Jimmy Carter Bashes Bush

Just wanted to say I thought this was hilarious.

 

Cohen, I disagree with your remembrances of the Carter Admin. You make it all sound like it was all the Iran hostage thing.

The main issue was 18% inerest rates, high inflation,gas lines and a crappy economy. Also don't underestimate the polling power of the photogenic movie star who ran against him and was predictably brilliant on the tube.

Based on your desire to invade Iraq pronto (despite occasional assertions of neutral fact weighing) I assume you wish that Carter would have invaded Iran and had a "regime change."

Iran is actually a good example of how by not invading and flexing your military might you eventually lead to real opinion change in an enemy and even regime change without the need for long time occupations, and additional deaths, both Middle Eastern and American. Iran is on the cusp of becoming more liberal and open if we can stop our "axis of evil" rhetoric and other counterproductive policies such as unconditional support for the Sharon wing in Israel.

Now I do understand a certain type does like the "tall in the saddle" rhetoric and style of actors like Reagan and weekend cowboys like Bush. I just don't think this was the decisive issue in the election.

I have voted for the Democrats every since McGovern in 1972. It should be noted that I never went to Baylor so I have never been converted to conservatism or right wing Christianity.

I am, however, been getting pretty damned mad at the Demos for being so gutless in opposing the right wingers. So it is good to see Jimmy Carter exert himself in order to try to avoid the neocon's further pissing off almost all our allies by rushing to back out of important agreements on arms control, pollution, land mines etc., not to mention the invasion of Iraq , which they 98% oppose.

Unfortunately I'm afraid Carter is incorrect when he tries to put all the blame for the rush to war on Cheney. Bush, despite his lack of knowlege of foreign affairs should be held accountable. I do understand Carter's desire to play along with the hope that Bush is engaging in thinking independent of the Sharon aligned neocons surrounding Bush.

 

I'll agree with you that redefining words was pretty slimy, and gross. Clinton did lie under oath and that's wrong. Contrary to what Refman said, people do lie under oath about sex in divorce hearings around the country, and are never put in jail. None of us would be put in jail for what Clinton did. In fact none of us would be brought to testify for what Clinton did, Clinton was treated more harshly because of his position not less harshly, by having to testify in the first place. I won't defend Clinton lying, because clearly he did lie, and he was punished for it. Clinton is far from honest.

But I think the problem that some people have is that it ever came to him testifying about it in the first place.

There is a huge difference. Clinton wasn't invading anyone. Clinton wasn't commanding those troops but using them as part of a U.N. force. Bush isn't talking about a strike here and there or a peace keeping force, he's talking about a full scale invasion.

How about the Bush administration inheriting an operation planned under the Clinton administration to take OBL out, but not following through with it?

I think it's obvious in hindsight that both should have done more.

Or how about a Vice President(Cheney) who was selling spare parts to Saddam Hussein while he was a business man. If Saddam is so bad that we have to use unilateral force to remove him, but isn't so bad that he can't be a good business partner then something is wrong. That seems more in line with an impeachable offense than lying about problems with infidelity.

But I think Clinton is right about finding OBL first. We haven't done it yet, and we know that OBL not Hussein is responsible for the attack on the U.S. Yet we don't have OBL or Mullah Omar. Early on it was Bush saying he would do whatever was needed to get OBL, that he would smoke him out and bring OBL to justice dead or alive. But now Bush doesn't talk about that anymore. All we hear is Hussein, who isn't responsible for the WTC disaster. I'm still waiting on Bush to follow through on his bringing in OBL dead or alive promise.

 

1. Clinton had to testify because he was accussed of sexual assault. If you can lie about your sexual history in a sexual assault case (particularly when those allegations were made by prior employees and underlings), then relevant evidence is left out. Those are important facts to a plaintiff in a sexual harrassment suit. It should also be CLEARLY distinguished from a divorce hearing. And quite to the contrary...there have been others who have been sentenced for lying under oath like that about sexual affairs..there was a woman court-martialed for it and sent to prison. This was the freaking president...the commander-in-chief. People go to jail for lying under oath.

2. Wait a second...Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998...that wasn't a UN force, as I remember it. Those were US fighter jets and bombers and cruise missiles streaking across the sky. Just be consistent...if you're gonna call one guy on the carpet for it...do so to the other.

3. I admittedly know little of the Cheney allegations...as for OBL, you're right..both should have done more to get the jackass. And Clinton is right, too...we should get OBL..but that doesn't have to be at the expense of action in Iraq...and for Clinton to make that stance is akin to the pot calling up the kettle on the phone this afternoon and calling him black. But hell...how do we know OBL is alive??? If he's dead, you think they'd let us know?? How about Omar??? You think they'd offer up that info?? OBL was on a freaking dialysis machine...I'm betting the guy is dead, one way or another.

4. You're quick to assume we don't have information that Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm not so quick to assume that. Particularly since we know Al Qaeda is hiding out in northern Iraq right about now.

