Jimmy Carter Says Age 80 Would Have Been Too Old To Be President

As an octogenarian myself, I know damn well that at my present mental state I would NEVER be able to handle the job of POTUS.  Both Biden and Sanders will turn 80 during their first term if they are elected in 2020.

Trump, Biden, and Sanders are all too old. Last election, I thought both Trump and Clinton were older than I was comfortable with.

Sure, some people are still very cognizant at 80 - but when the decline hits, it often hits rapidly. 4 years is a long time when someone is 80.

I would definitely take age into consideration when deciding who to vote for.

Women are generally in lots better shape than men in their eighties.

This could be one of the few times I agree with you.

It depends on the person. Some people at 80 are this guy:

Others are this guy:

Even at age 43, Mr. Carter should not have been President.  Too nice a guy and wanted to please everybody.  He ended by pleasing nobody.

Clearly Biden is having some problems with memory/focus and Sanders is just batshit crazy regardless of his age.

Neither one is suitable for the Presidency despite their age.

For Jimmy Carter 52 was too old. The man who let Iran go to the radical Islamists, left the country with gas lines & double digit inflation and last but not least gave us Andrew Young was obviously senile.

There are other reasons about Carter I don't intend to post.

Yes, I know I left a few things out. 

Yeah, like 52 Americans being held hostage without anything being done other than weak protests.  I do notice that, when Mr. Reagan took over and told the Iranians to turn them loose or else, they knew exactly what he meant by "or else".  Those people were out of the country before he finished his inaugural address.  I think the Iranians  had a liking for the city of Tehran and didn't want to see it blasted into radioactive ashes and they were well aware that Mr. Reagan would have done it.

Yeah, like 52 Americans being held hostage without anything being done other than weak protests.  I do notice that, when Mr. Reagan took over and told the Iranians to turn them loose or else, they knew exactly what he meant by "or else".  Those people were out of the country before he finished his inaugural address.  I think the Iranians  had a liking for the city of Tehran and didn't want to see it blasted into radioactive ashes and they were well aware that Mr. Reagan would have done it.

Weak protests. I suppose that the eight Americans killed in the rescue attempt were part of that ''weak protest''....

On the day of Reagan’s inauguration, the United States freed almost $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets, and the hostages were released after 444 days. 

Did you ever read anything about the Iranians having a backroom deal with Reagan/Bush team...?

Weak protests. I suppose that the eight Americans killed in the rescue attempt were part of that ''weak protest''.

Yes, they were.  If they had been given equipment with up to date maintenance and a plan that was possible to carry out, and, if they had not been hamstrung by having the military budget cut out from under them, they could have been part of a very strong protest, even if they had died in the process.  The question isn't whether they died but how many Iranians died by their hands.  If the Iranians didn't lose anyone because of their efforts, then their deaths, although courageous, were wasted.  By definition, that is nothing but a weak protest.

This is a good review of ''Operation Eagle Claw'' .... mentalfloss

Disaster

Well, not really: Eagle Claw only got as far as Desert One when disaster struck. On the night of April 24, 1980, a dust storm (haboob) forced one of the eight Navy helicopters to turn back, and another crash-landed after being disabled. The other six helicopters landed at Desert One, but another was lost to hydraulic problems. With just five helicopters operational, the commander on the scene decided to abort the mission – but that’s when the real trouble started.

© Bettmann/CORBIS

As the U.S. aircraft prepared to evacuate, one of the helicopters crashed into a C-130 carrying fuel and troops, destroying both aircraft and killing eight U.S. personnel. In the ensuing panic, all the other helicopters were abandoned – but not destroyed – so the Iranians actually came out ahead by several helicopters (some of which are still in service in the Iranian Navy).

Operation Eagle Claw was a total debacle which embarrassed America in front of the entire world and probably contributed to Jimmy Carter’s defeat in the 1980 election. Coming less than a decade after America’s defeat in Vietnam, it seemed to confirm a widely held view that America was, in Richard Nixon’s famous phrase, a “pitiful giant” burdened with an incompetent military.

