James Earl Carter Jr. is responsible for 9/11

from JoeUser Forums
James Earl Carter Jr. is responsible for 9/11

When Mr. Carter took office he promised there would be no war while he was president. It sounded great to a child like me and I voted for him. Unfortunately he kept his word. He and his ability to run and hide at the slightest hint of conflict caused the tragedy on September 11 2001. This is how I came to this conclusion.

1. During his administration the CIA was dismantled and re-built into a single focus agency. The CIA was ordered to focus it attention solely on the Soviet Union. Congress decreed that they were the only enemy in the world and nothing else mattered. All CIA Case Officers were forbidden to operate in countries that Congress deemed friendly to the United States. Congress also started building the wall between the FBI and CIA this was done in 1975 by the Church Commission in order to punish the Republicans use of the CIA during Watergate. This is the reason that we as a nation did not know that the Ayatollah Komnie took over Iran. This showed the world that we will not support a friend in need. The justification for not helping the Shah was that he was a dictator and we don’t deal with dictators anymore.


2. Around the same time the anti-war people in Congress began taking apart our military, because war is bad and we don’t want people to think America is bad so if we limit our military we will not be a threat to the world. Only things that could be used against the Soviet Union got funding. This means that atomic weapons and delivery systems got money and the rest of the military was sucking hind tit.


3. When the embassy was taken in Iran our military was in no shape to rescue the hostages. This made us look weak to the world. The only weapons we had that worked were nuclear weapons and dropping them on Iran would not solve the problem. President Carter’s response was to send untrained troops into a situation they had never done before. It failed and then our president realized why you have to have a strong military. President Carter’s strong response to this failure was to hide in his office.


4. When terrorism was just getting started our CIA was caught flatfooted because they were constrained to work only on the Soviet Union. Modern Terrorism was a creation of the Soviet Union when Andropov was head of the KGB. It was his way to counter the nuclear weapons we had. The terrorist were funded and trained in the Soviet Union to aid Egypt in its fight against Israel and create hate and discontent in Europe.


5. When the Soviet Union saw how weak we were they attacked Afghanistan. We had to counter this with no troops and the only nuclear weapons we could not use. The CIA response was to give the Afghans weapons and money because we could not and would not do it ourselves. President Carter came out of hiding long enough to strongly tell the world that the United States response to this aggression was to not send our athletes to the Olympics in 1980. We see how well that worked. What it did succeed in doing was showing the world we were a paper tiger. Sure we could drop nuclear weapons but not much else, so as long as we are attacked in little bites we could do nothing.


6. A little known nutcase named, Sadam whoisinsane, decided to take on Iran. This was good for us as we could support Iraq to punish Iran. By now Mr. Reagan had taken office and in order to stop the Soviets we continued to support the Afghans’ as well as Iraq. We also sold weapons to Iran that did not work which made Iran mad at us for some reason. But it was too late the four years that Mr. Carter was president was a pivotal point in our history and he was not up to the task. Iran gained power and prestige because they stood up to America and won.


7. While at the same time the terrorist trained and funded by the Soviet Union were making messes all over the world. They lost control of the Arab terrorist they trained and cut off funding. Too late, Iran took over funding them and the rest is history.


Had President Carter been stronger and allowed the CIA to do their jobs, had President Carter not weakened the military, had he supported the Shah of Iran when he asked for help. We would not have been attacked on September 11 2001 because we would have infiltrated the terrorist in France when they got started. We would have been able to counter the terrorist with the military hit teams that Mr. Reagan commissioned. These things have to be aborted meaning they have to be killed before they are spawned. Once out of the bottle they are very hard to kill as we seen. In my mind Mr. Clinton gets little blame for the terrorist attacks because he was just following the template set by President Carter. President Clinton was a do nothing president that allowed us to be attacked and his weakness did contribute to it. I don’t blame President Bush as he only had 8 months to get a handle on how bad it was around the world and did not do too badly with the mess he was dealt. Had Mr. Bush been more partisan it would have been easier to deal with but in keeping the Democrat appointees in key positions to show bipartisanship and a willingness to include the opposition as a uniter was his downfall.
12,299 views 42 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good points, well presented. Here's something I posted:

https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=259&aid=135059#1045747

I didn't write it, of course...I'm not that smart....but I thought it was an interesting read.

