Carter: Bush Has Brought "international Disgrace"

Just be glad that Kennedy was President.

Actually I think even Lincoln would agree with you on this. He came to regret some of the things he did early in his Presidency. Namely he came to regret his suspending of habeas corpus and asked Congress to reinstate it. It's kind of ironic that this has come back to center stage, it would seem that some did not learn their history.

This is why both qualities are required in a good leader.

I realize this. I know many conservatives who are livid with Bush.

Oh like the Republicans including the current President haven't gone out of their way to discredit and distort Clinton's term in office. Might I remind you that contrary to what the Republican revisionists would like us to believe, Clinton did try very hard to go after bin Laden and that the Republican congress stood in his way and ridiculed him for being distracted by a two bit terrorist (this is in the 9/11 commission report).

Carter has every right to criticize Bush if he deems it necessary. Just because he is a former President doesn't mean he gives up this right. He is also uniquely qualified to make his statements in that his is a former President AND given his intimate interaction with the international community via his humanitarian and democracy spreading efforts. Carter has for the most part avoided the political stage in the 25 years since he left office and it is apparent that he feels very strongly about this issue. It would disservice to this country for him to remain silent if he sees something seriously wrong with our leadership. Did not Bush Sr. campaign in a similar way for Bush Jr. in the 2000 election? Should he also have stayed silent? Carter is campaigning for his son just as so many former Presidents before him. This is an accepted and acceptable part of American politics.

Besides it isn't like Carter is making some outlandish revelation. The Bush administration is a disgrace to our country and it has seriously harmed our stature in this world. There can be no question about this. The Iraq war is going badly, bin Laden still roams free, the Taliban are making a come back in Afghanistan and to the rest of the world we (or at least the Bush Administration) lied about Iraq to justify invading that country. Really, Bush's invasion of Iraq holds great parallels to President Polk's invasion of Mexico.

One thing that should be very apparent from looking at the Regan, Clinton and second Bush administrations is that when a Republican controls the Presidency and the Democrats control Congress we have run away spending as the Democrats are only too happy to go along with any spending plan. When either party controls everything we have runaway government as there is no one acting as a check and balance. The only time in the past twenty years when government was reigned in and spending brought under control was when there was a Democrat in the Whitehouse and the Republicans controlled Congress. This seems to be the only time when we have the proper tension between agendas to keep things in check.

There doesn't need to be a consensus among everyone, only the majority. I'm certain there are enough individuals on both sides of the isle that want to find a solution to this problem that a real solution could be had. The problem is that Bush's solution is not palatable to anyone except Mexico and those who depend on cheap illegal labor.

I would agree with this and we probably aren't all that far apart on our stances on these issues.

I don't think a whip is the solution. It will require very astute diplomacy combined with a well laid out plan. Clinton and Bush both tried to force through their agendas on some of the above mentioned issues only to fail miserably by open rebellion in Congress from both sides of the isle. Regan was able to play the political game very well and was able to get many of the things he wanted even with a Democratic controlled Congress. Carter on the other hand could not play the political game very well and even with a Democratic controlled Congress became completely stymied. .

Do you honestly believe that Regan was responsible for the releasing of the Hostages within hours of his being inaugurated? The timing of the release of those hostages could only mean two things, either:

1) There were negotiations going on behind Carter's back by Regan's people, which would have compromised any efforts being made by Carter's administration AND resulted in the hostages being held for longer than they would otherwise just so Regan could bask in the glory of their release under his presidency; OR

2) The Iranians were using the hostages to their maximum political advantage to manipulate the political climate in the U.S. In hopes of getting an administration that was more acceptable in their eyes AND to embarrass Carter.

The ONLY way Carter could have hoped to have gotten the hostages freed earlier would have been via a complete military invasion of Iran, which would have resulted in a war between the two nations and in all likelihood the death of the hostages. Republicans have tried for twenty-five years to spin this for their own political advantage, but Carter did the best that he could and in all likelihood the outcome he got (that being the hostages being release only once Regan had been sworn in) is probably the best possible outcome that could have been realistically achieved with the lowest loss of life.

I am seeing a great amount of hyperbole on this but no evidence presented to support these claims. In short this is easy rhetoric that is being used to unfairly besmirch the character of a good man.

