The Jimmy Carter Presidential Library has released some papers concerning his relationship with Margaret Thatcher, which are now available on the Margaret Thatcher Foundation Website.
Margaret Thatcher first met Jimmy Carter as President in May 1977 at Winfield House, the US Ambassador's grand residence in Regent's Park. (The request for the brief meeting came from her, the US Embassy in London recommending the President grant it "since there is a real possibility she may be Prime Minister by the end of April".) No record of what was said is currently available in the Carter Library. At that time she had been Leader of the Opposition for around a year and a half. She met him again only a few months later, that September, in Washington. The timing was a sign perhaps that the first meeting had not gone too badly, but their second encounter went disastrously wrong: the US record of the conversation is not yet open, but other papers show that Carter formed a poor impression of her, finding her outlook dogmatic and her manner hectoring. Afterwards he instructed staff never again to schedule him to meet an opposition leader. She was probably nervous; certainly, given her strong commitment to the British-American relationship, she will have tried to get along. In her letter of thanks she praised his conviction. Times change, however: the papers show that by the time of her election as Prime Minister, US officials had formed a better impression of Margaret Thatcher, seeing her as "cooler, wiser, more pragmatic", tempered by experience. Carter annotated his weekly NSC round-up brief to acknowledge a similar shift in his own perception.There is a hint also that the outgoing British Prime Minister, James Callaghan, who had been relatively close to Carter, was coming to seem a little time-expired from the American point of view. In fact when the British Government changed, there was concern that Carter might seem to have been too close to him, resulting in advice to the President to make a congratulatory phone call in addition to the "routine congratulatory cable". The following week an undisclosed source (doubtless the British Ambassador) briefed the National Security Advisor over lunch, revealing that Margaret Thatcher was "extremely energetic", slept "literally only three hours a night", and that in meetings she "tends to dominate and do most of the talking". More seriously, she was would support the President over the SALT II Treaty, though with reservations, and wanted closer involvement in NATO decision-making.
More HERE.
16 comments:
Jimmy Carter is possibly the worst president the United States has ever endured. The current round of jihad started under his inept watch. The seizing of the US embassy and embassy personnel in Teheran. And they held the hostages for over a year in what Jimmuh moronically kept referring to as "the hostage situation". As though it were an act of God and there was nothing he could do about it.
Muslims only advance on the weak, which is why they do so well with this British government. During the final minutes of the Inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the Iranians announced that the hostages had been released. They were wise enough to realise that RR would not sit around wringing his hands referring to "the hostage situation", but would be on the phone organising the "carpet bomb Teheran situation".
If Carter had acted with resolve and nipped this religious fascism in the bud, the current 30-year round of jihad may not have happened. Instead, he let the camel get its nose under the tent and the result has been mayhem in the advanced, civilised West.
That was me above. I don't know what happened.
Could you please stop reporting quotes in such small fonts. It's giving me a headache
fr - Agreed! But up on the tool bar, you can go to View and then it says 'Text size' and you can resize Iain's little Minnie Mouse blocks of quotes.
Jimmy Carter made America look weak and inept. In other words, the perfect victim. He should have acted with resolve, immediately. He allowed these radicals to hold American property, their embassy, and American citizens illegally for over a year. That is an incredible indictment of this fool. Also, it encouraged other ambitious little jihadis.
verity said...
He tried to but lost a number of helicopters and a hercules and a number of men
Yes, I know. It was terrible that he lost those men. He should have gone in again instead of giving up.
Ross Perot, the founder of EDF hired a team and went in and got his men out safely. Surely to God the president of the United States could have managed the same?
Losing those men and helicopters should have made him even angrier. Instead he shrugged and took up the mantra, "the hostage situation".
He makes me sick. A Democrat president couldn't find the will to rescue American citizens, but a self-made capitalist billionaire could do it.
It wasn't Carter that fouled up the Tehran rescue (Operation Eagle Claw), it was a low-level sandstorm plus mechanical failure. The US military at that time had not developed it's long-range urgent response forces as well as now, but the mission would probably have suceeded without these factors. Carter just took the heat. See Operation Eagle Claw - Wikipedia for example as a starting point.
On Iain's actual article, I am not surprised that Carter "knew Thatcher would be elected" - I have long believed that the CIA manipulate British general elections, partly through massive secret party funding, and I imagine at that time they had decided they wanted Thatcher.
I recall reading an account of the Russian reaction to the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran. According to the article, the Russian message to the Iranians was; If the Russian embassy is attacked, Iran would cease to exist as a country within 24 hours.
I don't know if this was true but if it was, the Iranians knew that the Russians would have intended to carry out their threat and so reeled in the `student demonstrators' in quick time.
The effectiveness of any threat depends very much on convincing your enemy that you mean it!
Yes, that was a terrible misfortune. But why did he give up after one essay? He made America look weak and ineffective and encouraged the situation we have today. It was under his watch that the current cycle of jihad began. He should have moved heaven and earth to rescue those Americans and he should have taken out a large part of Teheran while he was at it. Islamics think talking is weak. You have to show them with unremitting action that you are serious.
Eight out of twelve posts on this thread to date are by "verity". Is s/he one person, or a committee?
PJ - Touché! I was at school in the US when the hostages and the embassy were taken and I watched Carter dither daily for over a year. He infuriates me.
To balance up the bollocks from verity, I'd like to say that Carter achieved a lot as president. Who else could have brokered a deal between Sadat and Rabin at the Camp David accords. Much as verity might like to gloss over that, it was a huge step forward. The fact that opponents of peace found it so significant they tried to bump off some of leading parties shows it must have challenged the entrenched positions in the Middle East.
I am glad to see that verity is true to form in that she believes 'war-war' preferably with plenty of civilian casualties is preferable to 'jaw-jaw'...
And I find it astonishing that she is venerating Ross 'let's form a task force' Perot who had no other policies whatsoever, and who heads the 'piss-poor' EDS, responsible for so many IT catastrophes in the UK.
We have to be graceful for the small mercy that verity is not a 'shock jock' influencing small minded americans by the bucket load , or worse still, anywhere near the reins of any political power...
Yet another yawneroooooo anonymous this one from 11:13 - says, regarding Jimmuh, "Much as verity might like to gloss over that[the much-lauded Camp David Accord], it was a huge step forward."
Really? And achieved what, exactly?
"I am glad," says anonybore 168,024, "to see that verity is true to form in that she believes 'war-war' preferably with plenty of civilian casualties is preferable to 'jaw-jaw'...
You are correct. I prefer action to talking. Talking leads to lies. Action leads to the strong prevailing.
Anonybore trundles on: "We have to be graceful [sic] for the small mercy that verity is not a 'shock jock' influencing small minded Americans ...".
Americans have their Constitution and their Bill of Rights and could never have been taken over by the nazis at No 10. It could never have happened in the United States, which has checks and balances that everyone, in both parties, respects, which you malign, spiteful little British lefties loathe so much and if anyone offered you a Green Card you would be over there slavvering all over them. You cheap little mind-control wannabee. It's all about jealousy. Envy. Resentment. Hissing.
You must be feeling more and more left behind as the British, thanks to Mrs Thatcher, invested in council property and home ownership,improved it and passed it on to their children. And bought shares in formerly communist-owned utilities. And prospered.
Post a Comment