Jimmy Carter

[Topaz]

Do you think former President Carter was wrong when he said that Bush was the worst President? Carter later, explained what he met by his statement which may have been taken out of context. The polls say what 27% still stand behind Bush??

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, Jimmy Carter is certainly qualified to discuss "worst president". However, Warren Harding is widely considered the "worst" US president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ra...ates_Presidents

[B. Max]

It's hard to say who was the biggest embarrassment, Carter or Clinton.

[sharkman]

I've tried to figure out why Jimmy keeps doing stuff like this, as if he's relevant anymore. Do you suppose it's just an attempt to atone for his term and then his drastic failure with Korea?

[August1991]

Former president Jimmy Carter, who has recently emerged as one of the Jewish state's most vocal critics for its current West Bank anti-terror policy, has been the recipient of tens of millions of dollars from Arab sources.

...

But it’s the financing behind Georgia’s Carter Center and the Jimmy Carter Library that raises serious doubts that the former president is, in actuality, a wholly neutral intermediary in the troubled region.

NewsMax has reviewed annual reports that indicate millions of charitable dollars have flowed into the center from His Majesty Sultan Qaboss bin Said Al Said of Oman, Jordan, from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and from the Government of the United Arab Emirates.

Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to the center by the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. H.R.H. Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah of Morocco has also contributed tens of thousands of dollars.

There are no corresponding contributions apparent from Israeli sources, however.

Biased source bound to be rejected out of hand by Leftist posters

[newbie]

Gee August, how would you guess? Yeah, a few more sources might be appropriate.

[newbie]

I've tried to figure out why Jimmy keeps doing stuff like this, as if he's relevant anymore. Do you suppose it's just an attempt to atone for his term and then his drastic failure with Korea?

I think too many forget his accomplishments. But having said that I think Carter wasn't a good president because he was too good for that office.

[Liam]

Agreed -- Carter was a terrible President, but mostly because he was too honest. (To a perhaps an equal degree, his refusal to play along with the entrenched interests in Washington worked against him.)

I think he was right about Bush's presidency in terms of foreign policy. From 2002 to 2004, Bush managed to turn the US government's international image from mostly decent to one of the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses in the world and as nothing more than a protective shell for oil and commercial interests. The Bush Administration's actions must seem godsent to terrorist recruiters. Bush is bin Laden's wet dream of presidents. Add incompletence to that mix and you've got a pretty short summary of what people around the globe now think of our government. Carter, while impolitic in his candor, was 100% right.

[Michael Bluth]

Agreed -- Carter was a terrible President, but mostly because he was too honest. (To a perhaps an equal degree, his refusal to play along with the entrenched interests in Washington worked against him.)

Too principled?

Absolute bullsh*t.

There are far too many tradeoffs that need to be made to earn a major party nomination for any politician to be too principled for the job.

Carter was a weak candidate for the presidency who squeaked by in the general election because of Watergate and the pardon.

Carter didn't perform well as president. Had he freed the hostages in Iran he might have had a slim chance of beating Reagan. He didn't and got crushed...

[gc1765]

Carter didn't perform well as president. Had he freed the hostages in Iran he might have had a slim chance of beating Reagan. He didn't and got crushed...

The hostages were freed on the same day that Reagan was inaugurated. Surely Reagan doesn't get the credit for freeing them?

[Figleaf]

There can be no question that the administration of GWBush is the worst in U.S. history. Any objective observer cannot overlook:

-the illegitimacy of his taking power;

-the lies perpetrated to ramp up war and violence;

-the illegal attack on Iraq which as killed many thousands of Iraqis and several thousand Americans for nothing;

-the shameful squandering of the Clinton surplus reversion to massive deficits;

-the loss of face and respect among nations;

-pissing away America's reputation as a law-abiding, decent country that doesn't abuse human rights;

-the insidious infiltration of superstitious religious nonsense into government; and

-the campaign against freedom and privacy his administration has supervised

just to name a few.

No other president has been so willfully harmful of America's interests as George W. Bush.

[B. Max]

There can be no question that the administration of GWBush is the worst in U.S. history. Any objective observer cannot overlook:

I think your bias has you confusing objective with subjective.

[Shakeyhands]

There can be no question that the administration of GWBush is the worst in U.S. history. Any objective observer cannot overlook:

I think your bias has you confusing objective with subjective.

I think that there 8 things listed there that you could refute if you wanted instead of trying to point to bias. Can you defend the Bush regime from the issues listed?

[newbie]

Carter didn't perform well as president. Had he freed the hostages in Iran he might have had a slim chance of beating Reagan. He didn't and got crushed...

The hostages were freed on the same day that Reagan was inaugurated. Surely Reagan doesn't get the credit for freeing them?

Carter brokered the deal. Another attempt was made prior but the mission failed.

[bush_cheney2004]

...No other president has been so willfully harmful of America's interests as George W. Bush.

Spoken like a true Canadian, and understandably short on American history with 43 presidents.

[Shakeyhands]

ok, lets ignore what his detractors say... what has Bush done that has been good?

Carter shouldn't have opened his mouth, but he was absolutely correct.

[Liam]

Too principled?

Absolute bullsh*t.

There are far too many tradeoffs that need to be made to earn a major party nomination for any politician to be too principled for the job...

Reread my post. I never said he was too principled. I said he was too honest. His sometimes unvarnished telling of the truth about the problems we faced came across as dismal.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think that there 8 things listed there that you could refute if you wanted instead of trying to point to bias. Can you defend the Bush regime from the issues listed?

All can be easily refuted as either unfounded or exceeded in degree by prior administrations. Today's hard-on for George Bush will likely be renewed for the next American president that fails to meet somebody's expectations. And so it goes.

