Carter: Bush Has Brought "international Disgrace"

Former President Carter is urging northern Nevadans to elect his son, Jack, to the Senate to help combat a Bush administration he says has brought "international disgrace" to the country. The former president told a crowd of about 300 on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno today that the nation is more sharply divided that it has ever been as a result of Bush's policies. -AP

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=5473638


*I wonder why people like Carter judge so harshly, when he resided under probably some of the worst years for America...he almost has no right to judge. The sad thing is that some people on the left adopt(ed) his philosophy on government (and some don't even know how lame it is).

*shrug*

 

If anyone knows anything about international disgrace, its Carter *ba rump bump bump*

How's that '94 nuke treaty with N Korea working out, BTW?

 

There ya go Jimmah, always wanted to correct you with that backwoods terrorist appeasing mentality. Now I have

 

I worked with Carters kid at the Chicago board of trade, he is a bigger dope than his dad is.

 

Carter is probably the last honest President we have had and is probably one of the most honest Presidents we have ever had. He is also a very highly respected statesman and mediator the world over. Love or hate his political agenda, he had and has integrity something no President since has had.

Given Carter's generally low political profile (unlike say Clinton) and very high personal integrity (unlike Bush Jr. or Clinton), if Carter said that Bush has tarnished our reputation in the world you can be certain that it is absolutely true.

Remember that long before Bush Sr. and Clinton where stumping for tsunami relief and long before Bush Jr. was trying to spread democracy, Carter was building houses in the third world with his own two hands, mediating talks in political hot spots and helping to over see elections in emerging democracies ALL as a private citizen.

This isn't a conservative or liberal issue. Bush has betrayed his own party and abandoned true conservative ideals. Just look at how many Republican congresspersons up for reelection are running as far away from Bush as possible. Bush is a discrace to both America and to the Republican party.

 

We're having to deal with it today, unfortunately. But hey, he got a Nobel Peace award out of it and North Korea got nuclear weapons. That's a fair trade

 

Wait a minute. Carter was in office from 76-80. What did he have to do w/the Korean thing from '94.

He was and is a highly moral man. Certainly more moral then Clinton and Bush. Didn't seem tough enough for national and international politics.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml

source intentionally provided from newsmax to infuriate liberals But they are welcome to challenge the content.

 

That's a fairly large statement. Personally I think Washington was and will always be our best president (for everything he did before and durning his presidency)....and I don't think I've ever known him to lie. If you examine his ethics in politics and life, he was THE best example of how to be a president.

Honesty doesn't always translate to praticality. A person could give an honest answer and still be wrong.

You may be right, but history frowns upon him. Extremely high unemployeement/inflation, energy policy/philosophy, and did little or nothing to get our people back from Iran. He seems like a UN puppet to me, which isn't respectable.

I do respect his physical labor in helping others. It should be more common among everyone.

I do think he's abandoned some conservative issues...many actually.

I may agree with this in ways, but the messenger isn't one I find reputable. That's just my standards.

 

Could not agree with you more.

 

Didn't carter broker the deal between the Eygptians and Jews to stop fighing

Was that created by carter of did he inherit it?

Wasn't his energy policy like conservation?

 

Couldn't agree with that anymore either. If not for Washington(as President, not to mention what he did with the army), we may not be speaking here as Americans. He held the country togther in the early years and had a chance to take much more power than he did. But he realized how important the decisions the young governmnet made in the early years would be in shaping the future of the nation. He is truly our greatest President.

 

77-81.

6-15%

I wouldn't say it was inherited. Embargoes on oil started ending in 74, all Carter had to do was really focus his attention on monetary policy.



He wished to conserve, but he was the admin that started off the anti-domestic drilling stigma.

I find this funny: Carter 'protested that the Marxists Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo were excluded from the elections.'

 

You so conveniently ignored the most critical word of my statement "one". I said Carter was ONE of the most honest Presidents we have ever had and indeed he was. George Washington's greatness is that he defined the Presidency and did not fall to the temptation to grab power for himself.

Carter's fault was that he was too honest too survive in Washington. He was not willing to compromise his ideals or sell out and as a result accomplished very little on the domestic front. The point is that Carter is not prone to hyperbole and he is not prone to political grandstanding.

As a former President and private citizen, Carter has represented this country very admirably. He has strived to rise above the partisan politics of the day and serves his country when called upon to do so. He is very highly respected and trusted the world over as an honest and trustworthy negotiator. Whether he is mediating talks between two warring factions or overseeing an election, people trust him to be fair and honest. This is something that is not easy to achieve.

