Thank you for this you worthless piece of shit.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/26/priest-murdered-during-mass-in-terror-attack-on-catholic-church-in-france.html

The Ayatollah lived openly in Paris for years plotting the revolution.

Ronald Reagan secretly sold arms to the Iranians after the revolution.

But it is all Jimmy Carter's fault.

Those on the lowest rungs of the right-wing ladder have been trained like monkeys to hate Jimmy Carter. And Bill Clinton, and FDR, and most other sensible persons in the history of the world. These schlubs actually know nothing of Carter the man or of his times and policies in office. They just try to create a boogeyman out of him, often enough by trying to associate things that actually happened under Nixon/Ford or Reagan/Bush with him. It's all pretty pathetic.

As for the Iranian Revolution, nobody actually planned it. The seeds had been sown in 1953 with SAVAK and the Shah having added a lot of water and fertilizer over the years. Given the traditions of clerics staying out of government in Iran, the eventual revolution was expected to turn away from the leftists and replace the Shah with a moderate business-class government. Khomeini however played a brilliant game of manipulating people and events into a weak provisional government that he was then able to stabilize and entrench. A bad man, but very capable politically.

Carter of course was not actually in the picture. He was of course used as an emblem of "the west," but there was hardly anything he could have done about that.

How it went down Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those on the lowest rungs of the right-wing ladder
> have been trained like monkeys to hate Jimmy
> Carter. And Bill Clinton, and FDR, and most other
> sensible persons in the history of the world.
> These schlubs actually know nothing of Carter the
> man or of his times and policies in office. They
> just try to create a boogeyman out of him, often
> enough by trying to associate things that actually
> happened under Nixon/Ford or Reagan/Bush with him.
> It's all pretty pathetic.
>
> As for the Iranian Revolution, nobody actually
> planned it. The seeds had been sown in 1953 with
> SAVAK and the Shah having added a lot of water and
> fertilizer over the years. Given the traditions
> of clerics staying out of government in Iran, the
> eventual revolution was expected to turn away from
> the leftists and replace the Shah with a moderate
> business-class government. Khomeini however
> played a brilliant game of manipulating people and
> events into a weak provisional government that he
> was then able to stabilize and entrench. A bad
> man, but very capable politically.
>
> Carter of course was not actually in the picture.
> He was of course used as an emblem of "the west,"
> but there was hardly anything he could have done
> about that.

He could have not admitted the Shah which was the direct trigger for the hostage-taking.

Revisionism Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He could have not admitted the Shah which was the
> direct trigger for the hostage-taking.

The topic was the revolution. The Shah fled into exile on January 16, 1979. Khomeini returned to Tehran on February 1. The new revolutionary government was made official in a referendum held on March 30 and 31. The embassy hostages were not taken until November 4, 1979, and were at first a big embarrassment for Khomeini. But he soon figured out that he could use them as a tool in singling out moderates and driving them out of government. Carter meanwhile negotiated multiple hostage release agreements with Iranian diplomats, but still finding the hostages useful in internal politics, Khomeini proceeded to pulled the plug on them at the last minute. Frustration over this is what prompted eventual approval of the long-shot helicopter rescue mission. Bottom line here is that Carter held and played no actual cards with respect to the Iranian Revolution.

Carter participated in the destination of the Shah.

The man was senile at birth.

How it went down Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Revisionism Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He could have not admitted the Shah which was
> the
> > direct trigger for the hostage-taking.
>
> The topic was the revolution. The Shah fled into
> exile on January 16, 1979. Khomeini returned to
> Tehran on February 1. The new revolutionary
> government was made official in a referendum held
> on March 30 and 31. The embassy hostages were not
> taken until November 4, 1979, and were at first a
> big embarrassment for Khomeini. But he soon
> figured out that he could use them as a tool in
> singling out moderates and driving them out of
> government. Carter meanwhile negotiated multiple
> hostage release agreements with Iranian diplomats,
> but still finding the hostages useful in internal
> politics, Khomeini proceeded to pulled the plug on
> them at the last minute. Frustration over this is
> what prompted eventual approval of the long-shot
> helicopter rescue mission. Bottom line here is
> that Carter held and played no actual cards with
> respect to the Iranian Revolution.


The only reason that you're talking about the revolution to begin with is because of the hostages. What triggered the hostage-taking was admitting the Shah. Were it not for that, the revolution itself would be a footnote somewhere from an American perspective.

It takes a special kind of stupid to defend the shit stained legacy of a failed President like Jimmy Carter. The man was incompetent and surrounded himself with even greater incompetence.

Your admission of horrible defeat is noted. Plainly you know nothing at all about the history of the times and never should have posted here to begin with.

Balthazar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It takes a special kind of stupid to defend the
> shit stained legacy of a failed President like
> Jimmy Carter. The man was incompetent and
> surrounded himself with even greater incompetence.


If only Carter had competent men like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who accurately predicted that the Iraq war would be over in a matter of months and pay for itself.

If only...

9ijht4 wrote: But it is all Jimmy Carter's fault.


Glad you see it our way. Senile Jimmy Carter put the camel fucker in power.

HMLmw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 9ijht4 wrote: But it is all Jimmy Carter's fault.
>
>
> Glad you see it our way. Senile Jimmy Carter put
> the camel fucker in power.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Don't know what you mean by "educated". I lived it. Jimmy Carter caused the fall of the Shah. Jimmy and his liberal buddies.

