SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (37893)10/23/2009 9:13:39 AM
From: Peter Dierks3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
You are correct on at least one account:

Carter only got unemployment up to 7.6% his first year. Obama has it up to nearly 10%. It was actually higher when Carter was inaugurated than when Obama was.


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1977 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.4
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8


On foreign affairs Carter was a tough act to follow. As miserable as Obama has been he has yet to trump unleashing a religious fanatic Iran on the world.



To: sandintoes who wrote (37893)10/29/2009 9:10:01 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Truman and the Principles of U.S. Foreign Policy
Jimmy Carter rejected the postwar consensus. President Obama appears to be following a similar path.
OCTOBER 28, 2009, 7:14 P.M. ET.

By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Upon entering office, Barack Obama knew little about foreign policy. But then neither did Vice President Harry S. Truman when Franklin Delano Roosevelt died suddenly on April 12, 1945.

President Obama often invokes the supposed mess abroad—especially in Iraq and Afghanistan—left to him by George W. Bush. But Mr. Obama's inheritance is mild compared to the myriad crises that nearly overwhelmed the rookie President Truman.

All at once Truman had to finish the struggle against Hitler, occupy Europe, and deal with a nominally allied but increasingly bellicose and ascendant Soviet Union. Within months of taking office he had to make the awful decision to drop atomic bombs on Imperial Japan.

At war's end, Truman was faced with a global propaganda nightmare. Stalin's victorious Soviet Union—soon to be nuclear—cynically posed as the egalitarian leader for millions of war-impoverished and newly liberated colonial peoples. In contrast, America accepted the difficult responsibility and expense of rebuilding the destitute former European colonial powers and rehabilitating ex-Axis Japan and Germany.

Some of Truman's initial military decisions proved nearly disastrous. After the atomic bombs forced Japan's surrender, he was stubbornly convinced that a nuclear air force could ensure American security on the cheap.

The result was that between 1946 and 1949 Truman tried to emasculate the Marine Corps. He mothballed much of the Navy and slashed the Army. Only the Communist invasion of South Korea in the summer of 1950 finally woke him to the reality that there would still be plenty of limited conventional threats in the Cold War, and that he'd better rearm if the U.S. was going to protect its interests and allies.

But the public had already lost confidence in Truman's military leadership during the so-called Revolt of the Admirals in spring and summer 1949, when top Navy officials blasted the president's plans to reduce conventional maritime forces. In just four years (between 1947 and 1951), Truman went through four secretaries of defense.

His necessary firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951 set off an even greater firestorm. For months Truman had allowed MacArthur far too much leeway to attack his civilian superiors. But when Truman finally dismissed him, he did so in clumsy fashion that won the general iconic status and only fueled doubts about the commander in chief.

No matter: Truman constantly learned from his mistakes. Gradually, the president shed his Wilsonian trust that there would be a postwar global consensus under the aegis of the new United Nations. Instead, he came to believe that too many trans-Atlantic diplomatic elites had been terribly naïve about Stalin's murderous agenda.

Against the advice of his angry State Department, Truman supported the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel in 1948. The Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, the salvation of Greece and Turkey, and success pushing the Communists north of the 38th parallel in Korea all established the parameters of the next half-century of bipartisan American foreign policy. To craft a strategy of communist containment, Truman brought in conservative advisers like Paul Nitze, while working closely with Republican Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg.

Truman's no-nonsense Secretary of State Dean Acheson summed up the president's doctrines: "Released from the acceptance of a dogma that builders and wreckers of a new world order could and should work happily and successfully together, he was free to combine our power and coordinate our action with those who did have a common purpose."

Ever since, most Democrats have embraced Truman's "common purpose." That means containing rival anti-Western ideologies, establishing alliances of similarly-minded democratic allies, and periodically standing up to regional thugs.

Jimmy Carter's presidency was a departure from this strategy. Mr. Carter started out cutting defense. He questioned the U.S. commitment to South Korea and offered homilies about the inordinate fear of communism. Then there was the short-sighted decision to arm radical Islamists in Pakistan, the abrupt abandonment of the previously allied Shah of Iran, and initial courting of the exiled radical Ruhollah Khomeini. The president seemed stunned into inaction by the subsequent Iranian hostage crisis and the rise of militant Islam. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Communist inroads into Central America, and the alienation of European governments further weakened American interests.

Mr. Obama exhibits both the initial inexperience—and some of the naïveté—of Harry Truman when he took office. He has framed the challenge of radical Islam largely in terms of what a contrite America must do to apologize to the Muslim world, instead of addressing endemic religious intolerance, autocracy, statist economies, tribalism and gender apartheid that help fuel extremism.

The Obama administration reaches out to enemies such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al Assad, the Castro brothers and Hugo Chávez. It pays far less attention to British, Colombian, French, Israeli and Japanese allies. In unilateral fashion we withdrew promises of land-based antiballistic missile defense from Eastern Europe, giddy that we might appease the Russians into abrogating their patronage of Iran's nuclear ambitions. But so far the centrifuges keep spinning while we appear unreliable to friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. The administration has also promised greater support to the U.N., seemingly unworried that the organization's illiberal majority has often appeased or abetted autocratic governments.