History may not look very favorable upon his presidency, but history does and will look back very favorably on the man. What Carter did and did not do to try and free the hostages is a matter of selective memory and historical rewriting for political purposes.

If George Washington was the model for what a president should be, Carter is the model for what a former President should be.

In many ways Clinton did a better job of addressing secular conservative issue than did Bush. While pandering to religious conservatives, Bush has been selling out secular conservative issues.

You had better reevaluate what you just said, by the strictest definitions, the messenger is about as reputable as they come.

 

My critical word was 'most', not 'one'. We've had a lot presidents and my view on honesty may differ from yours.

Washinton's greatness was far bigger than that. While he wasn't of high prowess militarily (ie other general were better than him at times), he kept the military together time and again. When they came to the brink of break up or even contemplating the take-over of the US, he brought them back-in. No president could do what he did, especially with what little he had. Not even Lincoln, whom actually relied more on force...while Washington was just a power of influence.

He oversaw the Constitution being made and his support was the virtual backbone of it being ratified. Constantly the man spoke of a higher ethos in politics, and his cultural influence on his fellow peers are undeniable. He was the ethical alpha-male, which we sorely lack from anyone today.

Trust is overated, especially when one garners the recipent. They may trust you, but can you trust them...often no. One must always access what team a person is on before giving trust to others or appealing to them as trustworthy. Nothing worse than catering to an enemy.


In order to be a leader, you'll have to offend. Direction is offensive.

What I like about George Washinton is that you put him in a situation where there's obviously something wrong on the other side, he didn't crubbling into rhetoric ; but insteady he resolves to address with direction. Leadership isn't rhetoric or anti-perspective, it will always be a man with a good plan.

George Washinton adhorred parties...period. He even admittable told Jefferson that he was more or less of his political convictions, but he knew that the directions had to be taken and that he would support them with his name. He picked the right team for the time, but his views and actions were beyond parties. Independence, civility, and direction...

Yes. Although demographic dictate domestic policy in Bush's political behaviour. More latin immigrants, mean more catholic votes. It's envitable that some of the religious agenda actually solidifies in ways. Oddly it take democrats to give repub religious agenda power [refer to 65 immigration legislation].

Although I could be wrong, and maybe Bush is just doing what he feels is right. *shrug*

When he follows the ethos of Washington and leads (without anti-rhetoric), then I'll take it back.

 

The problem with this whole comment was that NO WHERE did I say that Carter was more honest than or better than Washington. I was not comparing the two in any way. In no way could my comments about Carter being one of the most honest Presidents be interpreted as stating that Carter was more honest than Washington or questioned Washington's integrity. How could anyone one question or belittle what Washington accomplished?

Your comments about Washington are nothing more than an effort to find an argument or difference in opinion that does exist and to make it look like I make a comparison that I do not make.

With rare exception, Carter isn't negotiating between the U.S. and foreign powers. So this is a specious comment. What Carter has done since being President isn't about catering to the enemy. He has worked tirelessly to bring peace to the world and spread democracy in the most personal of ways.

Carter isn't some populous preaching how we should spread peace and democracy; he goes to developing countries and personally works to achieve these goals. Carter's currency to accomplish these objectives is honesty and integrity. No matter where he goes or what parties he is trying to mediate between, everyone knows they can trust Carter to be impartial, honest and fair. In short, when Carter oversees an election in some emerging democracy and certifies the election as an open and fair election, all parties know that they can trust this to be true.

This is not entirely true. A good leader knows how to balance offending with consensus building. Interestingly enough consensus building is one of the most important hallmarks of a good mediator, which Carter has proven to be.

Interestingly I think that oftentimes pandering to religious conservatives has done little to further their agendas. Instead this has worked as a smokescreen to divert attention from other conservative issues. Look at core religious conservative issues and then look at how many have actually been effectively addressed. For that matter look at the religious conservative issues that Bush professes to support and then look at whether Bush can actually do anything substantive to achieve those issues.

He does believe this, the problem is he ignores or reject any information that might question what he wants to believe. Whether it be the science behind global warming or the intelligence on Iraq before the war, he has readily embraced information that supports what he wants to believe regardless of how shaky that information is and discredits any evidence that contradicts his beliefs regardless of how overwhelming that evidence is.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. As a former President, Carter has always led by example and rarely relies on any form of rhetoric. With rare exception we hear very little about Carter or from Carter unless it has something to do with him promoting his humanitarian efforts like Habitat for Humanity. In fact Carter tends to keep a much lower political profile than other former Presidents (particularly Bush Sr. & Clinton).