Here's a Carter-related article I posted a good while back, when still new to JU:

https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=2&aid=65874
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
when i first read this, i was stunned. rather than responding theh, i decided to wait a day or two, go through it once more and, hopefully, discover i'd misread you and there was some sorta reality connection afterall.

if anything it made less sense the second time around.

you've cobbled together so much nonsense, determining where to start is almost impossible. for example, carter wasn't president in 1975 nor 1976. andropov didn't invent terrorism and certainly isn't the father of jihadism. the soviet union didn't invade afghanistan because they believed the us was weak. iranian hatred of the shah was no more a secret than was the existence or influence of ayatollah khomeini. our 'friendship' (if that's what you wanna call our imposition of a brutal dictator like pahlavi who stole all he could from his own country with our support for over 20 years) opened the door to khomeini. if you wanna claim 911 came about as a consequence of our iranian policy, blame the man who was in the oval office in 1953.

validating your dislike for jimma doesn't justify pretending the ford administration never existed or that it not only instituted the culture for which you're blaming carter but in the process also helped kickstart the governmental careers of cheney, rumsfeld, perle, wolfowitz, george hw bush, etc.--the very people responsible for developing and promoting those failed policies you mention--in the process.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am truly sorry I foolishly expected the reader to have some small grasp of history so I hit the high points quickly. Mr. Ford was president when the Church Commission started to cripple the CIA and FBI. Carter too the presidency in 76 and ran the military into the ground by 1980. The nation’s ignorance to what was happening around the world is what lead to the ouster of the Shah. Mr. Carter’s policies and inaction lead the world to believe we were weak and would allow the invasion of Afghanistan.

Mr. Andropov while head of the KGB was involved in many attacks on the United States. It was his idea to try and get race riots started in America in order to start a revolution. It was his plans to get Europe as anti-war as possible while sidestepping Soviet aggression. He did this with spies and communist sympathizers. Since the fall of the Soviet Union a lot of this has come out into the open. The terrorist group Black September as well as Carlos the Jackal and a host of terrorist were trained supplied and funded by the Soviet Union. This funding stopped in 1980 when two Soviet citizens were taken hostage Beirut, Lebanon. The Soviet response was not to negotiate, or to find out why they are disliked by the Arab terrorist or to find some common ground. The KGB located an uncle of the terrorist responsible and literally started mailing his body parts back home. The Soviet citizens were released unharmed and no one messed with them for almost 20 years.

Our brutal dictator is better than someone else’s brutal dictator. At least with ours they try ever so slightly to be humane. Well seeing as the brutal dictator we replaced was worse, and our brutal dictator is better than the current one since while he was in power he did not threaten to convert the entire world to Islam. I would have to say Mr. Eisenhower made the right choice in 1953. When Khomeini took over there were mass killings again unlike our brutal dictator.

Please explain which failed policies?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am truly sorry I foolishly expected the reader to have some small grasp of history so I hit the high points quickly.


If you expected Kingbee to have the grasp then yes, you were mistaken. Others wouldn't have the problems that Kingbee would though, and most reasonable people would agree with your premise.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please explain which failed policies?


During his administration the CIA was dismantled and re-built into a single focus agency. The CIA was ordered to focus it attention solely on the Soviet Union. Congress decreed that they were the only enemy in the world and nothing else mattered


here's what really happened and who was responsible according to lawrence korb:


The reports of the Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence missed the real problem facing the intelligence community, which is not organization or culture but something known as the "Team B" concept. And the real villains are the hard-liners who created the concept out of an unwillingness to accept the unbiased and balanced judgments of intelligence professionals.

The roots of the problem go back to May 6, 1976, when the director of Central Intelligence, George H.W. Bush, created the first Team B to assess a report his agency had done on Soviet strategic objectives. The report — a National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, completed the previous year — did not endorse a worst-case scenario of Soviet capabilities and, as a result, some outsiders demanded access to the same classified intelligence used by the CIA in preparing it so that they could come to their own conclusions.

The concept of a "competitive analysis" of the data done by an alternative team had been opposed by William Colby, Bush's predecessor as CIA director and a career professional. But Bush caved in, under pressure from President Ford, who was facing a strong challenge from right-wing Republicans in that year's presidential primary, as well as from then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, which was trying to undermine support for Henry Kissinger's detente with the Soviet Union.

The outside experts on Team B were led by Harvard professor Richard Pipes and included such well-known Cold War hawks as Paul Nitze, William Van Cleave and Paul Wolfowitz. Not surprisingly, Team B concluded that the intelligence specialists had badly underestimated the threat by relying too heavily on hard data instead of extrapolating Soviet intentions from ideology.