Who was the worst Canadian PM....or does anybody really give a damn?

[Shakeyhands]

I think that there 8 things listed there that you could refute if you wanted instead of trying to point to bias. Can you defend the Bush regime from the issues listed?

All can be easily refuted as either unfounded or exceeded in degree by prior administrations. Today's hard-on for George Bush will likely be replaced by the next American president that fails to meet somebody's expectations. And so it goes.

Who was was the worst Canadian PM....or does anybody really give a damn?

Go ahead and do so then.

and i believe recently Joe Clark or John Turner were the worst, possibly Cambbell.

[bush_cheney2004]

Go ahead and do so then.

and i believe recently Joe Clark or John Turner were the worst, possibly Cambbell.

Allready have on several occasions, but to summarize again:

- The 2004 presidential election was certainly legitimate, as was the USSC's constitutional ruling in 2000.

- FDR interned American citizens by the thousands, and Lincoln suspended constitutional protections.

- The Clinton "surplus" was a projection that never survived recession conditions underway before Bush ever took office.

- America's standing was so great before Bush that ships, embassies, and the WTC were all attacked with great loss of life.

- Religious "superstition" or the lack thereof, are enshrined in the Constitution.

- Privacy and freedom were more restricted before Roe v Wade and the Civil Rights movement

[Topaz]

...No other president has been so willfully harmful of America's interests as George W. Bush.

Spoken like a true Canadian, and understandably short on American history with 43 presidents.

Spoken like a true American, especially a Bush supporter, always right and if I'm wrong, don't admit it!!

[Figleaf]

Go ahead and do so then.

and i believe recently Joe Clark or John Turner were the worst, possibly Cambbell.

Allready have on several occasions, but to summarize again:

- The 2004 presidential election was certainly legitimate, as was the USSC's constitutional ruling in 2000.

- FDR interned American citizens by the thousands, and Lincoln suspended constitutional protections.

- The Clinton "surplus" was a projection that never survived recession conditions underway before Bush ever took office.

- America's standing was so great before Bush that ships, embassies, and the WTC were all attacked with great loss of life.

- Religious "superstition" or the lack thereof, are enshrined in the Constitution.

- Privacy and freedom were more restricted before Roe v Wade and the Civil Rights movement

So, after two or three ludicrous posts, you have finally been provoked into attempting to actually discuss something. On a discussion board! Good for you.

Unfortunately, your responses are merely contradictions of what was said, rather than rising to the level of refutation.

1. The USSC ruling in 2000 was certainly not legitimate. It's obvious if you read their decision that they are talking total nonsense to obtain the desired outcome. They cite the same principle at different points to arrive at two incompatible outcomes -- that the SC both can and cannot intervene in state electoral processes.

Also, here is an analysis by one of America's foremost prosecutors: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi .

The 2004 election was tainted by corrupt practices in the swing state of Ohio, in particular.

2. Your comments about FDR and Lincoln are complete non sequiturs that don't respond to any point raised.

3. You are simply wrong about the Clinton surplus as can be determined by anyone who wishes to look into the matter.

4. Your comment about attacks on the U.S. before Bush is not relevant to the fact that the U.S. has lost reputation among the nations of the world and the law abiding people of the world since the Bush disaster began.

5. Before Bush, the principle of separation of church and state were respected. Bush now openly declares that he makes choices based on his religious impulses. And Bush implemented a policy ('faith-based inititatives') of using taxes to fund prosletyzing.

6. It seems that you are not disputing that Bush has undermined freedom and privacy during his presidency. Good.

Anyway, thanks for coming out.

[bush_cheney2004]

So, after two or three ludicrous posts, you have finally been provoked into attempting to actually discuss something. On a discussion board! Good for you.

Unfortunately, your responses are merely contradictions of what was said, rather than rising to the level of refutation.

Actually, you have demonstrated the contradictions with the passion and bias of impotency in the face of political and historical reality. It is all you (or Carter) have left as President Bush completes a second term. One last spasm of condemnation.....by the man who was also called "worst US president in history".

By definition, the USSC rulings represent constitutional legitimacy, the very thing that you rail against in alleged Bush transgressions.

Your brief life experience during the terms of one president of a foreign country hardly qualifies as perspective or expertise. But you are entitled to an opinion.....good for you!

[B. Max]

name='Figleaf' date='May 22 2007, 04:42 PM' post='221060']

Also, here is an analysis by one of America's foremost prosecutors: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi .

This is just the sour grapes we've been putting up with from the Demorats since Bush won his second term. Bush was right to take it to court and the court was right to stop what was not a recount but was an attempt to decide how people hand voted when it wasn't obvious and change the outcome. Clintons surpus was just as phony. He raised taxes and cut the legs out from under the military. Eight years of Clinton almost detroyed the military, while the Islamic butchers ran around blowing up US interests killing Americans and ended with 911.

[Figleaf]

So, after two or three ludicrous posts, you have finally been provoked into attempting to actually discuss something. On a discussion board! Good for you.

Unfortunately, your responses are merely contradictions of what was said, rather than rising to the level of refutation.

Actually, you have demonstrated the contradictions with the passion and bias of impotency in the face of political and historical reality. It is all you (or Carter) have left as President Bush completes a second term. One last spasm of condemnation.....by the man who was also called "worst US president in history".

Spare us the spew, please.

By definition, the USSC rulings represent constitutional legitimacy,...

No matter how wrong, no matter how corrupt, no matter how partisan, that is technically true. Unless there was 'bad faith'. Did you bother to read the link?

Your brief life experience during the terms of one president of a foreign country hardly qualifies as perspective or expertise.

Would you be interested in knowing your Imbecile Factor for that comment? Or indeed for your whole post?