 

Boy is my wife going to be ticked off when she finds out that her 18 year attempt to convert me to Christianity was accomplished so long ago.

 

glynch--

Do you even read what you post?

Oh yeah...that has a lot to do with Iraq and North Korea.

And when there's another attack you'll be blasting Bush for not being cowboy enough. You talk about Reagan and Bush as though they bring nothing of substance. You may not agree with them, but that's no reason to demean them in such a manner. You have just lost what little credibility you had.

This isn't the Moonies pal. There are a lot of people who are conservative and Christian without being "converted." You talk as though all Christians and conservatives are so because they were liberal pagans who were huddled into a room and programmed. What PRECISELY is wrong with you?

It couldn't possibly be that despite their differences that each side of the aisle sees that the other does bring something to the table? If not, we'd NEVER get anything done in the US. Get real.

The strongest opposition comes from France. Quite bluntly...the anti-Semitic French can go **** themselves. Sorry if you can't understand why they feel the way they do. Enjoy your blinders.

OK...I hold him accountable...he's going to Congress and to our allies to make his case. God forbid we should go through traditional channels. I realize it looks wierd to you...because Clinton NEVER DID!

The end analysis is that you have NO grasp of what is really going on and on how Washington works. You are tied to your ideology and your dogma so you spew the spin you have heard from Cargill and company without stopping to understand what it really means.

 

yeah..because if you vote republican, clearly you were converted to Christianity. i wasn't a christian before..no...it only happened when i went to baylor.

 

1. The petty quote was over the White Water thing . . u know the millions of dollar prosecution that turn up NADDA, NATHAN, NOT A D*MN THING!

2. The Monica Issue was a non issue.

Let's See . ..
Bill Clinton Lie: I did not have sex with that woman
Ron Reagan Lie: I don't recall whether we sold weapons that were eventually used against us to the contra or not.

u right . . those are equal.



Rocket River

 

please show me where I EVER said one lie was worse than the other??? i never did that, so stop jumping to conclusions.

A non-issue?? to who??? Certainly not to the plaintiff in the lawsuit...certainly not to a judicial system that relies on truthfulness, and holding people accountable when they're not truthful...i read an article from a law professor at UH that said that an oath means nothing...that Clinton really didn't do anything wrong because oaths are utterly worthless...there's your legacy, Bill...Congratulations!

 

I am shocked that this much US history has been rewritten in one single thread. The fact that the history in question is very recent is also disturbing. I can tell that most if not all of the inaccuracies are partisan spinning of the facts, so I don't feel the need to correct all that has been written but ...

The root cause for 9/11 attack was the Gulf War. If we had acted unilaterally then, we would have never put military bases in Saudi Arabia. The presence of those military bases in the "sacred holy land of Mecca" lead Bin Laden to putting the USA at the top of his sh*t list, which we now know is a very bad place to be.

At the time of the Gulf War, Bush Sr. built a coalition with the Arab States to fight the war against Sadam. The consensus at the time was that this would help improve our relationships in that region, going forward. The consequence of the coalition is that Sadam would remain in power. With Sadam still a threat, the US bases in Saudi Arabi became permanent at the Saudis request.

My guess is that we will unilaterally take Sadam out and within a year vacate the Saudi bases. Personally, I rather just abandon the bases now and let the Arab States clean up the Sadam mess.

Brian


Remember the person who said "The terrorists hated our love of freedom" was the President of the United States. Bush is either telling one whopper of a lie or he is as dumb as a rock (my vote). Neither is very appealing.

 

I don't mean to excuse Clinton. Like I said he was wrong, and definitely isn't someone I would list on my top ten most honest.

I thought the case was a sexual harassment, and not a sexual assault. Either way it doesn't excuse his lying. I'm not trying to do that, but just to guage the severity of the case. I don't believe an everyday citizen would've been put in the same situation as Clinton was, but if it was an actual assault, then that might be different.

I thought that was in reference to enforcing the UN no-fly zone. Even if it wasn't, it still wasn't a full scale invasion.

But I will be bi-partisan, and bash Clinton for bombing that pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. That's something where someone actually lost their life, and others most likely died from lack of drugs supplied from the plant. If there was a reason to impeach Clinton that was it.

I assume that we should put more resources into finding him, and give that are undivided attention. How are we supposed to handle another job, when we haven't even been able to handle the first one yet. OBL may be dead, but we still don't have any proof that he is. Either way we know that AL Qaeda is still a threat, and Afghanistan isn't yet stable.

I'm guessing they don't have any proof, because if they did, all they would have to do is produce it and all of our European and Middle EAstern allies would have no choice but to join us in our invasion. I would support the invasion wholeheartedly if it was proven that IRaq was behind it.

But Bush hasn't even been able to convince People in his own cabinet that the invasion is necessary. Generals like Schwartzkoff, Powell, and Zinni are all veterans of the Gulf War and don't agree that a unilateral invasion at this time is needed.