 

In ways, yes. Kennedy was playing a game of poker, which I hope never to see again ie it could have went either way once the bombs were in Cuba. In some ways Kennedy was just lucky the Russians were bluffing. Had it been Stalin,...I think we would have been nuked.

Attacking New York, imprisoning thousands of journalists in the north, occupying three or four states so they wouldn't join the south, and playing games with the south (among the few). Although I'm not going hammer down on him too hard, because he was facing a sitution where comprimise wasn't really the desire.

I look upon many politicians in the same manner, he's just the dog of the day.

Perhaps this is where I think Lincoln-like behaviour is a credible chose. If you can't comprimise or there's no one to reason with, I said brute force is necessary...no matter the consequences one has with their allies. I know that seems like a hindsight comment, but I always thought that you never give or allow quarters to your enemies (unless reason is their only weapon).

Putin said something to this note, 'Regan was just overemphasising communism as 'evil', but Bush isn't overemphasising the current problem with terrorism...they think of us as dirt.'

Calling someone a 'disgrace' is ineffective. You can't pass my point on this...it does nothing.

America needs direction, not opinions.

Campaign on ideas not anti-perspective. Such a vacuum of thought that provokes.

That's why most philosophies e.g communism are unworkable. They shout down against capitalism, yet they don't offer viable alternatives. Capitalism won against communism, and yet the level of anti-communism thought isn't what won it, it's that the practicality of it that is undeniable.

Am I making any sense at all in this? I want you to understand what I mean...

It's good to say, but what now? Where do we go from here? It's a waste of my time to listen to 'anti perspective'....it will do nothing for this country. Disagree with reason and give direction.

Well, very vaguely. Mexico had a liberal policy on immigration to texas, and the white people in texas broke off to America. Polk wanted the west, and he got it the only way possible, by support Texas's right to leave Mexico. Thus the war, and Mexico getting it in the ass, so to speak.

Mexican aren't bad people (for most part), but their politicians are horrendous, though. I'd say that's partly their own. Iraq is just a mesh of hatred...some of them a decent but there's significant amounts that will just kill to kill.

It's all linked to the gold standard. Politicians will do whatever they can with the power they have.

Yes, and no. Clinton used SS surplus to pay off 200 billion of the debt...then the rest of that debt eraser came from killing our military size and intelligience agencies. I disagree with his methods...I guess that's all I'm saying.

It's sad that's the best we can get.

Don't blame Bush, blame Congress. Bush is just a cog. Democrats want cheap votes (and more representation...which they're getting), and only percentage of the repub party wants cheap labor.

92% of the house repubs voted enforcement first.
21 of the repub senate vote for amnesty.

The democrats were fairly one-sided on this issue. I'd say repub leadership and democrats generally have their own agenda in mind.

Or perhaps it's really 'compassion' and I'm being harsh.

Thanks, exactly what I would like out of him. The first one to do, and the second one to work-on as a 'leader'.

I didn't say that. No.

Much more likely closer to this.

Carter saw this all coming. He would be fairly off not to realize something big was going down. He started in 77, and the revolution was starting around that time. Carter should have known absolutely everything go on in that country, and the moment in time in which flight of the shah may have occurred. What exactly do you think a president should do when some of his people are residing in a country where there's a huge vaccum of power, and the people whom will most likely to take it over are extremely muslims?

You get them out...you close down shop even before the shit goes down. You anticipate the worst. That's just common sense. I suppose that's too much to ask?

Lincoln did it the opposite way...as many deaths as necessary, but his action pretty much destroyed slavery and set-up a set of constitutional rights that blacks would have never even remotely enjoyed for perhaps another hundred years without that war...definetly not by voluntary legislation. They had to force the south into the 13th and 14th amendment...or they had to wait it out. Lincoln chose the path which by chance gave him the high road in history.

If Carter invaded, is it conceiveable that we wouldn't be having this scary countdown against Iran, currently? Iran itself was the center of reemgerging extremism...a great deal of extremism is caused by oil rich countries investing into extreme thoughts in schooling. My thoughts aren't meant to say we should have attacked but rather Lincoln's violence did actually produce some good out of it...and maybe Carter could have cause some good as well. But one will never know.

 

It was the most dangerous game of poker the world has ever seen. One twitchy sub commander on either side and it would have been all over. The world was really very lucky.

