you expect Carter to do? Conduct Operation Shock and
Awe, the beta version? A rescue mission was attempted - it failed and
eight people died in the attempt. There were 52 hostages that were in
captivity for the entire 15 months. None of the hostages were killed.

Carter imposed sanctions, worked the diplomacy and kept the hostages
alive. Reagan won the election and promptly bought off Iran by
releasing $8 billion in Iranian assets and gave immunity to Iran which
prevented the hostages from collecting after they sued Iran. In other
words he bought off Iran and sold out the hostages.

Suppose Carter/Reagan did send in the Marines. How many Marines do you
figure would have been killed in such a rescue? How many hostages?

The objective in the hostage situation was getting them out alive.
Carter and Reagan did. Reagan's job was made a lot easier as Iran was
now at war with Iraq and was more willing to negotiate with a new
President willing to give them a large sum of money and immunity.

No hostages lost their lives, no billions spent on a war on foreign
soil, no "street cred" lost for the US. You might want to choose a
different example on which to base your allegation of Carter's
incompetence.

Nice revisionist history. Some of it's even true.

The bottom line is real simple: Reagan, during his campaign, made no secret of
his intent to begin bombing Iran as soon as he took office if the hostages
were still in captivity -- and surprise! they were released about an hour
after he was sworn in.

Key word being "campaign". I'm surprised that you put credence in a
campaign promise.

On the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the US released almost
$8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed. The
agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.
That works out to $153 million per hostage for Iran, and nothing for
the hostages.

It went something like this:
"If elected I'm gonna bomb you! If elected I'm gonna bomb you! Hey,
I'm elected, would you like some money? No strings attached!" In
other words, diplomacy. Threaten the stick and offer the carrot.
Carter didn't threaten the military stick because he knew the situation
didn't warrant it.

Whether in personal or public life, the single most important attribute
is morality. Not intelligence, not charm, not looks nor connections.
It's what everyone admires and seeks in friends, employees, elected
officials, etc. It's tough to find in sufficient quantity. That's why
I took issue with your "incompetent boob" designation. Someone who
graduates in the top ten percent at the Naval Academy and commanded a
nuclear vessel is not a boob nor incompetent. In fact, it makes you
look like a boob to even suggest it. You simply didn't like his brand
of politics - the politics that were based on his morality which you
said you admire. He certainly was a square peg in a round hole. If
you ask me we need more four square people in office.

I find it interesting that Carter almost never spoke of his religion,
while Bush wears it on his sleeve. Which of those two do you feel is
following the tougher, more narrow moral road?

R