In fact, it would be fairer to say that Eagle Claw suffered from overly ambitious planning, the wrong hardware, and the absence of a “red team” to point out flaws and vulnerabilities during the planning process. And it wasn’t all bad news: the humiliation endured in Eagle Claw helped spur military reforms that had already begun under the Carter administration and then gathered speed under Reagan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question isn't whether they died but how many Iranians died by their hands.  If the Iranians didn't lose anyone because of their efforts, then their deaths, although courageous, were wasted.  By definition, that is nothing but a weak protest.

I would only say to that comment that there have been, by your definition, a number of weak protests that American service members lost their lives.....I obviously look at it from a far different perspective.

Weak protests. I suppose that the eight Americans killed in the rescue attempt were part of that ''weak protest''....

Poor planning.  The Canadians did a better job.

I would only say to that comment that there have been, by your definition, a number of weak protests that American service members lost their lives.....I obviously look at it from a far different perspective.

Excellent post.

Wasted on a feeble mind, as in,

you are far too kind.

I would only say to that comment that there have been, by your definition, a number of weak protests that American service members lost their lives.

Yes, there have been, at least two wars worth, where our government chose to throw the lives of a lot of really good men away....for nothing.  To quote the man who was possibly the greatest general officer in the history of the US Army, and who should have been President in 1952, "There is no substitute for victory".

Sadly TTGA, a lot of good men lost their lives in wars. That has nothing to be with ''weak protests''. Men and women fight and die in wars whether the wars are right or wrong. I cannot accept your premise....

As far as the ''General'' which would be MacArthur I assume. HIs comment of ''There is no substitute for victory''. He should look at his leadership in the Korean War. 

No, he should not have been President in 1952. 

Men and women fight and die in wars whether the wars are right or wrong.

Kav, I didn't say a word about right or wrong.  What I said was that, if you're going to fight, then fight to WIN, with the least cost in your soldier's lives. no matter what you have to do.  If you aren't willing to do that, don't get into the war.  Just let the enemy have whatever he wants, since you're going to give it to him anyway. 

 It cost the lives and health of a lot of fine young people to fight our way across the Pacific as far as Okinawa (within B-29 range of Japan).  It cost my father two years in a Naval Hospital.  The Japanese Air Force started sending out Kamikaze planes (suicide bombers).  While we held them off from our carriers pretty well with AA fire, it did not stop the suicide bombings.  Hiroshima stopped the suicide bombings and the actual landings in Japan were not resisted.  Mr. Truman had the needed technology and had the will to use it to save the lives of our people.  RULE OF MODERN WARFARE:  Whenever possible, always use technology instead of sending young people to their preventable deaths. Remember, however, that all the technology in the world is useless unless you have the WILL to use it.

Mr Carter not only did not employ sufficient technology, he did not have the will to use it.

By the way, everything that went wrong in Korea was due to the failure of Mr. Truman to let MacArthur fight the war the way he wanted to do.  Mr. Truman lost his nerve when the USSR got the bomb too.

Kav, I didn't say a word about right or wrong.  What I said was that, if you're going to fight, then fight to WIN, with the least cost in your soldier's lives. no matter what you have to do.  If you aren't willing to do that, don't get into the war.  Just let the enemy have whatever he wants, since you're going to give it to him anyway. 

Of course, you fight a war to win. In the many wars that the US has been involved in that has not been the case. Containment is one of the other ways a war is fought.  In the lead up to getting involved in a war the decision making, right or wrong, isn't always complete victory.

If using all our technology/weapons is the answer than we would drop the ''bomb'' at the start of hostilities. Simple as that yet that is not going to happen. 

MacArthur did fight the war the way he wanted. He was convinced that the Chinese would not enter the war, even though they said they would if he continued on to the Yalu River. He did and the rest is history. He was also in charge of all US troops in Asia after WWII...We were totally unprepared for the war in Korea which rest on MacArthur's head. 

When the Chinese entered the war MacArthur was unprepared for it and his go-to option was to drop the atomic bomb on China. Truman didn't back down, he used common sense, IMO. 

MacArthur could have stopped his advance north of  Pyongyang, declared a DMZ and 90% of Korea and its population would have been part of that solution. 

