Former President Carter Blasts Bush »
Posted By TimALoftis 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsFormer President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
Read Full Story at apnews.myway.com »
Submitted By:
TimALoftis
Welcome To Propeller !
If you like 'Social News' and making friends and conversation with both a mature and informed community - this site is for you ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 776
-
100%
natashas1 year, 4 months ago
I agree with former President Carter. Most of the free world do agree that Bush is a failure as President. I applaud is honesty.
Reply-
47%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
I agree too. Bush has been more than a failure, but a collossal disaster for America and the world. The sooner he goes the sooner the clean up and reparations can begin.
Reply-
80%
teepeebiking1 year, 4 months ago
Is it really worth trying to reason with people who still back bush and cheney after all they have done? These people are trying to equate policy errors and poor personal judgement on the part of Carter and Clinton with this flipping train wreck that bush/cheney have created for us. In years to come we, as a nation, will be forced to answer for the actions of these blind fools. If there is justice and fairness engineered into the master plan (which I have come to doubt over the years), bush and his supporters will be held to account for this mess!!!
Reply-
100%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
We need a Constitutional amendment providing for criminal investigations conducted by an Independent Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury with unfettered dispositive judicial subpoena power whenever the nation is attacked, retroactive to 9/11/01. The amendment should be strong enough to survive Martial Law.
FACT After 9/11, the worst criminal mass murder ever inflicted upon the American civilian population, we did NOT have criminal investigations. Rational people understand that if you're going to war (something civilized nations should use only as a last resort) you should do so on judicially vetted facts with guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Dumbya dictatorship would have none of this. Not only did the regime obstruct every attempt to investigate 9/11 impartially, they were actively engaged in criminal obstruction and criminal destruction of evidence. The brain-dead, sycophantic corporate media amnesia industry tripped over itself to print the legend and promote war.
Reply-
0%
injest1 year, 4 months ago
twistoflex said:
"Not only did the regime obstruct every attempt to investigate 9/11 impartially, they were actively engaged in criminal obstruction and criminal destruction of evidence."
Facts please, sources to back up your claim?
Reply-
0%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
Well, to begin with, the gov't changed its story about the purported hijackers at least 4 times. It also turns out that at least 7 of the purported 19 hijackers were in the country at the invitation of the US gov't - they were enrolled at secure US military training installations - including Mohamed Atta. When one investigative journalist asked the FBI to explain this, the response was "It's complicated".
Criminal evidence at Ground Zero was quickly extracted and destroyed.
The NSA has destroyed terabytes of data concerning "Able Danger", a project tracking these and other foreign nationals said to be linked to the attacks.
Jeb Bush personally supervised the scrubbing of evidence at Huffman Aviation and the Venice, FL Police, loading all files onto a military C-130 transport craft and disappearing them.
FAA tapes material to the crimes were completely destroyed and discarded in 5 seperate trash containers.
... and much more.
Reply-
75%
tanglang1 year, 4 months ago
I could sit here for hours typing away bs, and make it look like it's what actually happened. He asked you to give facts, unless you reveal your sources, you are not proving anything.
Since you are speaking about criminal acts though, what are your thoughts on sandy burglar giving up his law degree? I've yet to hear the liberal spin on this.
Reply-
100%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
Everything I wrote was corroborated by numerous bona fide news services and can be easily investigated online by anyone caring to personally vett the facts.
I could've written more extensively, with links, but limitations of space preclude epic posts.
Nonetheless, what you're asking for are not facts, but authoritarian arguments. You believe what the gov't tells you, despite the fact that it cannot vouch for their own claims which are rife with contradictions.
For instance, many millions of dollars were made on 9/11 from insider trading REQUIRING advance knowledge of the attacks - these include short trades and put options on investment banks and airlines. The SEC has still not revealed who was involved in these trades - yet they never seemed to have a problem before or since tracking even minor insider trades.
... and much, much more.
Reply-
100%
tanglang1 year, 4 months ago
Right, so it's easier for you to believe that our Government, in cahoots with wall street orchestrated 9/11 not only for the purpose of insider trading, but global domination, than to believe a terrorist that has admittedly attacked us before when he says he was responsible for this too? Take off the tin foil hat and come join the rest of us here on Earth.