The Team B report was enthusiastically received by conservative groups such as the Committee on the Present Danger. But it turned out to be grossly inaccurate. For example, it said the Soviets would have 500 intercontinental Backfire bombers capable of striking the United States by 1984. In reality, only 235 were deployed by then. Team B also claimed that the Soviets were working on a "stealthy" submarine, though it failed to find any evidence of one.

Team B was right about one thing. The CIA estimate was indeed flawed. But it was flawed in the other direction. In 1978, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that the selection of Team B members had yielded a flawed composition of political views and biases. And a 1989 review concluded that the Soviet threat had been substantially overestimated in the CIA's annual intelligence estimates.

Still, the failure of Team B in 1976 did not deter the hard-liners from challenging the CIA's judgments for the next three decades. In 1981, after the publication of Clare Sterling's book, "The Terror Network," which argued that global terrorists were actually pawns of the Soviets, leading hard-liners asked the CIA to look into the relationship between Soviets and terrorist organizations. The agency concluded that although there was evidence that the Soviets had assisted groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization with weapons and training, there was no evidence that the Soviets encouraged or approved these groups' terrorist acts. However, hard-liners like Secretary of State Alexander Haig, CIA Chief William Casey and Policy Planning Director Wolfowitz rejected the draft as a naive, exculpatory brief and had the draft retooled to assert that the Soviets were heavily involved in supporting "revolutionary violence worldwide."

During the Clinton years, the Team B hard-liners found themselves out of power. But when the Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, the legislative branch became the favored vehicle for second-guessing the CIA. When an NIE in the mid-1990s concluded that it would be at least 15 years before a rogue nation could threaten the U.S. with an intercontinental ballistic missile, it undercut the hard-liners' case for deploying a national missile defense system. So the Republicans demanded that Congress set up a commission headed by Rumsfeld to reassess the threat.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please explain which failed policies?


During his administration the CIA was dismantled and re-built into a single focus agency. The CIA was ordered to focus it attention solely on the Soviet Union. Congress decreed that they were the only enemy in the world and nothing else mattered


here's what really happened and who was responsible according to lawrence korb:


The reports of the Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence missed the real problem facing the intelligence community, which is not organization or culture but something known as the "Team B" concept. And the real villains are the hard-liners who created the concept out of an unwillingness to accept the unbiased and balanced judgments of intelligence professionals.

The roots of the problem go back to May 6, 1976, when the director of Central Intelligence, George H.W. Bush, created the first Team B to assess a report his agency had done on Soviet strategic objectives. The report — a National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, completed the previous year — did not endorse a worst-case scenario of Soviet capabilities and, as a result, some outsiders demanded access to the same classified intelligence used by the CIA in preparing it so that they could come to their own conclusions.

The concept of a "competitive analysis" of the data done by an alternative team had been opposed by William Colby, Bush's predecessor as CIA director and a career professional. But Bush caved in, under pressure from President Ford, who was facing a strong challenge from right-wing Republicans in that year's presidential primary, as well as from then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, which was trying to undermine support for Henry Kissinger's detente with the Soviet Union.

The outside experts on Team B were led by Harvard professor Richard Pipes and included such well-known Cold War hawks as Paul Nitze, William Van Cleave and Paul Wolfowitz. Not surprisingly, Team B concluded that the intelligence specialists had badly underestimated the threat by relying too heavily on hard data instead of extrapolating Soviet intentions from ideology.

The Team B report was enthusiastically received by conservative groups such as the Committee on the Present Danger. But it turned out to be grossly inaccurate. For example, it said the Soviets would have 500 intercontinental Backfire bombers capable of striking the United States by 1984. In reality, only 235 were deployed by then. Team B also claimed that the Soviets were working on a "stealthy" submarine, though it failed to find any evidence of one.

Team B was right about one thing. The CIA estimate was indeed flawed. But it was flawed in the other direction. In 1978, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that the selection of Team B members had yielded a flawed composition of political views and biases. And a 1989 review concluded that the Soviet threat had been substantially overestimated in the CIA's annual intelligence estimates.

Still, the failure of Team B in 1976 did not deter the hard-liners from challenging the CIA's judgments for the next three decades. In 1981, after the publication of Clare Sterling's book, "The Terror Network," which argued that global terrorists were actually pawns of the Soviets, leading hard-liners asked the CIA to look into the relationship between Soviets and terrorist organizations. The agency concluded that although there was evidence that the Soviets had assisted groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization with weapons and training, there was no evidence that the Soviets encouraged or approved these groups' terrorist acts. However, hard-liners like Secretary of State Alexander Haig, CIA Chief William Casey and Policy Planning Director Wolfowitz rejected the draft as a naive, exculpatory brief and had the draft retooled to assert that the Soviets were heavily involved in supporting "revolutionary violence worldwide."