 

I don't think I asserted you were comparing. I just thought your answer on what made Washington great was rather small. I wasn't suggesting anything (actually), but commenting that he was far more than a sentence compliment.

Too small for me: *shrug*

George Washington's greatness is that he defined the Presidency and did not fall to the temptation to grab power for himself.--you


I was in essense building up my latter comments as well. Giving the basic credentials of a person that most people aren't familiar with (atleast in depth).

I'm going say your making a suggestion here... that seems to be creation not of reality but of your opinion. No such effort is be undertaken. If it was, I would say it directly to you.

Good for him.

I guess this is a matter of opinion for both of us. Not that I agree with the following person's actions (thoroughly), but I thought Lincoln was probably one of the best leader in America. The man was known for brute force, and had little or no consesus on any of his (initial) decisions. Same with Andrew Jackson. Neither really negotiated very well...Andrew almost started the first civil war, but I suppose a few people surrounding him realized a comprimise was needed.

Lincolns only attempts at consesus building were at the beginning of his presidency where he promised a constitutional right to own slaves in the south permanently (with an agreement it wouldn't spread to the west)....but that aside, he was opposing stubborn people, so he became a stubborn person.

This is not to say I like all Lincoln's actions, but he got shit done...like it or not.

Yes, but you must realize he's an exec...if the congress doesn't follow his dictate, he can't really do that much but threaten them with vetoes.

Both parties individually aren't really unified on many specific issues, as that's the nature of a two party system ie put as many similiar interests together and try to work out the best of all. Doesn't always work, though.

Same could be said about the Jefferson's trade embargo or Lincoln's change of mind on giving the forts to the south....both incredibly hated ideas within their own admin, and both had an incredible toll on the society at the time. Stubborn minds aren't good in many cases, but almost all leaders make this mistake everyones and a while. Some aren't as bad as others, obviously.

Refer to 'Washinton Papers'

The Washington ethos (among many maxims of his)"

--Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for tis better to be alone than in bad company

--Strive not with your superiors in arguement, but always submit your judgement to others with modesty.

--Reproach none for the infirmities of nature

--Let your countenace be pleasant but in serious matter let it be grave.

--Speak no Evil of the Absent for it is unjust

--Let your conversation be without malice or envy...and in all causes of passion admit reason to govern.

*Washington wasn't a shit-talker in almost all situations. The Washington ethos (which all political leaders should follow... even myself) is generally that you are civil and descent as much as you can be. You lead and direct, you don't make comments about others that aren't constructive...especially not in their absence.

I suppose Washington's ethos doesn't apply as much today as day's past, because if you acted like an asshole, you would be called out to draw pistols. Look at Hamilton and Burr.

It's the old idea of trying to resolve things with others through direct reason and compassion, and to never go down to the level of degrading others. So many others judge harshly, but what does that contribute to anything?

So much more can be done with real alternatives present. Perhaps a person can draw-up the next Federalists papers or Constitution...that would be a much greater service to our country and our people. Effective, damn straight!

 

My comments about Washington were small because they were off topic. Washington is not the topic of this thread, Carter is. Washington may very well be the greatest president we have ever had. For this thread that is enough said. To discuss him further needs a new thread.

As the President one is the leader of this country and is thus able to many times direct this country by force of will; however on a world level, one is just another leader among many and the leaders of the other countries have their own agendas and national interests that must be their priorities. There are times when a country needs a decisive take charge leader when it comes to domestic affairs, but when it comes to international diplomacy consensus building is the only way to succeed.

When Carter mediated talks between Israel and Egypt he could not force the two sides to agree to peace; he had to build a consensus between the two countries' leaders that this was in their best interests and find common ground that they could both work towards.

Bush's cowboy diplomacy and his "either you are with us or you are against us" attitude has alienated the leadership of a lot of countries who are our natural or traditional allies. Bush has squandered any good will and "moral authority" that resulted from 9/11. Because of Bush's actions and arrogance anti-American sentiment is growing around the world even in countries that are our traditional allies.

On an international stage, cowboy diplomacy and gun boat diplomacy do not work. Good things only happen for our country when our President is willing to build consensus and work to find middle ground. For all his bluster about the "evil empire", even Regan understood the need for negotiation, consensus building and finding middle ground when it came to the Soviet Union. War and the threat of the use of force are not the first options, they are the last options and even then they can not be done unilaterally -- as Bush has done so many times.

Again he was on a domestic stage not an international stage, which are two entirely different things.

Now you are trying to have it both ways. First you say the President has to be forceful and take charge and that building consensus doesn't matter. Now you are saying that the President is just an exec who can't do much if Congress doesn't follow his dictates. Which is it?