Reply-
100%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
It must be terrifying to be a Repugnant these days, knowing that your ball of yarn is unravelling. They had grown so accustomed to terrorizing the American population with their fear campaigns and xenophobia.
The simple fact remains that the worst criminal mass murder in American history was not only NOT followed by criminal investigations, but it was followed by gov'ts own criminal obstruction.
To this day the gov't has refused to provide any explanation of the 5 wargames it conducted simultaneous to the 9/11 attacks - wargames that included live aviation hijacking scenarios. Even when Congress requested this information it was not forthcoming.
Moreover, the Pentagon has similarly not explained the whereabouts of a missing $2.2 TRILLION.
Those who understand how crucial accountibility is to democracy should be concerned about this. Repugnants, on the other hand, find accountibility anathema to their ideology. Reality is lethal to their political existence.
Reply-
100%
tanglang1 year, 4 months ago
Tell me this, how does it feel to be part of the apologetic, illegal immigrant supporting party of alqeadacrats, who constantly try to change our nation to suit the needs of those here illegally? You demoncrats constantly try to undermine the ideals our fore fathers fought, and died for. Call me repugnant all you want, because we all know who are the repugnant ones here. The ones who will stop at nothing to destroy the values of our nation, and replace them with their own personal ideals. Your party wants nothing more than the destruction of religion, borders, and the free speech of anyone that does not agree with you. Just look at the aclu if you don't believe me.
Reply-
100%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
First, I am not a Democrat, although I did vote for Gore in 2000 and, reluctantly, Kerry in '04.
This is because my path crossed Dumbya's long before he made his foray into politics. I knew what a dishonest, thieving crook he was back when Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem, bought him a seat on the Board of Harken Oil and Gas, where he made his first fortune through illegal insider trading.
Repugnants don't know the first thing about the "values" of our nation, which are fairly articulated in the Constitution they find irrelevant.
Your last post was so paralogical it would take a doctorate in psycho-ceramics to decipher it. I see lots of talking points but nothing of substance, just ideological whining.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jackoinla1 year, 4 months ago
I just don't understand how anyone can defend this administration. It's become quite clear that they lied about the reasons to attack Iraq. If this is not criminal, I don't know what is and if you don't believe that they lied, including GB, then your the one that needs to "join the rest of us here on Earth".
Reply-
100%
tanglang1 year, 4 months ago
So what are your thoughts on the dems that voted for the Iraq war? What are your thoughts on the Clinton's, Kerry, Daschele, and all the other libs, who before the n.i.e. that told of wmd's was released, said that we need to use force against Iraq to stop the manufacturing of Saddams wmds? What are your thoughts on them huh? Did President Bush use mind control tactics on them even before he was president to convince them of Saddam's threat? Stop being so naive. I'm getting pretty tired of arguing with crybaby dems who until the Iraq war, could not even tell me who there state senators were. Let alone what their favorite politicians have done in the past. All they see is idiots like sheehan who can barely compose a sentance on her own, using big words they don't understand, and repeat them here as if they are a political genius.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
"Everything I wrote was corroborated by numerous bona fide news services"
so where is anything in this or your prior post that is anything more than your opinion? You claim this is all fact, but fail to provide any proof, but we all know that's fine, and should be believed right, well that is unless a conservative tries it, then not backing things up is just proof they are lying right? So I'll ask again, where is anything more than your opinion here, call me cynical, but you saying it's true and not showing us where to check facts just isn't good enough for me.
Reply-
-
0%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
If I had all the answers like you I wouldn't have asked for facts, and although you claim to know where to find them, you don't provide any, which says that you are all spin and opinion with nothing to back it up, and if you look through the thread anytime I claim what I said was fact, I could, and did, document it. You are very good in the art of distraction when there seems to be no substance to what you post, again, if you had the facts, a way to prove them, you'd have provided them, but you really are good at trying to make it look like you know what you really don't, and in shifting the focus off of you with phrases like "since you have all the answers" to someome like me that just asked you to back up a statement. And no, I can't show you where a criminal investigation took place where there was no need for one since we all saw exactly what happened...