It is one point in history where we really can't play arm chair quarterback and it is really hard to second guess how things should have been done. All we can do is be thankful things turned out well and strive to make sure it never happens again.

While many displease the opposite party, rarely does one cause this much division in their own party.

Unilateral actions in this world can cause more problems then they cure. While diplomacy can allow time for small problems to grow into bigger problems, building international support first is important in that it sets precedents for other countries to follow. If countries must first build international support before invading or attacking another country it might just help reduce the total number of conflicts in the world.

When I was going to a military high school, our military science instructors (all retired cornels and Vietnam vets) continually taught us that war was the result of the failure of diplomacy. Their lectures were very clear, it is politicians that send us to war and if they do send us to war then they failed in their diplomatic responsibilities. Now this was at a time long before bin Laden and his kind; however, in many respects these lectures still hold true as I'll point out below.

See my comments below.

All of the right wing talking heads should take this to heart.

The Republican party needs to be reminded of this especially the next time they try to spread some revisionist history.

Again this is not what we saw from the right wing in the last few elections.

Oh I don't disagree with you, but I also see the need to call a spade a spade and people need to look at the reality around them. Sometimes this means pointing something out like Carter supposedly did. I have no doubt in my mind that Bush will go down as one of our worst Presidents and the damage he has done to our country will take decades or generations to undo.

I was referring to Polk misleading the country about the circumstances to convince the country that we had to go to war to defend ourselves when all along he wanted to invade Mexico so that he could annex the northern half of it. This misinformation and abuse of patriotic sentiment have some amazing parallels between our invasion of Mexico and our invasion of Iraq.

Clinton did not initiate any of this. We simply followed through on the policies laid out by his predecessor George Bush Sr. We also shouldn't fall for the SS surplus paying for the debt scam. This is a falsehood. Every dollar ever borrowed from the SS surplus to pay for debt (it is happening today) is covered by treasury bills. This means that any money's borrowed from the SS surplus must be repaid with interest. From one aspect this is good in that it helps to inflation proof the surplus.

The deficit was erased and the debt began to be paid down due to a very serious effort by Clinton and congress to get serious about this issue and cut spending through many different means. It also came about because they actively worked to control the growth of government. This allowed tax revenues to increase at a faster rate than did the size of the federal government helping to further improve the fiscal picture.

The first thing Bush did when he got into office was to push for tax cuts using any excuse he could to justify the cuts. We then proceeded to invade two countries, which drove up spending (but the tax cuts stayed). On top of this the size of the federal government has ballooned under Bush. All this has done is saddle future generations with mountains of new debt that will have to be paid down.

Sound fiscal policy should be pay as you go. If we needed to fund a war, the tax cuts should have been repealed. The military budget also shouldn't have been stuffed with earmarks for big defense spending projects the military did not want.

 

I'm a bit unfamiliar with when they got the nukes on Cuba...do you know when? Would have it been safer, 'technically', if Kennedy invaded Cuba before those missiles got on to Cuban land?

Just a question in my mind; despite that things turned out okay...except for the Cubans.

YES! Part of my reasoning on why immigration reform must be done properly...different subject, though.

I still have a problem with organization such as the UN, because of there rather corrupt actions and they almost have no consequences. Even with our allies it would have been hard to come up with a consesus view on Iraq. I say this because the bulk of the funds for Oil for Food were in ally banks e.g France, so they were deeply invested in peace. Again, I'm not argue for the war, I'm just saying the conflicts of the UN as a neutral forum are in question. Fundamentally diplomacy should be the number one issue for countries in total, but we desperately need to reform the UN's format to prevent such discrepancies.

Everyone, even myself.

This is a cultural phenomena reaching the bulk of America. It isn't a Republican issue, it's a philosophical issue. Almost everyone can apply it if they don't pay attention. As I say, with every negative there must be a positive ie if you refute, remember to reform--compose--and contribute.

Maybe for you, not for me. It will either be a policy for my late 70's or it won't exist.

Clinton was serious about the issue, and he didn't have a Congress of buddies...so it was actually a good situation to make change. I would have done it differently,...but that's a whole different subject.

