Paladin77

James Earl Carter Jr. is responsible for 9/11

▼

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.
12,300 views 42 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


Please point them out for me.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


If that is what you think the teams are for then you don't understand the concept of them.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
it was sarcasm, son. sarcasm.
---kingbee

Perhaps if sarcastic, self-righteous condescension wasn't your sole means of conveying your opinions, it would be a little easier for the rest of us to tell?

Just a thought.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Right winger,

Be nice; I made a mistake. It happens from time to time.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Carter too the presidency in 76 and ran the military into the ground by 1980


Sorry Paladin but you're wrong. Carter was President from 1977-1981, not 1976 like you claim.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Paladin but you're wrong. Carter was President from 1977-1981, not 1976 like you claim.


November 1976 was when he was elected, I know because I voted for him. He took Office in January 1977. The transisition team took over November. Unlike Mr. Bush who was not allowed to start the transition until mid December. If the best you can do in nit pic between election and taking office more power to you.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sorry Paladin but you're wrong. Carter was President from 1977-1981, not 1976 like you claim.


November 1976 was when he was elected, I know because I voted for him. He took Office in January 1977. The transisition team took over November. Unlike Mr. Bush who was not allowed to start the transition until mid December. If the best you can do in nit pic between election and taking office more power to you.


While all of that is true, the transisition team does NOT make major policy changes. That is reserved for the president. So since he didn't actually start until Jan 77, any policies were those implemented by the outgoing administration. So my comment stands of it's own accord.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
While all of that is true, the transisition team does NOT make major policy changes. That is reserved for the president. So since he didn't actually start until Jan 77, any policies were those implemented by the outgoing administration. So my comment stands of it's own accord.


Correct, but it is when people in government find out who is going to stay and who will be going with the old administration. At that point people that want to stay start to change things. The out going president can stop it but usually does not out of respect for the new president. The only time in our history when that was not the case was when President Bush took office the Clinton people, not Mr. Clinton himself, obstructed everything to the last minute. Files were hidden or lost, it was not all just pranks like pulling all the "W" keys off keyboards some of it was malicious and cruel like hard drives wiped clean so the new people had no real starting point without having to go into archives to find out what was happening. My point is that if a person wants to get into the good graces of the new administration they need to show how cooperative they can be. The Church Commision recomendations were implimented during the Ford Administration and completed during the Carter Administration. It was the Carter Adminsitration that came out with the zero based budget that wrecked the military. To give you an idea of how bad it was for the military during the Carter Administration; we had to buy our own tollet paper and cleaning supplies for the barracks. For training we were allowed 20 blank rounds of ammunition per person per training exercise. Vehicles were limited to one tank of fuel per month. This sounds great if you want to save money, but if you want your military properly trained and ready to seriously do their jobs then you need to do more. When it came time for operation eagle claw no one was ready. Mantainance on helicopters were minimum, and on top of that some idiot turned down my plan for rescue because it would be politically correct to make it a joint forces operation. Because each branch of the military does things differntly no mater how go the leader is he won't be trusted by the other branches. The dead Marines and airmen in the desert of Iran is proof of that. My point is that you are correct on paper but in reality only once in history has what you described actually happened. with each change in administration the outgoing administration does their best to work with the transition team to set things up so new policy is ready for implimentation long before the new Cheif Executive is sworn in. This means that everyone up and down the chain of command knows what is coming and to get their departments ready for the change.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is my "It's All Carter's Fault" article.