During the Clinton years, the Team B hard-liners found themselves out of power. But when the Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, the legislative branch became the favored vehicle for second-guessing the CIA. When an NIE in the mid-1990s concluded that it would be at least 15 years before a rogue nation could threaten the U.S. with an intercontinental ballistic missile, it undercut the hard-liners' case for deploying a national missile defense system. So the Republicans demanded that Congress set up a commission headed by Rumsfeld to reassess the threat.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Others wouldn't have the problems that Kingbee would though, and most reasonable people would agree with your premise.


only if most reasonable people are--like you--willing to ignore the inaccuracies i pointed out earlier.

i'll admit to ignorance of one historical fact: i don't recall you being appointed spokesperson for most reasonable people.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
please delete the duplicate post. it will not permit me to edit it or i woulda added this:

just in case it somehow eludes you two students of history, team b rejection of anything that doesn't meet preconceptions explains why the cia's intel on iraq was so flawed.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
ooooops. almost forgot this lil gem:

Our brutal dictator is better than someone else’s brutal dictator. At least with ours they try ever so slightly to be humane. Well seeing as the brutal dictator we replaced was worse, and our brutal dictator is better than the current one since while he was in power he did not threaten to convert the entire world to Islam. I would have to say Mr. Eisenhower made the right choice in 1953. When Khomeini took over there were mass killings again unlike our brutal dictator


i shouldn't have to explain to you and terpfan who pahlavi was (son of a former army officer who declared himself monarch, so hardly real royalty with any legitimate claim to the throne) or whom the so-called 'light of the aryans' replaced (prime minister legally elected in accordance with iran's constitution) but since you don't seem to have a clue...

if pahlavi had put any effort into humanely governing iran rather than inflicting the savak on its citizens and spent on them even a fraction of the money he wasted on the ridiculous celebration of a fake millenium anniversary of the so-called 'peacock throne', there might never have been an iranian revolution.

furthermore, iran's current nuclear program was started by pahlavi (with our money) in secret and was ultimately intended to be used against us.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
finally (sorry for the number of posts, but you see what happens when i try to post anything longer than a few paragraphs)...

what sparked the attack on our embassy was actually carter's fault for showing compassion for pahlavi and permitting him to enter our country. in this one instance, i'll agree with you that carter seemed weak. he shoulda remembered our own anti-monarchial revolutionary beginning and literally 'deserted' our leetle friend--by telling him to go back to his desert and pound sand.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Others wouldn't have the problems that Kingbee would though, and most reasonable people would agree with your premise.


I'm with kingbee on this. Iran was by no means Carter's fault. It had been brewing ever since Pahlavi was put on the payroll.

Oh, and Team B really was a dumb idea. I don't think they got anything right, did they?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
According to an article I read, and posted, here a few weeks ago, Carter allowed the shah to fall mainly because he didn't like Iran's Human Rights record, centering on their treatment of two Soviet spies. He thought Khomeni would make a betetr leader for the country because he was a religious man.

I don't care what anyone says; Carter was a horribly weak president who rode into the Oval Office floating on the wreckage of the Republican party wrought by Nixon and Watergate. By '76 the Democrats were sitting pretty damn good (remember how they were breathlessly reporting the death of Republican conservatism?).
In less than four years, he completely destroyed most of their enormous political capital.

By 1980, people were so fed up with him and his naivete, vacillations, poor decisions and Communist sympathizing that they gave Reagan the largest landslide victory in decades, and Carter's stink clung so badly to the Democrat party that it took them 12 years to get another of their kind elected.

Nowadays, though he's been a meddling thorn in the side to every president since he left office, he's seen a some kind of elder statesman. Jay Leno and David Letterman love him.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
We would have been able to counter the terrorist with the military hit teams that Mr. Reagan commissioned.


you mean the ones he ordered into action after hezbollah blew up the barracks in beirut killing 240+ marines and other military personnel? good thing he didn't immediately cut n run cuz that woulda for sure convinced islamic terrorists the us had no desire to fight back huh?

wait a second. it was carter who sent in special teams and reagan who punked out, huh?

not that reagan took no action whatsoever. as i recall ronnie armed good ol bud mcfarland with gifts and dispatched him to iran to show them imams and ayatollahs that outrage wouldn't go unanswered.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
here's what really happened and who was responsible according to lawrence korb:


I disagree with his conclusions. The B-team is a good concept, and I find little fault with it. The rest is political opinion which is his to have and yours to embrace.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
only if most reasonable people are--like you--willing to ignore the inaccuracies i pointed out earlier.

i'll admit to ignorance of one historical fact: i don't recall you being appointed spokesperson for most reasonable people.