The man doesn't believe in a veto...lol. Discretional and non-discretional spending is complicate, though. Congress has to really be kicked in the balls in order to rein things in. Americans generally don't take debt serious enough, because we don't truely know when the limits are.

Well, somewhat. Depends on the nation ones from, and congress has attempted to decrease the time. Bush isn't interested in work enforcement. No Bush supporter (except the very, very, very, few) will like him on this. They might generally agree with what he wants, but not with what he did.

You are thanking the Republicans in the House for this. Just noting.

In Maine? I though maine was mostly white.


96.9% white...wow (just looked it up). Must be the cold weather. Do you have European immigrants or Canadians....not many minority immigrants. I know plenty,...legal and illegal.

I do lean to them wanting this to happen. Every liberalization of American immigration policy has moved our country more left (in ways). Our country was extremely racists, even towards our eastern europeans at our inception (we thought they were backward).

Yeah, I know. The end of British imperialism everywhere.

38' changed everything. Black gold is the liquid devil.

It's too bad that one asshole is always replace by another. Well, not always, but mostly.

Sadly where ever there's excessive oil, there's an oppresive or power hungry government. I don't know the inner workings of Islam, but like the bible (which was wildly abused in it's older days), it's at a stage where the worst of intepretations are being formented by elites. It's a proxy war...

The equilibrium is a bit different, yes.

Bush and his admin should have talks with Iran and quit the rhetoric. I've said this many times. If he attempts this, and years past and the situation doesn't change...then atleast we gave it the ole college try.

International law only really implies that they keep all open acess to these technologies (through a constant international inspector)...I suppose the sad lessons of NK have taught us a bit on not trusting certain people. They really don't need Nucleur technology.

I wouldn't trust them either way, but if I was Bush I would talk to them as long as I could.

Many are said to disagree with their leaders.

 

The problem was that any attack by either side would have quickly spread to direct attacks on each other's countries. That thing could have gone nuclear so easily. I don't know how Kennedy did it. It took a realy cool head and nerves of steel.

I don't think that event had any impact on the Cuban situation. The exile Cuban community, which in a large part is made up of those who were profiting off of the rest of the country before Castro are the main reason we haven't lifted sanctions against Cuba. Well that and the fact we would have to admit that Castro won. After forty some years, I think it is time we swallowed some pride.

It has some problems to be sure, but we'll never know how many wars we didn't see because there was some sort of process in place to try and solve complex international issues peacefully.

Really, Iraq was more of a regional problem than a real threat to the U.S. Our interests would have been better served focusing on Afghanistan to eliminate bin Laden and building that country up such that its farmers could shift from the production of poppies to other cash crops.

It wasn't that they were invested in peace but the status quo.

Absolutely, the UN needs reform.

I don't honestly believe that SS will still exist in thirty or forty years. It is built on a fundamentally flawed structure that in any other situation would have been labeled a Ponzi scheme. The baby boom bubble is going to bankrupt SS.

At least they addressed the issue and made progress on it. I really look at our national debt as a very serious drag on our economy that needs to be addressed for our long term economic well being. How much taxpayer money is being wasted on simply paying on interest to service our debt?

This really shouldn't be a conservative issue or a liberal issue. It should be a national issue. Tax dollars spent on interest payments to service the debt is wasted money that could have been better spent on education, social programs and/or infrastructure.

What religious conservatives need to realize that regardless of the lip service Bush gives to them, the only true "constituency" that Bush cares about is big business. He has sold out our environment, ignored scientists and turned his back on the needs of working people whenever those interests conflicted with the desires of big business. Failing to enforce labor laws as it applies to illegal immigrants is an example of this. It isn't that American's won't do those jobs; it's that they won't do them for slave labor wages.

I don't judge based on party loyalties, I judge based on results. The House Republicans saw the order in which this issue must be resolved in order for there to be a real resolution to this issue.

Maine's immigrant population is very diverse, but two of its larger population bases are Russian (including former Soviet Republics) and Somali. Our Hispanic population is almost non-existent. There is also a large Franco-American population but they have been here for generations. I'd wager the vast majority of our immigrant population is here legally.


The Somali population is a recent phenomenon, most first came to the U.S. as political/ethnic refugees through cities like Atlanta Georgia. They literally started moving to Maine when the first Somalis to move here discovered this was a great place to raise a family and they learned that Maine was 96.9% white.