Link

Read and enjoy. I actually use statistics.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
singrdave, Thanks that was a good read.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
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


a couple things about the quoted nonsense.

a. robert gates (who really deserves to be serving time in prison rather than serving as secretary of defense) and bresinski have been amazingly candid when describing why the ussr found itself in afghanistan:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

bresinski interview">Link

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.


according to us army's own curriculum it was the cia (under gates) and the reagan administration who lost control of the terrrorists we were training and funding. be sure to note the date of this congressman's statement is 1994

HON. PETER DEUTSCH, OF FLORIDA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES , Friday, October 7, 1994 Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to see reports detailing the extensive involvement of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in supporting Islamic fundamentalist terror groups in Afghanistan and India. I have seen Peter Arnett's excellent documentary "Terror Nation? U.S. Creation?" shown on CNN last month. The film provides a graphic account of the links between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the fundamentalist regime of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. I was disturbed to note that some Afghan groups that have had close affiliation with Pakistani Intelligence are believed to have been involved in the New York World Trade Center bombings. Following an investigation, Peter Arnett reports about the New York bombing, "It happened at this apartment complex. Police at the well-patrolled community say the Skeikh's Driver, Mahmud Aboubalima was Shalabi's most frequent visitor. Police consider Aboubalima their prime suspect. He is the second person from the Afghan Refuge Center implicated in a U.S. crime. But he has not been charged. Shalabi's family blames Sheikh Rahman for the killing, a charge a cleric denies. With Shalabi gone, Aboubalima takes control of the Afghan Refugee Center. Aboubalima, Sheikh Rahman and Hampton El were bound together not only by the Brooklyn-based Afghan Center, but also by the holy war headquarters in Peshawar, Pakistan, the bustling base of operations for the Afghan resistance. It is in Peshawar that the New York terror campaign takes shape. Peshawar was the headquarters of Sheikh Rahman's international network. Peshawar was also the headquarters of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's party, which trained four of the key New York suspects. Hekmatyar's links to the New York suspects came as no surprise to pro-Western afghan officials. They officially warned the U.S. government about Hekmatyar no fewer than four times. The last warning delivered just days before the Trade Center attack." Speaking to former CIA Director Robert Gates, about Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Peter Arnett reports, "The Pakistanis showered Gulbuddin Hekmatyar with U.S. provided weapons and sang his praises to the CIA. They had close ties with Hakmatyar going back to the mid-1970's. Hekmatyar's Islamic fervor played well with the fundamentalist powers of Pakistan."

Course Title 3A-F82/243-F30 001 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO COUNTERTERRORISM

furthermore, if you truly believe iran's shia government funded or administered the wahabi al quaeda organization, you're as confused about muslims as is reyes.
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
Wow. So a man who was President for four years over 26 years ago set us on a course which could not be reversed? What about Reagan after the bombing of our barracks in Lebanon? What about Bush Sr. when Saddam was kicking things up in Iraq only to be let off the mat when it was decided we did not have the authority to take Iraq when we actually had support from other Arabic countries (unlike now). Since Carter left office there have been Republican presidents for all but eight years. Did Dubyah have plans to revamp the intelligence community when he took office? Even after 9-11 there has been little change there despite all the talk of what was needed.
Should we have left the Shah in power? While in office he was just as likely to align with the Soviets as he was the Americans.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kingbee,

It is nice to see that you agree with me that Mr. Carter was responsible for Islamic terrorist. Thanks for pointing out that Mr. Carter was even more dangerous than I knew of. At the time I was a foot solder just back from playing in North Korea then suddenly sent to Cuba in October and November of 79 the only rest I had was when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. My unit was activated when the hostages were taken and we did not come off alert until Mr. Carter negotiated the release of the hostages. 1979 was a busy year for me and my crew we rescued two hostages held in the Philippines by the NPA, discovered and stopped the invasion of South Korea from the North, and ended the year playing in sunny Cuba where I lost two men. All this from a president that promised that there would be no wars on his watch. After reading your post I must reassess Mr. Carter as president, he was a mad man, the CIA under his direction was incompetent, his foreign policies were at best flawed causing more trouble in the world than we had forces to deal with and the only good thing he did was supposedly set up the USSR for a Vietnam type of war.

according to us army's own curriculum it was the cia (under gates) and the reagan administration who lost control of the terrrorists we were training and funding. be sure to note the date of this congressman's statement is 1994