7pPtd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't know what you mean by "educated". I lived
> it. Jimmy Carter caused the fall of the Shah.
> Jimmy and his liberal buddies.


I was here and do know what I am saying
Maybe you are a little past your prime and your memory is failing
Or you are just full of crap trying to defend Ronnie's dealings with terriost?

The sign of Jimmy's time Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> src="http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploa
> ds/2011/05/no-help-wanted.jpg">


Yep
Jimmy tried to cut the US dept. said not right to have a budget definite unless extem times. ( where have I heard that before?)
This slowed down the economy, along with OPEC

Ronnie said screw it
Trippeled the dept

Doing what repubs say they want Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sign of Jimmy's time Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> src="http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploa
>
> > ds/2011/05/no-help-wanted.jpg">
>
>
> Yep
> Jimmy tried to cut the US dept. said not right to
> have a budget definite unless extem times. ( where
> have I heard that before?)
> This slowed down the economy, along with OPEC
>
> Ronnie said screw it
> Trippeled the dept


Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase in the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

The sign of Jimmy's time Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
"no-help-wanted.jpg"

LOL! The unemployment rate was 7.5% when Carter took office and 7.5% when he left. In between, he had cut it to 5.6%. It had been 9% under Nixon and would soar to well above 10% under Reagan.

vbTTv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sign of Jimmy's time Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> "no-help-wanted.jpg"
>
> LOL! The unemployment rate was 7.5% when Carter
> took office and 7.5% when he left. In between, he
> had cut it to 5.6%. It had been 9% under Nixon
> and would soar to well above 10% under Reagan.

What was it when Reagan left office?

but didn't Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase in the $699 billion
> debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

Total federal debt ($-millions) as of the end of...

FY 1973: 466.3
.............. +240.1 (Nixon/Ford)
FY 1977: 706.4
.............. +288.4 (Carter)
FY 1981: 994.8
.............. +822,6 (Reagan)
FY 1985: 1817.4
............. +1050,4 (Reagan)
FY 1989: 2867.8
............. +1483.2 (Bush-41)
FY 1993: 4351.0

curious mind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What was it when Reagan left office?

It was 5.4%, meaning that Reagan's best in eight years was not materially different from Carter's best in four years. The rate under Carter was never higher than what he had inherited. With ten straight months of unemployment above 10%, Reagan could hardly say that. And of course, the hand-picked "Read My Lips" boy ran the rate right back up to 7.3% before he was run out of town in favor of the sane and competent Bill Clinton.

vbTTv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> curious mind Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What was it when Reagan left office?
>
> It was 5.4%,

So, it was 2 points lower than Carter's. Carter accomplished nothing in 4 years and Reagan lowered it 2 points in 8 years. Any idea what was considered full employment back then?

vbTTv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sign of Jimmy's time Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> "no-help-wanted.jpg"
>
> LOL! The unemployment rate was 7.5% when Carter
> took office and 7.5% when he left. In between, he
> had cut it to 5.6%. It had been 9% under Nixon
> and would soar to well above 10% under Reagan.

LOL! And quickly rising... LOL! You want to count the same way for Obama? LOL!


Volcker’s first attempt to lower inflation and inflationary expectations proved insufficient. The credit-control program initiated in March 1980 by the Carter administration precipitated a sharp recession (Schreft 1990). As unemployment mounted, the Fed eased up, an action reminiscent of the “stop-go” policies the public had come to expect. In late 1980 and early 1981, the Fed once again tightened the money supply, allowing the federal funds rate to approach 20 percent. Despite this, long-run interest rates continued to rise. The ten-year Treasury bond rate increased from about 11 percent in October 1980 to more than 15 percent a year later, possibly because the market believed the Fed would back down from its tight policy when unemployment rose (Goodfriend and King 2005). This time, however, Volcker was adamant that the Fed not back down: “We have set our course to restrain growth in money and credit. We mean to stick with it” (Volcker 1981a).

The economy officially entered a recession in the third quarter of 1981, as high interest rates put pressure on sectors of the economy reliant on borrowing, like manufacturing and construction. Unemployment grew from 7.4 percent at the start of the recession to nearly 10 percent a year later. As the recession worsened, Volcker faced repeated calls from Congress to loosen monetary policy, but he maintained that failing to bring down long-run inflation expectations now would result in “more serious economic circumstances over a much longer period of time” (Monetary Policy Report 1982, 67).

LOL!

LOL!

vbTTv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> curious mind Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What was it when Reagan left office?
>
> It was 5.4%, meaning that Reagan's best in eight
> years was not materially different from Carter's
> best in four years. The rate under Carter was
> never higher than what he had inherited. With ten
> straight months of unemployment above 10%, Reagan
> could hardly say that. And of course, the
> hand-picked "Read My Lips" boy ran the rate right
> back up to 7.3% before he was run out of town in
> favor of the sane and competent Bill Clinton.


What? Carter handed Reagan a pile of shit. It went to 10.8 before he was in office for 2 years and any policies of his own could have any effect. The reduction from 10.8 to 5.4 obviously was materially different versus Carter bumping along the bottom before leaving things on the rise.