As bizarre as it sounds they moved here because they didn't want the Black American culture to corrupt their children. Although they embrace many things about America, they have also strived to maintain their cultural identity. For instance, Somali women always dress in traditional Somali clothing

In the first couple of years their integration into life here was a little bumpy in part because they came in such vast numbers that it stressed our social infrastructure (e.g. housing, language services, social services, etc.). They first started moving to Portland Maine but then started to move to Lewiston Maine when they discovered how much more plentiful housing was there compared to Portland. After the initial bumpy start things smoothed out for the Somali population and they have actually started to breath life into Lewiston, which was a struggling mill town that had lost a large part of its population due to mill closings.

The Communities of Portland and Lewiston, which have the bulk of Maine's immigrant population have really worked very hard to embrace the needs of recent immigrants (especially the refugees) and to help get them integrated into our society. For instance interpreter services are provided for all social services when needed (e.g. hospitals). Also the city of Portland routinely publishes things like bus schedules in Russian, Somali, Swahili, etc. This has been really key towards being able to integrate recent immigrants while they learn English.

I don't know if it has moved us more "left" but it has helped make us a more tolerant society. The great thing about Portland and Lewiston Maine is that they have become very protective of their emerging diversity.

Legal immigration is good for our country but liberalization of immigration policy should not play favorites. For instance a Russian, Somali, Lebanese or Mexican should all have the same legal opportunity to enter this country.

It really is. The best way for us to resolve a lot of our problems is to develop alternative energies and wean our selves off of oil so that don't feel the need to meddle in the Middle East just to protect our supply of oil. Really it is our constant meddling in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing that is causing us these problems. Our international policies don't look at what is really the best for the peoples of those countries. Our policies only care about keeping the oil flowing.

For some twenty-five years we have tried to isolate Iran and what has it accomplished? Nothing; it is time for a new tactic. If nothing else moderating our stance about Iran and negotiating with them might just throw the hardliners off balance.

Except that from their viewpoint they are surrounded by nuclear armed countries who are or easily could be adversaries (e.g. Israel, Pakistan and India). Quite simply they don't want to be caught bringing a knife to a gun fight. The only way to convince them they don't need a nuclear weapons program is to stop threatening their domestic security. Our invasion of Iraq sent a very strong message to Iran (and North Korea for that matter) and the outcome of that message was not what we wanted.

We don't need to trust them, but talks could at least provide an opportunity to resolve issues.

Iran is ripe for change if we would just step back and let the Iranian people do it on their own without our meddling.

 

I will say one thing about you KLB,...there's quite a bit of talk in this forum that really leaves me to believe that people will vote in the Armageddon, but you are definitely one of those exceptions.

I'd say our differences are fairly minimal.

 

Coming from one of the worst presidents in the history of the country. Doesn't mean alot. The world laughed at him when he was Pres. Didn't do a #%!*#*% thing when the Hostages were taken. Idiot.

 

Most of these political and religious threads make me shake my head in disbelief. It just seems people aren't willing to open their minds and think.

[edit]I think post #27 just proved your point.[/edit]

If people did start to think for themselves instead of voting down party lines and spewing their party's talking points, politics as we know it would be over with. Politicians would actually have to get down to the business of solving problems and serving the people.

Politics is not black or white and no party has a monopoly on the "truth". I'd really like to see a strong third party as this would force parties to "reach across the isle" and find commonalities in order to get things done.

Although Bush Jr. has left me wondering, I really don't think that any Presidency is entirely bad or entirely good. Even Nixon did some great things for our country; they have just gotten overlooked because of Watergate.

As much as anything, I think that Carter was the victim of circumstance. Although there may have been some serious failings with his domestic agenda, I don't think he could have avoided or done anything differently in regards to the one issue that his Presidency has been most stained by -- the Iranian hostage crisis. What's really sad is that this issue has eclipsed the success he had with the Camp David talks between Israel and Egypt. Almost thirty years later Israel and Egypt are still at peace. For the Middle East this is amazing.

I'd agree. I think that this just proves that if people would get past party and political labels there is a lot more commonality between different groups than we are led to believe.

 

Every American citizen has the right to judge the performance of the Government.

Americans should be ashamed of what they have let the Bush clan get away with.