Your time line here is off by a lot, here's why. Yuri Andropov, while head of the KGB, initiated the terrorist play. This was back in the late 60’s remember Black September? That was the era when the Soviets were training and funding terror groups around the world. The purpose was to put pressure on Europe and America and cause problems within. They lost control in the mid 70’s but the damage was done. All modern terrorist have been using the techniques from the Soviets to fight their own wars instead of the ones they were supposed to puppet. Yes, we made sort of the same mistakes with the Mujahadeen only we pulled our weapons out when the war was over. The training we gave the Mujahadeen was for fighting a gorilla war not one of terror. That training is now being used against us in Iraq and Afghanistan but we have stopped that portion of it so they are back to the terror aspect. What got bin Laden into the war was our fighting Saddam Insane in the Gulf war. He offered his services to Saudi Arabia to fight Saddam instead of using us infidels, Saudi smiled and said thanks but no thanks and humiliated him. Keep in mind that he had already attacked America and the World Trade Center. I stand by my statement that the Soviet Union through Mr. Andropov recreated terrorism in a global assault on America and Europe and it is still living and working today.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
furthermore, if you truly believe iran's shia government funded or administered the wahabi al quaeda organization, you're as confused about muslims as is reyes.


Kingbee,

The same argument was made about Saddam Insane funding and supporting AQ. Or America supporting and funding Saddam Insane with its war against Iran. People now ask why we would have supported a mad man. The reason why is at the time he was supporting our interest. Anyone making trouble for America is good to support as far as Iran is concerned. Just like all the other nations that have supported people they did not like. They probably figure they can cut off funding and weapons later to control them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a phrase that became popular in that region.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow. So a man who was President for four years over 26 years ago set us on a course which could not be reversed?



whoman69,

No, it could not be reversed without starting a war. To stop what Mr. Carter started we would have to kill all of the Mujahadeen we trained when the USSR left the country which included people that wanted a free Afghanistan. Please note that when we were gearing up to attack AQ and getting our allies in line the first thing bin Laden did was to kill the general fighting the Taliban. He did this just days after 9/11. If we were to do the same thing everyone would be bitching about how mean, heartless, and cruel America is. America has never fought a war of prevention and the only way to undo his errors in judgment is to fight one. Just attack people because they might be a threat 20 years later. Are you suggesting that it is ok to do this?

What about Reagan after the bombing of our barracks in Lebanon?


After those attacks Mr. Reagan did the right thing, he pulled our troops out and sent in people to wipe out the terrorists. There were teams all over the Middle East and Europe hunting down people and taking them out. Congress and the Press attacked Mr. Reagan for his reclessness in South America when his people got caught doing something like that. So, what about the bombing of our barracks in lebanon? All I can say is I like snails! It was snails that saved my life. My unit had just left the area and they wanted us to go back in but we had started to de-snail the ship we were on and it is so costly that they decided to send in the next BLT. A few weeks later they were bombed and we lost 241 Marines. It was my barracks while I was there so I like snails.

What about Bush Sr. when Saddam was kicking things up in Iraq only to be let off the mat when it was decided we did not have the authority to take Iraq when we actually had support from other Arabic countries (unlike now).


As soon as we started to head into Iraq the Arab governments (our allies at the time) started screaming that they did not sign on to take out an Arab leader. Yes, they all wanted him gone but they don’t want us to take him out because it would make it seem ok for infidels to remove Arabs which in the long term could include them. Each Arab leader sees himself as the possible leader of the Arab world. Sadat tried it by attacking Israel, Libya tried it by supporting terrorist to attack Americans, and Husain tried it by attacking Iran and Kuwait, and all failed. I ran is trying it by getting nuclear weapons just like all the others that have tried but they look like they are close to getting it. It is the one common dream to have a united Arab nation and each leader tries to be that strong man to unite the Arab world. The secularists have failed so now the religious leaders are giving it a shot.

Since Carter left office there have been Republican presidents for all but eight years. Did Dubyah have plans to revamp the intelligence community when he took office? Even after 9-11 there has been little change there despite all the talk of what was needed.