Reply-
0%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
so if you want to play that game, email Rosie, she thinks she has the answers, she's delusional, like all 9/11 truthers, so why would I look for facts to prove your fiction for you, if you want to document it, do your own work, of course you know you can't find facts where none exist to prove your point, so you again try to shift the focus to me so that it's maybe overlooked that it is you that doesn't have a clue. I never claimed to have the answers to your silly question.
And although I'm tired of this thread and now that the conspiricy theorists like you are here I know it's time to go find some sanity, but if you have any kind of proof I'm sure some here are interested, I'd like the truth, but we already have it so unless YOU can show me some proof it didn't happen, not speculation, but something more than "steel can't melt steel" since I once worked in a blast furnace at a mill to pay for college I know better.
Reply-
0%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
But if you really have anything that is more than speculation, and hope that hate for Bush will probe your point, I think you'd want to provide it, so that others could be convinced, but really, nice try to make it look like I was the one that was pretending to have all the answers when anyone that wants to see the truth can see it is you, and your failure, and refusal, to provide it, and then telling me what I would do when you know nothing about me, so have no idea if I'd read your suggested books or not, and btw, if they had any substance, and were not written by some nutcase, if there was any reason to read them, and i'd have given them a fair shake, at least read a chapter or two before deciding if it was worth my time, but you talk but could not provide one single thing to back your OPINION, so I'm out of here, but if you have anything legitimate to show, I would bet there are people here, both sides of the aisle, that would be interested. But I doubt you can show anything.
Reply-
0%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
Until someone can show me a reason to do otherwise I'll be concerned with real problems like the price of gas, pollution, taxes, illegal immigration, and I'll leave the imaginary ones like 9/11 conspiricies, and any other it's "just cause I hate Bush so much that I want this to be true" problems to you. Now I'm out of here in search of people unlike you that prefer reality to their delusions. Of course you had a chance to show me some evidence, but you failed to do so, I would imagine if you could have, you would have, but instead what we see is you trying to blame me for your inability to provide any type of proof or documentation of your claims. I don't think you're lack of any substance to show us how wrong I was is you not having it, much more likely than you actually knowing if I would or wouldn't read it, but that really was a good way to cover what you lacked by blaming me for not wanting to know, nice trick, all smoke and mirrors, but nice trick. I'm outta here
Reply-
83%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
Contrary to your assertions, I have abundant sources to qualify each and every statement I made on this thread - MULTIPLE times.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
This site alone will validate - with numerous bona fide sources - all statements I have made on this subject and will do so redundantly.
Readers who are interested in this and topics related to the activities of the Dumbya dictatorship are encouraged to explore this site.
For those who would like to see how varied are the skeptics of the government's conspiracy theory, I recommend this site,
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
which has numerous academics, military, security and intelligence veterans, and key expert committee panelists, among others.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
I've no doubt that every point I've made has MULTIPLE vetted sources and any reader can easily discover that they are all valid.
Every point will also be corroborated if readers go to the Center for Cooperative Research online.
Readers will discover an internationally acclaimed terror timeline, exquisitely researched - the largest repository of data related to this subject available on the internet.
Reply -
-
67%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
I never changed the subject. You did. The point at the head of this thread was that there were NO criminal investigations after 9/11. There were no judicially vetted investigations into the attacks. This is true even of the anthrax attacks that followed.
Once the FBI morphologically and genetically traced the weaponized/aerosolized anthrax to a secure US military weapons laboratory at Fort Detrick, MD, and established the CIA connection, they dropped the investigation like a hot potato. The brain-dead corporate media amnesia industry made sure that the story would fall into a black hole.
The fact is all trails lead back to the Dumbya dictatorship and the Bush crime family's mercenary enterprises.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
90%
teepeebiking1 year, 4 months ago
who in hell really cares, given the issues we are dicussing. Neo-cons are adept at shifting the focus of discussions, but you're trying to go from terminal cancer to a toothache.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
"to pull this off would have required 100's or 1000's of people involved"
But you would prefer to believe that 19 hijackers pulled it off with box cutters ... at least six of whom have already turned up very much alive after the attacks.