I trust war making to these military guys much more than I do to the politicians.

 

1. It won't be unilateral

2. Make no mistake that OBL and his cronies do hate democracy, the same way they hate socialism. They refer to us as unclean...their problems with us arise almost solely from their brand of Islam. It is not a lie to say they hate our love of freedom...particularly freedom as defined through democracy. Plus...good luck rallying your cause by saying, "ok..let's go out and defend those Saudi bases!! woo hoo!!" what kind of leader would do that??

 

1. It was harassment..you're right..i misspoke...but I can assure you past sexual activity with employees and underlings is QUITE relevant in a situation like this...any attorney worth his salt would ask these questions...and they're quite discoverable. I've been involved in a fraudulent transfer case where the judge required my client to reveal sexual history as a way of showing that the two parties had serious ties...that's much less necessary than in a case where sexual harassment is charged.

2. We were told this would be a long war on many fronts...Congress (our elected representatives) bought into it and approved it...in fact, all but one approved it. The hunt for Bin Laden is so different strategically from dealing with Iraq that they're not mutually exclusive.

3. Don't be so sure about if we had proof they'd all join us. Iraq sells oil to Europe in violation of UN rules...the idea of replacing Saddam with a democracy isn't all that appealing to everybody, particular the theocracies of the Middle East. Keep in mind, that is the same region where many believe 9/11 was all just a big Jewish conspiracy.

4. Finally, I don't know how much evidence guys in past administrations have seen...I don't know how much he's shared with them. I know Blair has yet to release all the UK information. I know that we knew a long time ago that Iraqi intelligence operatives were meeting with Al Qaeda guys in the weeks leading up to 9/11. I know Al Qaeda is in northern Iraq right now...

 

Originally posted by glynch
Cohen, I disagree with your remembrances of the Carter Admin. You make it all sound like it was all the Iran hostage thing.

Thats what people resented him for more than anything else.

The main issue was 18% inerest rates, high inflation,gas lines and a crappy economy.

Reagan had nothing to do with Carter's approval rating of 21%.

Also don't underestimate the polling power of the photogenic movie star who ran against him and was predictably brilliant on the tube.

Nice of you to show such confidence in your fellow, apparently shallow, Aemricans.

Based on your desire to invade Iraq pronto (despite occasional assertions of neutral fact weighing) I assume you wish that Carter would have invaded Iran and had a "regime change."

You know, I try to listen you your opinions, from a galaxy far far to-the-left away, with an open mind. You just called me a liar. Your incredibly patronizing attitude to the rest of the world's (or shall I say Americans') opinion's is disgusting and I am fed up.

As far as I'm concerned, you're tuned out.

 

Ref, I rarely see people on the right rushing to check demeaning assults on Clinton or Gore. I agree with you if your overall point is that it is sad so much political debate over the last 12 years has gotten away from critical differences in ideas to run government and public policy issues.

Oh, I see what a non-partisan and balanced model you are, and I see how you really believe in not demeaning people, especially our most recent, elected and re-elected, former President. A guy, like his views or not, like him personally or not (as if most of us have actually met him personally), drug himself and his family through 8 years of crap because he felt the country needed new leadership.

 

welcome to the club

 

I have a quote from these substantive gentlemen:

"There will be no negotiations with the hostage takers."

"Read my lips. No new taxes."


What were you saying about credibility?

Brian

 

Isn't this the typical right wing refrain of 1992. That people were to shallow (dumb) to see through Clinton (and Perot). I openly admit regardless of their political positions, experience and ethics JFK, Reagon, Clinton and GWB all got votes because they appeared better on TV than their opponents--so the claim above is not exactly novel and I think hard to deny actually.

 

wait a second...whoa!!

are you serious??? your boys backed him into raising taxes!!! are you kidding?? and then you turn that around?? unless you voted for Bush based on that promise, you don't have standing to bring this case! if you were one of the ones who thought taxes weren't high enough, you don't get to demean his credibility today.

 

Refman, let's play your game.

An hominem attack. This is a nonrepsonsive insult. It effects your credibility.

Iran was one of the original axis of evil. Do you read the news?

You're getting pretty lathered here. YOu cite no sources. You curse. Your assertion is namecalling designed to silence arguments. Anyone can call anyone else anti-semitic. In fact the supporters of Sharon frequently resort to this if someone opposes them. You refer to one country that you seem to be biased agsinst, what about all the other countries that don't support the invasion of Iraq?

An interesting but irrlelevant point. I was referring to Carter's blaming it all on Cheney, not Bush. That statement had nothing to do with going to congress. Do you even read articles posted or my posts?

Again such personal attacks make make you unpopular on the bbs and make your credibility poor. Try referring to facts or citations.

Cargill?, what is the strange obsession with a grain company in Minn, I believe. It is tied up with your strange obsession with the country of France? Explain this reference to Cargill, which is obscure to everyone, but yourself.