Weak protests. I suppose that the eight Americans killed in the rescue attempt were part of that ''weak protest''....

Eight lives wasted in a 'hail Mary' attempt at a miracle. Talk about putting the military in harm's way! Any military effort to free the hostages would have to have been substantial. A better idea would have been to allow the CIA to keep paying the Mullahs and keeping the Shah in power in the first place!. Think of how different the middle east would have been if Carter could have put aside his symbolic liberal "principles" and been more pragmatic!

A better idea would have been to allow the CIA to keep paying the Mullahs and keeping the Shah in power in the first place!. Think of how different the middle east would have been if Carter could have put aside his symbolic liberal "principles" and been more pragmatic!

An even better solution would have been for the U.S. to keep its nose out of Iran and overthrowing the legit government and installing the Shah and his murderous thugs at the behest of the oil companies (BP). 

Think how different the middle east would have been. 

Think how different the middle east would have been. 

It would have been like it is. Iran was never a democracy and won't be one in our lifetime. Keeping the Islamic fanatics out of power is a just and noble cause. 

.We were totally unprepared for the war in Korea which rest on MacArthur's head. 

Actually, the culprit there was Louis Johnson, the Secretary of Defense.  In 1949 he said, "I have cut the military budget to the bone and am now cutting more." 

MacArthur did fight the war the way he wanted. When the Chinese entered the war MacArthur was unprepared for it and his go-to option was to drop the atomic bomb on China. Truman didn't back down

These two statements are diametrically opposed to each other.  One of them must be wrong.  Since Truman was the Commander in Chief and MacArthur only a theater commander, the wrong one must be the first.  Since Truman made the crucial decision not to go with nuclear weapons, Truman should bear the total responsibility for expending the lives of over 33,000 Americans for no gain whatsoever.  Since he didn't run for reelection, must bear much of the responsibility for the loss suffered by Stevenson in 1952.  Further, he started the pattern of never risking anything or going for a win that led to the result we saw in Vietnam. The buck really did stop on his desk. It took Ronald Reagan to break that cycle by being willing to go for the throat as needed.  By the way, Stalin may have been a paranoid bastard but he was not a fool.  He would not have responded if we had used nuclear weapons.  He knew quite well what would happen to Russia if he did.

Really enjoy going over this historical stuff with you Kav.  It took my mind off from a couple of really big health problems going on over here, hopefully now settled.  Oh, did I ever mention that I used to teach it?

Actually, the culprit there was Louis Johnson, the Secretary of Defense.  In 1949 he said, "I have cut the military budget to the bone and am now cutting more." 

The troops that were sent to Korea at the outbreak of the war were unprepared, undertrained and out of shape. None of this had anything to do with the military budget being cut..(it was, and it was dramatic).

The two points are not diametrically opposed, TTGA. After the U.S. troops were pushed back to the Pusan Peninsula. It was Task Force Smith that held the line. With thousands of allied troops being sent to Korea and the brilliant maneuver by MacArthur with the amphibious landing an Inchon we were on a full military footing. Equipment, men and supplies.

It was MacArthur that pushed forward towards China after repeated warnings by China that they would enter the war if US troops approached the Yalu River, the Chinese, good to their word entered the war and the US suffered a very large number of casualties. It was at that point that MacArthur wanted to use the ''bomb''....It was MacArthur that should be held responsible for the deaths that occurred because of his arrogance. 

If we would have used the bomb do you actually think that it would have defeated China? We would have to have invaded and acted as an occupying force in a country as large as the US. Mao had just fought the Japanese and Chaing Kai Shek. Although the Chinese army was primitive by our standards they were not, by any stretch of the imagination a pushover. We would have been bogged down for decades while suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties. 

Both General Ridgeway and Stilwell had some interesting views of Korea and well worth considering. Another point is, IMO, the US fell into the trap that Air Power and Nuclear weapons were the way to win a war. 

koreanwaronline

I'll address Vietnam and Reagan a bit later. BTW, Reagan going for the throat is questionable at best....Does Lebanon ring a bell?

Yes, I'm aware that you taught history. I was just a simple guess speaker at some of the universities/colleges around the country. 