Look up Sibel Edmonds and the gov'ts gag order against her. So determined is the Dumbya dictatorship to silence her, that she is barred from testifying under judicial subpoena. The Dumbya dictatorship has even gagged Congress: they classified Edmonds testimony before Congressional open committees that was published in the Congressional Record.
You also seem to be forgetting the lessons of the unfinished work of the Iran-Contra hearings: shadow government and mercenary corporations engaged in covert activity.
It's quite obvious who had the motives, capability and the means to "pull this off", and the trail clearly leads up to Cheney's door.
Reply-
0%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."
-- Senator Daniel K. Inouye, during the Iran Contra Hearings and former chair of U.S. Senate MKULTRA-era hearings in 1977
Reply
-
-
0%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
It would have required just a few people in authority positions with the means, motive and capablity to disable the US defense system during the attacks in order to pretext their wars of aggression and self-enrichment ... Cheney, Myers, Eberhardt and Rumsfeld, for instance.
It would also require the cooperation of a few people strategically positioned in a few agencies, like the NSA, CIA and National Reconaissance Office.
Mostly it would require the input of mercenaries in Bush Crime Family enterprises, like the company that was in charge of security at the WTC, where Bush's first cousin was CEO and his brother was a Director.
Stuff like that, which is grossly under-reported ... including the fact that former Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta testified how he saw Cheney issuing stand-down orders on 9/11 - which testimony was DELETED from the 9/11 Commission's report.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
miklkit1 year, 4 months ago
Larry Niven said it in the early 70's. TANJ. There aint no justice.
Reply -
100%
goodgrief1 year, 4 months ago
It's not that we back those too muhlooks. It's the fact the the actual worst president in history is calling anyone the worst president in history. Let's see ... 440 days of hostages in Iran . . . double-digit inflation . . . the only truly bad post-war economy . . . PanAm bombing by arafat henchmen . . . arafat (a known and admitted terrorist) elevated to a head of state by carter . . .
Reply-
0%
tanglang1 year, 4 months ago
Carter is a joke! Just look at this anti-semetic piece of trash. So he admittedly supports the palestinian terrorists. He blames Israel for the constant attacks on thier women, children, and innocent civilians. Jimmy supports Iran on it's constant attempts to gain nuclear arms. Jimmy gave nuclear capabilities to N. Korea with the help of slick willy. (This will be yet one more clinton f*ck up we will soon have to deal with.) He supports communism more than any other American elected official ever. Just look at how he brought to power chavez, Kim jong il, and several dictators in Africa who have committed just as many atrocities as Nazi Germany did. Charles Taylor being one of the worst. Using 8 to 12 year old boys and girls to fight his battles. Drugging them so that they have no problems cutting down women, children, and even their own parents.
Reply-
-
-
100%
contrast1 year, 4 months ago
watch the Hitler thing. If W is like Hitler that means according to your logic our soldiers are nothing more than goose stepping SS soldiers who round up the unwanteds and burn them alive. If you wanna draw a comparison please let's do compare.
Reply -
100%
tanglang1 year, 4 months ago
That response is on at best a fourth Grade level. What's next, I'm rubber you're glue?
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
I normally do not speak in this fashion. But what the hell are you talking about? What an ignorant piece of crap you wrote. If Carter helped Iran obtain nuclear power, why did they grab the US hostages during his tenure. Why did insult him further by releasing the hostages a couple of hours after Reagan. There was a strong (unproven) suspicion that Reagan secretly negotiated to release the frozen Iran assets in US banks. Remember Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal?
Russia occupied Afghanistan during his tenure. Carter funded Pakistan and Afghani fighters. Carter also put up an embargo for goods to Russia. Finally he forced US athlete's to boycott the Moscow Olympics.
North Korea is such an isolated paranoid country. How could anyone influence thier policies. Kim Jong Il is the son of Kim Il Song, the previous president, whose title was president for life. Guess how Jong Il came to power?
Lastly, Taylor was a vicious rebel who killed his way to the top. His path to the presidency..
Reply-
100%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
took place during the early 1990's. So if anyone in the US helped him, it would have been Nixon and Ford, not Carter. Taylor was elected in August of 1997, the same year Carter STARTED his own presidency. As governor of Georgia, just how do you think he could have helped Taylor rise to power?
