Carter is just plain looney lately

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Carter is just an angry old man who gets press because he bashes Bush. Just like Sheehan, if he changed his targets to Democrat leaders we would never hear about him again.

:thumbsup:

Sadly, however, Carter is ex-POTUS and his words and actions are seen by many around the world as representative of, and representing, the United States. It is a shame he doesn't take his responsibilities seriously. Then again, look at his record, particularly vis-a-vi foreign affairs. Nothing to write home about, for sure.

Shivetya: Rarely have I seen such whining. And from the side that complains about any actual challenging of problems as whining!

Pabster: He does take his role seriously - more seriously than the current president by far, which is why it's so needed for him, as an ex-president, to speak the truth.

The government is currently highly corrupt and ex-presidents are an important group who can tell the people and the world the truth, if they choose to.

Carter's foreign affairs record is far better than Reagan's or Bush 43's or Nixon's or Ford's, and if we can count 41's role in Iran Contra...

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Jimmy didn't back away, at all. When he offered that it might have been careless, that doesn't mean he didn't say it, or believe it, or that it isn't obviously the truth... or that his comments have been misinterpreted as personal rather than in reference to policy...

Maybe just that he should have left it to somebody else to comment on the Emperor's outfit, such as it is...

 

[IGBT]

..he's dizzy with liberal vitriol and embarrassment over his performance as president.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Carter is just an angry old man who gets press because he bashes Bush. Just like Sheehan, if he changed his targets to Democrat leaders we would never hear about him again.

:thumbsup:

Sadly, however, Carter is ex-POTUS and his words and actions are seen by many around the world as representative of, and representing, the United States. It is a shame he doesn't take his responsibilities seriously. Then again, look at his record, particularly vis-a-vi foreign affairs. Nothing to write home about, for sure.

So how about a list of Bush43's foreign policy achievements?

 

[IGBT]

Jimmy Carter's Legacy of Failure...

The fruits of Carter's history with Iran are even more rotten. Carter's abandonment of the shah in 1977-78 helped lead to the Islamic revolution (and the murder or imprisonment of many of the Iranian leftists who had supported overthrowing the shah), the emboldening of the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and the rise of radical Islam worldwide. His botched approach to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 inspired Islamic terrorists all over the world, culminating in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.








Text


When it comes to the belligerence of North Korea, Carter's past involvement has done considerable damage. In the early 1990s, Carter traveled to North Korea on another of his "peacekeeping missions" and brokered a deal with dictator Kim Il Sung. He did so without the blessing of the Clinton administration, although, at the behest of then-Vice President Al Gore, President Clinton later agreed to adopt Carter's deal. The United States ended up providing aid, oil and, incredibly, material for building light-water nuclear reactors to the North Koreans in exchange for their abandoning their nuclear weapons program. The problem is they didn't abandon their nuclear weapons program; they just said they did. And in 2002, they admitted as much. Still, to this day, Carter claims that his approach was a success and that it was President Bush's inclusion of North Korea in the famous "axis of evil" speech that led to current leader Kim Jong Il's hostility toward America.

 

[ProfJohn]

More about what Carter may have actually said in the first interview.
link

After a national uproar over the weekend that included a scolding by a White House press spokesman, Carter said on the Today Show that his comments were "careless or misinterpreted."

Carter added that he had been asked a question comparing the foreign policies of the administrations of George W. Bush and Richard M. Nixon, suggesting that the "worst" title was limited to foregn affairs.

But in the audio of the interview, which the Democrat-Gazette posted on its Web site Saturday, Lockwood can be heard asking: "Which president was worse, George W. Bush or Richard Nixon?"

So did he call him the worst ever, or just worse that Nixon?

Either way Carter who was a lousy President is doing a pretty good job of being a lousy ex-President.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Carter is just an angry old man who gets press because he bashes Bush. Just like Sheehan, if he changed his targets to Democrat leaders we would never hear about him again.

:thumbsup:

Sadly, however, Carter is ex-POTUS and his words and actions are seen by many around the world as representative of, and representing, the United States. It is a shame he doesn't take his responsibilities seriously. Then again, look at his record, particularly vis-a-vi foreign affairs. Nothing to write home about, for sure.

So how about a list of Bush43's foreign policy achievements?

