Ciao!

This is somewhat beside your point, but struck me as interesting:

I recall reading an interesting case last year (I think it was called "Persinger, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran"). It was an action against the State of Iran for injuries inflicted in its seizure and detention of American hostages, but was dismissed at the federal district court. On appeal on a provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allowing suit against foreign states for tortious injury within "United States," the US Court of Appeals held that United States embassies abroad were not included within term "United States." Thus, a Persinger, a US marine injured by the hostage-takers, could not bring suit against Iran in US courts.

Of course, such legal wordplay amounts to squat in international politics. Anything could be an act of war, what matters is who has the means of coercion. A loud fart in the presence of the Supreme Iranian Leader could be an act of war if he says so and acts in response.

Anyway, totally unrelated to the hypothetical you've presented. I do, however, wonder what the world would've been like had Carter had larger cohones and moved more decively when the the mullahs and disciples jammed their qaddara into the eyes of the Great Satan. Bah.

The problem with Carter wasn't that he was a bad president but that he was a darkhorse president that had zero support from even his own political party. No one wanted him in the presidency from the start. And he DID respond to the hostage crisis by mounting a rescue attempt that failed horribly due to maintenance problems (they changed equipment at the last minute because they didn't want to alert anyone to something going on by keeping the same equipment that had to be switched on schedule).

To me, Carter was a victim of circumstance more than anything else. If he had been around during the Clinton era, I think he would have made an even better president than Clinton because Carter has always been the sort of person who can benefit from a period of peace and prosperity. I really think he would have done some great things. But he lived in an era where you really needed a Reagan or a Roosevelt to be running the White House.

I think way too often people discredit Carter based on the time he was in rather than the president he could have been. The same thing can be said about Taft. Right guy, wrong time.

I look at what Carter has done since his presidency and am thankful he was president for a short time just so he ended up with the clout to do some of the things that he is doing now. Sure, not everything works out greatly, but you really can't knock the guy for trying to make a difference. I haven't seen too many ex-presidents attempt much of that in a very long time.

Good point, Duane. Perhaps Carter would've been better during his time. Though it also says something about the party that nominated him ... but that's neither here nor there. And, for the record, I think Clinton did a good job, considering what he/we knew at the time.

But I'm also worried about Carter's post-presidency dalliances. Sure, Habitat for Humanity is cool. But chumeying up w/ Castro, Kim Jong Il, and so many others is just sad & amateurish.

Hi Miguel, interesting points!. By the way, everyonce in a while I escape from work and go to your "casera" in Mercado Camacho to drink an instant made organic carrot juice (U$ 0.25, .. ahh those are the virtues of developing countries). Didn't want to brag (don't even know if you like carrot juice), It just reminded me when you were here, José Mario, Juan Carlos and Faruk always ask for you (I see Faruk ocasionally once every two months).