Your logic is faulty, your judgements are asinine, your emotions are over-wrought, and your writing is nonsensical.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
goodgrief1 year, 4 months ago
Moronic? Who's the moron? I didn't blame carter for the attack. I was critizing his handling of it. He was the Neville Chamberlain of his time. An Israeli kind of solution would have been called for. In fact he actually tried that and failed miserable. Yes, there would have been American casualties. But without showing these farm animals there are consequences to their behavior, the behavior gets worse. Hijackings lead to bombings lead to hostages lead to kidnap/murder lead to flying airplanes into buildings lead to tactical nuclear devices set off in American cities. Carter's action said we'll put up with anything.
So - interestingly silent on the economy, arafat, etc.
As for who caused the attack. OMG. What is it with libs who think history only goes back to 10 minutes ago?
Reply -
0%
totallyrandomkid1 year, 4 months ago
I wouldn't call carter the worst president, he didn't do much but look into the camp david accords (the nobel peace prize), And the funny thing is that Nixon actually started the inflation, (research the term stagflation) by deficit spending. then Regan after carter made the economy even better with his reaganomics! It wasn't until the late 1990's that all the deficits were reduced to a balanced budget in 2000.
Reply -
75%
mesodude1 year, 4 months ago
What you neokooks don't seem to realize is that there are worst things in the world than being worst President in history. Bush is quite probably the worst President and the worst human being (and I use that term very loosely, in this case) to inhabit the White House. The man has *NO REDEEMING QUALITIES WHATSOEVER- NONE.
Reply
-
-
100%
not2needy1 year, 4 months ago
Teepeebiking,
You are so correct in your first 2 sentences on this post, and i don't know why i even try to reason with these people. There are 28% of the people out there who still support BushCo, and they are all on NS blaming Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, and any other democrat they can dig up to excuse this fiasco of an administration. Trying to reason with them is beyond futile!
Reply -
100%
Flash2871 year, 4 months ago
Bush will go down in History as the greatest President ever!
Half the Muslim world want you dead. And he has the guts to stand up to them as well as your brainless comments!
If you don't understnd that Saddam invaded kuwait so that it would be a steppingstone to control all of the mid-east oil, then you are even more brainless than I thought. After his defeat, it secretly remained his ambition. Without Bush Saddam would succeed and you not be able to even afford the electricty for you PC.
Bush's only weakness is he caved into the Tree Huggers. Our energy dependency all started with the environmetal movement. You see,you need an environmental impact study to drill a hole or build a refinery etc. "As you sow,so shall you reap."
With UN corruption, Saddam was getting so rich he could control nukes whenever the opportunity presented itself. You can't allow a murdering madman have that power. Or he would surely fund a Jihad of suicide bombers. Then it would all be over.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
FSU92grad1 year, 4 months ago
uh...hello, McFly? Carter calling president BUSH the "worst president"? Boy, is that not the pot calling the kettle black...LMAO !
Carter has got to be in the top 3 all-time worst presidents in the US....Clinton would be a close 2nd...
Carter did a "bang-up" job with the Iran hostage situation...Oh,yea...almost forgot to mention that HE was the friggin reason they took our hostages in the first place ! Not to mention his willingness to engage and embrace many of our enemies like Fidel Castro...What a hoot !
Reply-
69%
wallyone1 year, 4 months ago
and on what grounds would carter engage fidel castro? the iran hostage situation, unless my memory is worse than i thought, was because the shah of iran, who was supported by none other than the USA/Israel mossad and cia who set up the secret police, enabling the shah to rule autocratically.. The Ayatollah Khomeini who was allowed to return from exile took control.. He wanted the shah to return for trial when carter allowed the shah to come to the USA for medical reasons. he would not send the shah back to iran so the hostages where taken from the embassy. Carter must have listen to his military advisors because a botched rescue mission cost the lives of 8 americans.. i suppose you think we should have waged an all out war? look where we are now, how soon we forget. Bush will be the worst ever president..
Reply-
100%
MajJohn1 year, 4 months ago
We can all name different presidents to the worst top 5 list, this is a exercise based on our own prejudices. This does not change the fact that Carter is in no position to criticize Bush about foreign relations. Carter failed internationally and his domestic policies ended up with the misery index, the worst inflation in modern history.