Good luck with that. The Bushbots are incapable of actually defending their worship in the White House, so they are busy diverting the thread with personal attacks against Carter. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

Carter was absolutely right, America knows it, the world knows it, even they know it ... and they are desperately trying to bury this truth with a flury of feces flinging.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Carter is just an angry old man who gets press because he bashes Bush. Just like Sheehan, if he changed his targets to Democrat leaders we would never hear about him again.

:thumbsup:

Sadly, however, Carter is ex-POTUS and his words and actions are seen by many around the world as representative of, and representing, the United States. It is a shame he doesn't take his responsibilities seriously. Then again, look at his record, particularly vis-a-vi foreign affairs. Nothing to write home about, for sure.

So how about a list of Bush43's foreign policy achievements?

Good luck with that. The Bushbots are incapable of actually defending their worship in the White House, so they are busy diverting the thread with personal attacks against Carter. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

Carter was absolutely right, America knows it, the world knows it, even they know it ... and they are desperately trying to bury this truth with a flury of feces flinging.

Oh you mean kind of like what you just did in ProfJohns thread? :laugh:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Good luck with that. The Bushbots are incapable of actually defending their worship in the White House, so they are busy diverting the thread with personal attacks against Carter. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

Carter was absolutely right, America knows it, the world knows it, even they know it ... and they are desperately trying to bury this truth with a flury of feces flinging.

Oh you mean kind of like what you just did in ProfJohns thread? :laugh:

Huh? There was nothing to refute. The facts are not in dispute. ProJohn spun them as an excuse to launch yet another empty smear against someone on the left. The only substantive point to make was that his smear was a smear. There was no objective analysis to offer.

But hey, feel free to keep on swinging with your equally empty attacks on me. You can't bat .000 forever. :laugh:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Good luck with that. The Bushbots are incapable of actually defending their worship in the White House, so they are busy diverting the thread with personal attacks against Carter. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

Carter was absolutely right, America knows it, the world knows it, even they know it ... and they are desperately trying to bury this truth with a flury of feces flinging.

Oh you mean kind of like what you just did in ProfJohns thread? :laugh:

Huh? There was nothing to refute. The facts are not in dispute. ProJohn spun them as an excuse to launch yet another empty smear against someone on the left. The only substantive point to make was that his smear was a smear. There was no objective analysis to offer.

But hey, feel free to keep on swinging with your equally empty attacks on me. You can't bat .000 forever. :laugh:

You follow Profjohn around attacking him whenever he posts and then you say "When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger" about the conservatives here, seeing you try to deny this is pretty funny.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your references to NKorea are entirely erroneous, IGBT. They froze their program, which was the original deal, not "abandoning" it as you claimed, in exchange for the light water reactors and fuel oil, etc. until such time as the reactors were completed. Those particular reactors are ill suited for the production of weapons material, and required foreign made fuel rods...

It beat the hell out of starting a war, subjecting our SKorean allies to massive casualties in pursuit of some dreamworld agenda...

In that respect, the Bushistas have done a lot worse by provoking the NKoreans into resuming their efforts, actually developing weapons, then attempting to cover that stupid arrogance with a new agreement, same as the old, except with greater US concessions... basically closing the barn doors after the horses are out....

Kim Jong Il gained face, beat Bush at his own game... apparently got nukes in the process, too...

If that's winning, then we can just declare victory and pull out of Iraq tomorrow...

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More about what Carter may have actually said in the first interview.
link

After a national uproar over the weekend that included a scolding by a White House press spokesman, Carter said on the Today Show that his comments were "careless or misinterpreted."

Carter added that he had been asked a question comparing the foreign policies of the administrations of George W. Bush and Richard M. Nixon, suggesting that the "worst" title was limited to foregn affairs.

But in the audio of the interview, which the Democrat-Gazette posted on its Web site Saturday, Lockwood can be heard asking: "Which president was worse, George W. Bush or Richard Nixon?"

So did he call him the worst ever, or just worse that Nixon?

Either way Carter who was a lousy President is doing a pretty good job of being a lousy ex-President.

What's your answer to the question, PJ-who was a worse President, GWB or Nixon? It's a sad, sad day when an objective opinion can rate any President worse than Nixon, but I think GWB has clearly secured the bottom rung.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Huh? There was nothing to refute. The facts are not in dispute. ProJohn spun them as an excuse to launch yet another empty smear against someone on the left. The only substantive point to make was that his smear was a smear. There was no objective analysis to offer.