Will an inexperienced Barack Obama, in the fashion of Harry Truman, learn quickly that the world is chaotic and unstable—best dealt with through strength and unabashed confidence in America's historic role galvanizing democratic allies to confront illiberal aggressors?

Or will a sermonizing Mr. Obama follow the aberrant Democratic path of the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter: finger-wagging at allies, appeasing enemies, publicly faulting his less than perfect predecessors, and hectoring the American people to evolve beyond their supposed prejudices?

America awaits the president's choice. The world's safety hinges upon it.

Mr. Hanson is a senior fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Most recently he is the editor of "Makers of Ancient Strategy," forthcoming from Princeton University Press.

online.wsj.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (37893)11/11/2009 2:45:17 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
They Don’t Get It on Iran
by Oliver North

11/10/2009

Creech Air Force Base, NV -- Thirty years ago this week a group of Iranian “students” shouting “death to America” stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, taking nearly 100 hostages -- among them 65 Americans. Though foreign national employees and some Americans were released within a few weeks, the remaining 52 were held for 444 days. For the American people, it was an introduction to militant Islam. For President Jimmy Carter, intent on “engaging” the radical regime that replaced Shah Reza Pahlavi, it was a disaster. The Obama administration appears to have missed the lessons of this debacle.

Though Mr. Carter described the embassy takeover as “a disappointing development” and “surprising,” it shouldn’t have been. Strikes, mass demonstrations and student protests throughout Iran began early in 1978. In September, the Shah responded by declaring martial law. It didn’t help.

On January 16, 1979, the Shah, seriously ill with cancer, fled and sought refuge in Morocco, Mexico and the United States. Two weeks later, February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in France to be greeted by more than five million devotees lining the streets of Tehran. Ten days later he proclaimed himself Iran’s Supreme Leader.


When hundreds of students chanting anti-American slogans flooded into, and briefly occupied, the U.S. embassy on February 15, the Carter administration delivered a “strongly worded diplomatic note” protesting the “lack of protection by Iranian authorities.” For the next eight months, despite increasingly strident pronouncements by Khomeini and officials of his new “Islamic Republic,” Mr. Carter and his aides made repeated overtures to “engage” the regime in Tehran.

On November 1, 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski met in Algiers with the Ayatollah’s Prime Minister, Mehdi Bazargan. Three days later the “students” charged into the U.S. embassy again. This time they stayed.

Though some of those who participated in the takeover subsequently claimed they planned nothing more than a “sit in” like those on U.S. college campuses during anti-Vietnam War protests, the Ayatollah’s most radical followers were actually in control of events. Despite Carter administration protests, Khomeini’s “Revolutionary Guards” and police, posted outside the embassy walls, did nothing to end the take-over or the hostage situation. Mr. Carter responded by freezing Iranian assets in the U.S. and “severing diplomatic ties” with Tehran.

On Christmas day, less than two months after the hostages were seized in Tehran, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Once again, President Carter, wracked by intelligence failures and indecision, said he was “shocked and surprised” and boycotted the Olympics.

Over the course of the next year, while the Carter administration dithered, Khomeini and his council of militant clerics created all of the instruments of state control common to revolutionary regimes, but with an Islamic twist. He purged the military and the Iranian civil service, created a massive internal secret police network, a “block warden” system to spy on neighbors, took control of print and broadcast media, rounded up opponents and tried them in “special courts” under Sharia law.

By the spring of 1980, when President Carter ordered our deeply under-funded U.S. military to rescue the hostages held in Tehran, Khomeini was convinced that he was on a divine mission to “purify Islam” and re-establish a “Caliphate” in the “Lands of the Prophet.” When Operation Eagle Claw failed catastrophically on the night of April 24-25 with the loss of 8 American lives -- and without the Iranians firing a shot -- the Ayatollah claimed it was because Allah “protected the Islamic State from infidels.” He also began predicting an apocalyptic battle against the U.S. and Israel which would destroy “The Great Satan,” and “the Zionist entity.”

Though the hostages were released on January 20, 1981 -- just hours before Ronald Reagan’s inaugural -- Tehran’s wave of terror didn’t stop. By 1982, despite a bloody war with Iraq, the Ayatollah’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had created a proxy force in Lebanon -- Hezbollah. Over the course of the next five years Hezbollah terrorists armed, trained and paid for by Tehran, hijacked, kidnapped, bombed, and killed more Americans than any terror organization on the planet until the attacks of 9-11-01.

In the three decades since the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the rhetoric of Revolutionary Islam is little changed. The words and pronouncements of Iran’s current Supreme Leader, Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and the declarations of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad echo those of Khomeini thirty years ago.

Their actions are also unchanged. This week, while our FOX News Team was at this Air Force Base in the Nevada desert, Israeli commandos seized 60 tons of Iranian weapons enroute to Hezbollah.

The regime in Tehran still proclaims “Death to America.” They still promise to destroy Israel. Only now the Iranians are building nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.

Like the Carter administration, Mr. Obama and his advisers are apparently convinced that “engaging” the Iranian regime will somehow make things different. After 30 years they still don’t get it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col. North (Ret.) is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the FOX News/Regnery books, "War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom," "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific" and "War Stories III: The Heroes Who Defeated Hitler." Lt. North hosts "War Stories Investigates: Drugs, Money and Narco-Terror" Saturday, Aug. 22, at 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. EDT on Fox News Channel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
humanevents.com