I hope that the health problems stay in the rearview mirror. 

Another point is, IMO, the US fell into the trap that Air Power and Nuclear weapons were the way to win a war. 

Not just another point.  It may have been the most important point.  The culprits there were Truman, Johnson and the JCS.  It was cheaper to put all of our eggs in one nuclear basket.  What they didn't seem capable of grasping was that not every war was going to be a world war with a massive nuclear weapons exchange.  That attitude in Washington didn't change until Eisenhower came along, and not all the way even then.  Their excuse was that Congress doesn't like to appropriate war footing money when there is no war. That excuse was partially valid. Lack of Congressional appropriations has been an endemic problem in this country since it was founded.  The Navy had to fight like hell to get four frigates approved prior to the War of 1812 (President Jefferson thought that coastal defense meant forts and gunboats, much cheaper than warships).  Move up to the 1930's and Mr. Roosevelt had a hell of a time getting any military appropriations through Congress.  That came back after WWII and didn't really change until the Cold War started up big after Korea. 

Even then, the emphasis tended to be on big ticket items like bombers rather than highly trained soldiers.  The interservice infighting was enormous.  Google "Revolt of the Admirals".  You'll find it's a fascinating read. .Of course, after WWII was over, they also weren't getting the best recruits.  The citizen soldiers had gone back to their civilian lives and they were back to the guys who couldn't find jobs on the outside. They could have been trained but it takes a hardass to do it.  Nobody wanted to be the hardass.  In Japan, they were considered garrison troops and the level of combat training was low. 

That part was MacArthur's fault.  It was his job to see to it that training was kept to wartime standards, even though he had not been warned that a war was likely.  He preferred to hang out in Tokyo giving orders to the Emperor of Japan.rather than keep an eye on training camps. Once the war started, of course, he acted like the brilliant tactician that he was.  That was the way his mind was built.  He was great in action but the routine work bored the hell out of him (somewhat similar to the mental makeup of Grant).

Gotta run.  Greyson football game tomorrow morning.  Check KK.

To both TTGA and Kavika,

I appreciate the civility with which the two of you have been discussing war, etc. but I would like to remind both of you to remember that the topic of this seed is the age of Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, the fact that should they win the presidency in 2020, both will become octogenarians during their term, and whether or not their mental faculties will decline during that time.

To both TTGA and Kavika,

I appreciate the civility with which the two of you have been discussing war, etc. but I would like to remind both of you to remember that the topic of this seed is the age of Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, the fact that should they win the presidency in 2020, both will become octogenarians during their term, and whether or not their mental faculties will decline during that time.

Being older than dirt I should be given less stringent parameters. Finding the page let alone staying on topic is a major accomplishment, Buzz.   

I'm a lot older than you and I was capable of POSTING this seed.  And when Carter speaks about octogenarians, I'm very cognizant of that situation.  Do you think I can reach 95 if I eat a lot of peanuts?

Do you think I can reach 95 if I eat a lot of peanuts.

One must find the peanuts first. 

Sorry Buzz.  Didn't mean to pull the article off topic, but it's fascinating stuff.  Of course it's civil, more than that; friendly.  After all, we're adults. 

Actually, the ages of any two of the three of us would  equal more years than Mr. Carter and Mr Biden combined.  Even better, I'd be the youngest of the bunch.  That's unusual for me.  These days I'm almost always the oldest person in the room; at least, the oldest one who's still alive.

I can't open the image.

How about figuring out how to get the peanut out of the shell. 

Here you go Buzz.  Both of them.  Then I've gotta run.  Football.

Thanks Rock.

Still off topic but.....Grey's team won 34-0.

Good news is welcome.

That league only has five teams in it.  They have three games left.  The team they play next Saturday is the only one they haven't met yet.  If they win that one, the chances are that they will run the entire league.  They have already kicked ass on the other two that are left, with only two touchdowns scored against them, both in the second game.  Check the KK Comment Wall for pictures.  I'll also put up the scores and maybe a couple of videos there.  They;re playing for fun but it's always more fun when you win.  Sometimes, the coach even buys ice cream.