But hey, feel free to keep on swinging with your equally empty attacks on me. You can't bat .000 forever. :laugh:

You follow Profjohn around attacking him whenever he posts and then you say "When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger" about the conservatives here, seeing you try to deny this is pretty funny.

Bull. Now you're just making stuff up. I rarely respond to PJ's posts. Not only are they invariably dishonest, mindless parroting of today's anti-Democrat smear or some other GOP propaganda point, but attempting to engage him in productive discussion is a total waste of electrons. His responses are diversions and evasions, just like in this thread. If one finally backs him into a corner, rejecting his diversions and using factual information to refute his claims, he cuts and runs, only to pop up in a new thread a few days later, spouting the same discredited disinformation.

I'll also note that you're engaging in your own exercise in diversions and evasions. You have yet to explain what there was to address in PJ's anti-Edwards smear beyond the fact that it was a smear. Instead you're attacking the messenger, presumably because you're incapable of addressing my message.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Frankly its distressing for a former President to speak against a sitting President like this, but the vileness of the Democrat hatred towards Bush has been so extreme its turned bizarre. I mean, really, Bush does some things to drive us all mad, only Carter is off his meds.

Ever since he got that bogus Nobel peace prize he has been a belligerent little turd that should back to looking for the UFOs he reported having seen.

Getting back on topic, are any of the Bush faithful yet willing or able to refute Carter's criticisms (as opposed to attacking Carter personally)?

 

[BoberFett]

Bush is certainly a terrible president, but I don't know that anybody can say the worst president the US has ever had. Right now he seems like the worst because it's current news and in the public memory. In one or two hundred years he may simply be remembered as just another forgettable president. Polk presided over the unpopular (at the time) Mexican-American war, but how many people get up in arms at the mention of President Polk? Like most people, Bush will end up as a footnote in history.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled spittle covered Bush bashing rant-a-thon.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Bowfinger-

Getting back on topic, are any of the Bush faithful yet willing or able to refute Carter's criticisms (as opposed to attacking Carter personally)?

No, of course not, but that's already been several pages worth of obvious....

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Jimmy Carter's Legacy of Failure...

The fruits of Carter's history with Iran are even more rotten. Carter's abandonment of the shah in 1977-78 helped lead to the Islamic revolution (and the murder or imprisonment of many of the Iranian leftists who had supported overthrowing the shah), the emboldening of the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and the rise of radical Islam worldwide. His botched approach to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 inspired Islamic terrorists all over the world, culminating in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Text

When it comes to the belligerence of North Korea, Carter's past involvement has done considerable damage. In the early 1990s, Carter traveled to North Korea on another of his "peacekeeping missions" and brokered a deal with dictator Kim Il Sung. He did so without the blessing of the Clinton administration, although, at the behest of then-Vice President Al Gore, President Clinton later agreed to adopt Carter's deal. The United States ended up providing aid, oil and, incredibly, material for building light-water nuclear reactors to the North Koreans in exchange for their abandoning their nuclear weapons program. The problem is they didn't abandon their nuclear weapons program; they just said they did. And in 2002, they admitted as much. Still, to this day, Carter claims that his approach was a success and that it was President Bush's inclusion of North Korea in the famous "axis of evil" speech that led to current leader Kim Jong Il's hostility toward America.

From the author of the above tripe . . .

I?m the Northern California Representative for Campus Watch, a program of the foreign policy think tank the Middle East Forum. I?m also a contributing columnist to SFGate.com (San Francisco Chronicle online) and FamilySecurityMatters.org. I've written for Frontpage Magazine, The American Thinker, Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters, Israel National News, J-The Jewish News Weekly of N. CA, The Conservative Voice and others. I'm also the founder of the 9/11 Neocons. More info at CinnamonStillwell.com

Yeah, that's an objective source . . .

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I cringed when I saw Carter immediately backpedal on his criticism. With Clinton neck-deep in the Bush dynasty's invidious good graces, only Carter had the political leverage for honest commentary, and he blew it with his apology.