History will judge Bush's place in history not this contemporaneous criticism which has been hammering on his decisions for 5 years. I'm not defending Bush, I'm only remarking on Carter's criticisms which break from the tradition of a past president not criticizing a seated president. Clinton in my view has more honor than Carter.
Reply-
0%
Bopi3651 year, 4 months ago
Some people are still clueless, the US backed Shaw of Iran had for years squandered his nations fortune on arms while his people starved. They subsequently revolted and ousted him. The hostages were a result of iranian discontent with US involvment .
You'd think Bush was capable of learning from recent history.
Why is it you never see Repuk presidents involve themselves with humanitarian efforts after they have left office. Could it be that they don't give a damn.
Reply-
89%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
some people, like you appearently, are still clueless, or in this case is it just very dishonest? And why do YOU never hear of a RepuBlican president ever working in humanitarian efforts after they leave office, well since this is so recent, and you clearly been watching things during the last 6 years, so for you to not know about the following would seem to have to be for one of two reasons, selectivity on your part when it comes to a Republican, or just being clueless, or maybe it is dishonest, but you might have noticed people talking about things things your spin attempts to gloss over...
Presidents Bush and Clinton to lead a nationwide fundraising effort to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Reply-
75%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
and did you also select to forget ...
"former Presidents Clinton and Bush did to help the victims of the tsunami relief. Our country marveled at their capacity to rally our citizens and to work together."
and I seem to remember, and maybe now you will too, that George HW Bush was a Republican president. And if you notice I didn't try to pretend Clinton wasn't doing this with Bush since I didnt' want to give a Democrat any credit, and also notice I selected not to prevert the word Democrat like you did with Repuk, all of us on the right could act as childish as you do and always spell Democrat, Demoncrat, or just Demon, just pointing out to you that ignoring the truth and trying to spin others beliefs as you did, and name calling like with Repuk, dosen't aid at all in giving your comments, or you, any credibility, does just the opposite for me, since it shows you care much for hate of conservatives, and very little for honesty and facts
Reply-
0%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
And now that I reread your above comment... "The hostages were a result of iranian discontent with US involvment ." would that not have occured, this discontent, during Carter's administation? So his criticism of Bush's foreign policy would seem a bit hypocritical given you own comment, since those hostages were held in Iran for most of Carter's term, and you think it was because of the US foreign policy that they were held.... doesn't that put the blame for that situation on Carter?
Now who is it that appears clueless again?
Reply-
0%
ADAGUY1 year, 4 months ago
Their discontent had bee building up for years. Carter could have done little or nothing about it,other than support someone else to take over the Shah's place
Reply -
100%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
you mean kind of like a few of the things that affected Bush that were left to deal with afer Clinton, or is blaming a former president for something only a good thing when it's someone on the left doing it, since anytime anyone does attribute something Clinton did, all you see is dont' blame Clinton Bush is president, so make up your mind, can things a former administration did affect the next administation or not, can't have it both ways, so as of right now, and my personal opinion, which I am not trying to pass off as fact, is that Carter is responsible for what Carter did, and it not, how much of the current mess does go back to Clinton?
Reply-
-
-
-
-
100%
scott42611 year, 4 months ago
Well, another LIE that you righties try to perpetuate is your belief that Clinton did not try to get bin Laden (he did). But rather than get into a circular argument with you on this, let me ask you this: What has Bush done? We hanged Saddam (an evil man, to be sure...though he had NOTHING to do with 9/11), bin Laden's mortal enemy.....so WHERE IS BIN LADEN?
Reply -
-
100%
scott42611 year, 4 months ago
No, I haven't been to Tora Bora. But can you honestly tell me that Bush DID NOT drop the ball in Afghanistan to focus on Iraq? Do you honestly believe we are even still looking for bin Laden?