In fact your two opposing arguments actually prove my point. Except in extreme circumstances (e.g. the Civil War), no matter how forceful they are, in order to really succeed with their agenda a president must be able to build consensus among the majority of Congress (note not the majority party). Even then it has to be about issues that will really make a difference.

There is zero chance of Bush's "protection of marriage amendment" passing. To stump for this or other similar zero chance religious conservative issues like they are the most important thing is disingenuous to religious conservatives. This diverts attention/time away from conservative issue that can be achieved. There are so many conservative issues that he could build consensus on (even with some Democrats) that would really make a difference in people's lives. Fiscal responsibility, controlling the deficit and the size of government is chief among them.

The size of government has grown much more rapidly under Bush than it did under Clinton and Clinton was able to work with a Republican controlled Congress to eliminate deficit spending. Clinton didn't get everything he wanted, but considering Congress was controlled by the Republicans he did a pretty good job at building consensus to get many of his agendas passed.

Again this proves my point that consensus building is a very important part of being a good leader.


Now then, none of you points address or support the claim that Carter's integrity is in question as was claimed original post. Thus far people are blindly assassinating the character of a really good man without evidence. If the integrity and character of Carter is to be challenged, provide evidence of where he has lied, misrepresented himself or acted without integrity. Will Carter go down as a great President? Not likely; but being a great President and having a great amount of integrity do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Carter may not have been a great President, but his integrity is beyond reproach. He is a good, honest and honorable American who shows the best of what Americans can be to the rest of the world. To besmirch his character in any way is a despicable act.

 

You know what is sort funny comparision

Some right wing people try to blame clinton for 9/11 which happend what , 11 months or whatever into Bushs Presidency

but

But when it comes to the Hostages in Iran that were released like a day into Regan presidency, they don't blame Jimmy

 

Reagan dealt with reasonable leaders in Russia. I don't know what kind-of circumstance we'd see if he lived in the 60's. He might have invaded Cuba.

Of coarse they are, but a president is responsible for looking at both.

No, not necessarily. I disagree with the manner Lincoln did things. I could go deepily into that , but generally speaking he raped the Constitution. His logic was he was 'saving it'.

This is not an either/or world, it's full of many decisions and ways. There's different way to lead, and there all different for every circumstance. Don't put up a Bush chose of 'for or against'....lol.

Generally (but not always):

Build consesus when the situation is open and safe; lead when ever ideas must evolve quickly and the are right as possible; and force when there's no comprimise possible.

You say a lot of things I already know....just noting that.

My point of my former post is that if 'leaders' wish to make changes in America, they should work intimately with the president, and reason as much as possible. Not talk about him as an 'international disgrace', especially when one had their own issue of their time. There lacks a taste of modesty and it does NOTHING to change anything.

It's against my ethics and it's practially useless.

Given Clinton was a bit more friendly to the military, and he was a bit more right....I'm sure he would have been a lot more tolerable to the right.

The circumstance of letting repub legislate with general left leadership isn't a bad idea. Funny that you never hear that the economy was good under a repub house in the 90's....people more or less focus on Clinton, whom does little or nothing in comparison to Congress.

In some cases I revolt at the idea of consesus views...especially in immigration. Both parties are very stubborn on some issues; but sometimes that's necessary.

Look at some of the key issues that consensus has never derived much of anything from....immigration, domestic oil-drilling, SS/medicare, et al. Those are extremely important issues, but a real consesus will probably never derive what's necessary out of them. It will take a real bad thing to happen to prove one-side wins over the other.

That or someone really takes out the whip and gets the ball rolling.

Your setting up the standard, but that isn't your job...'Integrity'
was never the question. That's a complete switch of context.

I merely
said he resided under a very disturbed economic era of America, with not enough leadership or force in the hostage circumstance. Now you can have opinion that is wrong or not, but you can't change the standard. That would either imply one is being dishonest or lazy to assert something by changing the very standard of the circumstance.

Being those negatives resulted durning his presidency, I find it disturbing to hear him judge so harshly when modesty would most definitely better the situation.

Tact and practicality....and perhaps a taste of modesty...

Setting up the standards to judge?

GREAT!!! OMG, there's an idea that might guide you along my thought process.

Again, he doesn't follow the ethos that I respect and he's a leader...so while I'm not following your standards of thoughts, I don't appeal to his comments along with his history.

It's not a matter of your standards...you must go outside of your brain and read what I wrote to understand my standards. This way you can appeal to them in some general sense.