King,

If you are ignorant of one small fact that you based your beliefe on, would it not make your beliefe suspect to others reading it. I am not saying your point of view is invalid because of it but at least give it some serious thought.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are ignorant of one small fact that you based your beliefe on, would it not make your beliefe suspect to others reading it.


jeez luis. the 'fact' about which i claimed ignorance was terpfan's appointment as spokesperson for all reasonable people. it was sarcasm, son. sarcasm.

on the other hand, your article is rife with factual errors which is exactly why 'most reasonable people' have good reason to question your conclusion.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
just in case it somehow eludes you two students of history, team b rejection of anything that doesn't meet preconceptions explains why the cia's intel on iraq was so flawed.


The purpose of the B-team was to put forward an alternative point of view. The intelligence used to go to war with Iraq came from such right wing kook frings like Germany, the nation that sold equipment to refine nuclear materials. France, the nation that also provided equipment for nuclear refinement. Russia, the nation that provided skilled people to show Iraq how to use the equipment sold to them by Germany and France. All three nations were also being paid by Iraq to obstruct in the UN. We sold him Biological equipment that he used to make bioweapons. So what makes you think that he did not have the weapons he admitted to having at the end of the Gulf war. What faulty intelligence can you claim when Iraq submitted a list of WMD? What faulty intelligence do you claim when the UN went in to destroy the listed items and could not find them all? Do you suggest the nation of Iraq submitted a list of WMD that they did not have?

What about the wounded terrorist that were sent from Afghanistan to heal in Iraq. Is that fake intelligence? If so then blame the media who reported it, and the reports of that terrorist being taken out and shot only when it became public knowledge. You can't say the terrorist snuck into the country an the hospital because that hospital was only for high ranking people in the government.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
The B-team is a good concept, and I find little fault with it.


if team b is such a good idea, team c would have to be even better--altho not nearly as wonderful as team d.

there's absolutely no reason why intelligence should be revised by political appointees whose only qualification is a willingness to clearly see the emperor's new clothing. why not cut out the middleman and make policy based on preconceived notions. look how successful it was prepping for the invasion of iraq.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
if pahlavi had put any effort into humanely governing iran rather than inflicting the savak on its citizens and spent on them even a fraction of the money he wasted on the ridiculous celebration of a fake millenium anniversary of the so-called 'peacock throne', there might never have been an iranian revolution.


King,

Using the same logic then instead of kicking Ayatollah Komnie out of the country he should have been the brutal dictator and killed him. The same mistake Batista made with Castro. Yes, they were brutal dictators but they were not a threat to the US. The replacements have not been steller advocates of human rights and the locals are still snatched up off the streets for the same reason only this time America can't step in and say give this one or that one a break.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
what sparked the attack on our embassy was actually carter's fault for showing compassion for pahlavi and permitting him to enter our country. in this one instance, i'll agree with you that carter seemed weak. he shoulda remembered our own anti-monarchial revolutionary beginning and literally 'deserted' our leetle friend--by telling him to go back to his desert and pound sand.


So you agree that human rights are a joke.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, and Team B really was a dumb idea. I don't think they got anything right, did they?


The B-team was not supposed to get things right or wrong only to put out alternative reports to give a different perspective. It has been used to cover the ass of the Director instead of it's origional purpose.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
According to an article I read, and posted, here a few weeks ago, Carter allowed the shah to fall mainly because he didn't like Iran's Human Rights record, centering on their treatment of two Soviet spies. He thought Khomeni would make a betetr leader for the country because he was a religious man.


Yeah, this goes along with the documenteries and books I have seen and read. But they are now trying to re-write history so he was a hero. His human rights did not extend to the Philippines or any other dictator that did not hurt the Soviet Union.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
you mean the ones he ordered into action after hezbollah blew up the barracks in beirut killing 240+ marines and other military personnel? good thing he didn't immediately cut n run cuz that woulda for sure convinced islamic terrorists the us had no desire to fight back huh?


Yes, that is exactly what happened. We pulled out our regular troops, and inserted our special ops people.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
not that reagan took no action whatsoever. as i recall ronnie armed good ol bud mcfarland with gifts and dispatched him to iran to show them imams and ayatollahs that outrage wouldn't go unanswered.


Yup, and if you do a little research you will find out that the weapons Iran over paid for did not work for some reason. Yet the weapons sold to Iraq did work, I wonder if there was some sinister plan there?