What's worse is that now the media mandarins have this story arc (and the Israel flap) to hamstring Carter - anything he says in the future will be framed by those things; the frames will overshadow anything else he says, if he even says anything like that again. "Oh, there's old man Carter, spouting off again. Carter has a history of reckless comments..." (cue "dittohead" sound bites)

What was so uplifting about President Carter?s original words was that his ?relevance? in the world IS significant and he speaks to a larger audience than most Americans could ever dream of (look at the news coverage!). To a certain measure his comments validate what so many Americans believe, but are exempt from articulating in such public forums.

The real unspoken rule among pundits these days is not that a former president doesn't criticise a current one, but that criticism of George Bush is out of bounds.

Most of the news media and commentariat have been very protective of Bush since the 2000 campaign and have gone to great lengths to withold scrutiny, let alone criticism of his statements and actions.

Whether they want it or not, this administration needs endless, robust criticism - that they so quickly went on the counterattack showed that Carter's comments hit them hard.

Everybody of stature and standing should be taking shots at Bush, and certainly not taking it back.

 

[Jaskalas]

Carter reminds me of all the other liberals. America = Terrorist, Islamists = best friend. Not really surprising that he?d state his views.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Carter reminds me of all the other liberals. America = Terrorist, Islamists = best friend. Not really surprising that he?d state his views.

I think it's Bush and his supporters = Screwing up America like no others before, Islamists = taking advantage of their screw ups.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Bush is certainly a terrible president, but I don't know that anybody can say the worst president the US has ever had. Right now he seems like the worst because it's current news and in the public memory. In one or two hundred years he may simply be remembered as just another forgettable president. Polk presided over the unpopular (at the time) Mexican-American war, but how many people get up in arms at the mention of President Polk? Like most people, Bush will end up as a footnote in history.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled spittle covered Bush bashing rant-a-thon.

During Carters Presidency we were a lot more inconvienenced, Gas lines due to oil shortages, High Intrest rates and High Inflation and the Iranian Hostage Crisis, none of it really his fault. He has the misfortune of being the President when all our past policies came back to haunt us.

 

[Jhhnn]

A little bit more of the several pages of attacking the messenger, from Jaskalas-

Carter reminds me of all the other liberals. America = Terrorist, Islamists = best friend. Not really surprising that he?d state his views.

Apparently some sort of talk radio induced dementia...

Who's going to actually defend Bush, tell us all about the wonderful things he's done for the country? Come on, fanbois, speak up! Tell us how Carter is wrong, not just that he's wrong, and that the mere mention of his name sets you to foaming and raving in that trademark way that only the uber indignant rightwing can summon form the depths of their self righteousness...

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Carter makes sense.

He's only saying what the rest of the sane world is saying: Bush is a frigging disaster.

I don't care what Carter's particular status is in history books. His mediocrity (look up the word in the dictionary) will make him almost invisible, but he certainly won't be as vilified as Bush Jr.

Interesting to note that Carter is probably much more sincere in his religious beliefs than G.W. Bush has ever been or will ever be. Strangely enough, although Jimmy really goes by the word of the New Testament ( he definitely wears his heart on his sleeve in these matters, and really believes in "Blessed are the peacemakers" etc.) this doesn't make him a iota more popular with some of the resident trolls on this board, although many of them claim to be fervent Christians.

As for those who say he goes too far: I wasn't aware that the great American democratic values forbid the criticizing of the President.

This is what upsets me about many U.S. residents (particularly those on the far right of the political spectrum) - not only do they take the "my country, wright or wrong" attitude to the ridiculous extreme, but they also seem to believe that the President is infallible, almost divine, and cannot be criticized ("we stand by our Leader!")

Not only this is akin to Stalinism (cult of personality) it's also to the detriment of the same values they claim to uphold. And it makes them appear as incredibly stupid in the eyes of the (more sophisticated) world.

So, one more time: Carter is not "looney". He's right. The United States are ruled by an idiot whom history will judge harshly and without political bias.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
So, one more time: Carter is not "looney". He's right. The United States are ruled by an idiot whom history will judge harshly and without political bias.

And who are you to speculate how history will judge GWB?

Do you have a crystal ball we don't know about?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this written somewhere?

No, it was always a gentlemen's agreement, that is, until Carter...And Clinton.

Then again, there was a time that the Oval Office was so revered the POTUS wouldn't dare set foot inside without wearing a suit.

By the way, that's completely wrong.

As shown here