Yes, and only for 12 of those years did the Republicans have control of the Congress with the Democrats fighting them tooth and nail. There was a try to revamp the CIA just like there was a try to revamp the State Department. Keep in mind that as a show of bipartasanship Mr. Bush keept Mr. Clintons choice for CIA in place. When he left the new guy came in and tried to change things and was promptly replaced because he was making the wrong changes, according to the liberals.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
At the time I was a foot solder just back from playing in North Korea then suddenly sent to Cuba in October and November of 79


??? you mean you were one of the 2100 marines who took it upon themselves to engage in a show of force in response to the presence of soviet troops in cuba? all the more amazing considering the near-simultaneous tank exercises that same week in germany...naval maneuvers in the indian ocean involving two task force groups comprising 12 ships...and a 20,000 person response to simulated attack on us allies.

good thing you didn't wait around for ol pantywaist commander-in-chief carter-- paralyzed with fear according to you--to get scared outta his catatonic state and give the order.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
??? you mean you were one of the 2100 marines who took it upon themselves to engage in a show of force in response to the presence of soviet troops in cuba?


Kingbee,

There were that many people there? Hard to believe since I never got to see any of them. Here is what happened from my tiny view of the world back then. My team got shoved into Camp Lejeune better known as camp swampy. We were told we would get 30 day leave off the books but we would be on call. We found our clothes took showers and headed for the main gate when our beepers went off. Back at the mad house our nick name for our ops center we were informed that we had a go order. I was told I had to train my people for operations in 4 days, we packed up and left for sunny Gitmo.
It seems that some news hound discovered that there were Soviet troops and tanks in Cuba. A mind blowing revelation seeing as they have been there since the Cuban missile crisis four presidents before. More training and then our orders came, protect the dog and pony show the president set up to show he was not a wimp. While the however many people you listed put on a show for Newsweek and Time magazine we were in Cuba stopping the Cubans from doing what people do when an armed force shows up suddenly on their soil. Or job was designed to provide early warning in case Mr. Castro took offence to our presence. We sat out in the jungle and along the beaches with no food other than what we brought with us. Ten days worth of food and water and no re-supply until we had been there for 20 days and someone remembered we were there. Our orders were great! A brilliant war plan that started with us detecting the enemy attacking us. But the state department wrote the orders and fearing an international incident we were not allowed to load our weapons until we got permission from higher headquarters. The war plan went like this. We spot the enemy on approach, we break radio silence and alert ground defense forces Gitmo, they would in turn radio a ship on the other side of the horizon and they would bring us food and ammo to repel the attack. But we were not allowed to break radio silence until a Russian or Cuban tank crossed the fence by fifty yards and fired one shot in our direction. The problem with that is we were 500 yards in front of the fence. This means the enemy would have to pass us by 550 yards and turn the turrets around to shoot at their own people and us before we would be allowed to fight back. The last page of the war plan showed my team at the runway valiantly holding off the enemy as the last plane takes off and all of Gitmo is quickly and safely evacuated. Well except me and what would be left of my team. For some strange reason nobody in my unit liked this plan. It is not very inspiring to read that you have been written off before the war started. I can see the movie of the week now, where I and my four Marines hold off a few dozen tanks and infantry with 740 rounds of rifle ammo for a rifle that fires 700 rounds a minute, but our secret weapon was we also had .45Cal side arms, twenty-one rounds each man, and our K-bars so it must be a fair fight. So what if we were going against five thousand troops and a bunch of tanks. Sorry I am a little touchy when it comes to the Cuban operation. If the feces hit the oscillator we had about five minutes to live.
My point is that for the media it looked like we were doing something big but the plan was to run away. My death would have been for nothing and they did not mind telling us that up front.

good thing you didn't wait around for ol pantywaist commander-in-chief carter-- paralyzed with fear according to you--to get scared outta his catatonic state and give the order.


Yeah, or fear he would want to show he was a real man by overreacting to a news report that was a decade old. Everyone knew they were there but suddenly it was important to SHOW we were doing something about it. It was a meaningless attempt to show he was commander in chief a year before an election and I lost two men because of it.