To Baddboy...

Look, I'm not going to put myself into the position of a "Carter Apologist" again... it is simply too painful. However...

If Carter showed the radical elements of the Islamic world that we were "vulnerable" to terror through his weak and ineffective response to the Tehran Embassy crisis... then Ronald Reagan carved that promise of vulnerability in stone for ALL the world to see.

Reagan "bargained" with Tehran to ensure that the hostages were not released until AFTER his Innauguration in '81. Less than 4 years later, he was selling the SAME regime weapons in an effort to support (illegally) an anti-Communist effort in Central America. When Hezbullah bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in Oct of 1983, Reagan ordered (under advice from Barry Goldwater, of all people) the withdrawl of ALL US personnel, which was completed less than 4 months after the bombing... directly BECAUSE the Marines got hit, NOT because the effort was completed successfully. That tells me that 241 American military and support peronnel died needlessly, because if they didn't need to be there AFTER the bombing, what the hell were they doing there BEFORE the bombing?

I'm trying to think of three times when Carter allowed terrorist actions or demands to DICTATE US foreign policy. He was a "reactionary President", no question... but of the two (Reagan and Carter) I'd have to say Carter has the better track record when it comes to "not negotiating with terrorists"... wouldn't you? Are the failings of past foreign policy matters concerning radical Islam ONLY something we can lay at the feet of Democrats like Carter and Clinton?

As I have said countless times before... I'll give all the credit due to a man like Reagan. He gets his "nods" for his successes, and I expect him to answer for his failures... and the lack of answers as to WHY the fiasco in Beirut was allowed to end the way it did has always cast a HUGE shadow on MY view of the Reagan legacy.