"I don't know where he is. I don't spend that much time on it"
-George W. Bush, when asked about Osama bin Laden
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
appearently, as I was just pointing out, the "finger pointing started much earlier, as when I just saw Carter's screw ups being blamed on Ford, which is of course was what made me think to ask what I did, but I see you can only try to distract from the point, not at all an unexpected response, one that I pretty much expected, one that does all it can to not answer while distracting others from noticing the question asked was never really addressed, most likely because the honest answer isn't one the person responding to my question wants known, or wants anyone else to think about. I know you don't have it in you to think about this, or understand it if you do, you have never seen me defend Bush, I don't care for the way his administration approaches spending, but the bashing him for everything is just idiotic, and goes on all the time, and my point was, if those on the left don't want people pointing back at flaws in the last admin, don't do it yourselves...
Reply-
92%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
don't blame Carter's mistakes on Ford, or Clinton's on George HW Bush, and if you do, don't gripe when someone who's politics you don't agree with does the same thing, let me make it more clear, don't be hypocritical.
Besides all of that, we all know why Carter said the things he did, although he knows he is the worst president the US has ever had, he see's a chance to try to convince people someone else is worse. He's just hoping he can convince enough people so that he won't be remembered as the worst, but there is little chance of that working for him, or anyone that wants to help him try to convince the public because of their overwhelming, blinding, hatred of Bush.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 4 months ago
Zaph
Carter has helped more people after he left office than G W Bush has helped while he has been in office. Certainly Bush and Clinton raised money for Katrina victims but an occasional fund raised by neither of them compare to Carter's continuous humanitarian work with the homeless.
Reply-
80%
tanglang1 year, 4 months ago
I work with Habitat for Humanity. Trust me, their work is not that noble. They evict almost as much people as they build houses for. Most of the people evicted who had only lived in the house for two to three years, had left the place so dirty that rather than clean it up, we have found it is much cheaper to bull-doze it and start new.
Reply -
75%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
say all you want, I believe the point that drove my reply was NO REPUK President ever.... distract from that lie that I pointed out was a lie, and was very likely known to be a lie when it was posted, but the fact remains, it was not the truth
Reply-
100%
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
How is it people blame Carter for the Iranian hostages but credit Reagen with freeing them? First I think you will agree that years of interference by American agencies had made the Iranians rightly angry at the US. Carter happened to be the president in office when the Iranian people took back their country and wanted to hold the Sha responsible for his actions, once again America interfered and would not give him back. Hence in anger students stormed the embassy capturing staff and others taking them hostage. At that time the military didn't have the equipment or experience to mount a rescue right away, plus some hostages were still missing and in hiding in other embassies.
With this going on what choices did carter have? It would have taken to long and been impossible to hide raising a large enough force to go overland giving the Iranians time to kill all the hostages. Cont
Reply -
0%
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
Next option would be a full out war meaning sure death for the hostages, kind of counter productive if you ask me. Or try for a diplomatic solution and find some way keeping other doors open as well. It was the military that came up with the failed plan, not Carter, they assured him it would work never having used their equipment in the desert before. Now the military has had some experience in desert warfare in ww2 and knew how much dust can damage equipment but did nothing to protect their helicopters and this led to the disaster that followed. There is a good reference in Micheal Durant's book about his ordeal in Somalia.
Reply -
100%
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
After that the least little flicker of an armed rescue would have meant the death of the hostages for sure, so the wait was on. During the election Reagen's camp started a dialog with the Iranians and they figured they would get more favorable terms with him so there was no way they were going to release the hostages until after the election. And of course we all know that Reagen gave them arms for the release even though there was an embargo on.
My Question is how does this make some people think Carter screwed up and Reagen save the day? I think you will give me an honest answer so that is why I picked you to put this to.
Reply-
100%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
first let me say sorry, I didn't mean to hit negative that was an accident, now let me think about exactly how to answer your question. I want to be as accurate and honest as I can
Reply -
100%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
There is a lot more to this if you want to know more about it, but what I think you want to know is this...
In 1980, the death of the shah in Egypt and the invasion of Iran by Iraq made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis. In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began, and of course Reagan was the main negotiator after the election. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed.
Note the negotiations that freed the hostages started AFTER the election, after Carter had lost to Reagan
Reply-
0%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
Wrong. The negotiations started with Carter. The hostages were released 2 hours after Reagan's inauguration, because the Iranians wanted to humiliate Carter.
Reply<
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
