5/19 Bush "The Worst in History" according to Carter:
http://www.csua.org/u/iq7
\_ Not surprisingly, he's a liberal. !emarkp
\_ "I mean heck, he may even be worse than me now!" Carter added.
\_ Just about everyone I know, assholes, pious people, liberals,
conservatives, libertarians, apolitical people, political
people, think Bush is The Worst In History. Iraq is really
a gigantic fuckup of difficult to fully comprehend
proportions.
\_ You obviously don't know emarkp and his fellows.
\_ I'd be hesitant to call *any* president the worst in history.
Given Carter's ineptitude (not because he's liberal, just
because he's incompetent) he should be a little careful
throwing stones. -emarkp
\_ i don't think anyone can deal with oil embargo
like that gracefully. Further, may I ask, do you think
GW Bush incompetent?
\_ Oil embargo? The one in 73 when Carter wasn't in
office?
\_ *shrug* He followed Ford, whose defining moments were
pardoning Nixon and falling down stairs, and was followed
by Reagan, who proved that popularity has nothing to do
with being a good, let alone honest and effective, leader.
I'd say his glass house has fine foundations.
\_ Ford was actually quite athletic. Don't watch too
much SNL for your history lessons.
\_ As noted here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yun246
I didn't say he was Chevy Chase, I said it was one
of his defining moments. Read or perish.
\_ Not really. Carter's mis-handling of Iran changed the world in
ways Bush's mis-handling of Iraq can't compare to. Had Carter
shown strength instead of weakness it is possible and even quite
likely the concept of terrorism as we know it today wouldn't
even exist. If you're going to make historical claims you must
look at things from a historical perspective.
\_ Wow! Carter did NOT:
- Use torture
- Allow torture of POW's
- Imprison people without trial
- Render people to other countries for torture
- Lie to get the US into a war
- Erode our rights in the name of patriotism
- Allow rampant incompetence and corruption in his
Administration (except possibly HIMSELF if you
argue that his handling of IRAN was incompetent)
- Mishandle a war so badly that the US is failing
its objectives despite massive waste of national
treasure
- Alienate virtually the entire planet
- Allow a massive terrorist attack to occur on US
territory during his administration
- Allow the illegal outing of a CIA agent for
petty political retaliation
UM, WHY AREN'T WE IMPEACHING BUSH AGAIN? HE IS THE
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!
\_ Who are you, Charles Krauthammer? I don't think Iran was
involved in the whole Russia invades Afghanistan->We dump
billions of dollars and weapons on Afghanistan to ensnare
Russia in a War Of Pain->Russia leaves->Russia collapses->
\_ You really think Afghanistan was the root cause of the
collapse of the Soviet Union? After saying this it makes
the rest of what you say hard to take seriously.
\_ I think it helped. Wasnt main cause. Sure didnt hurt!
We forget about Afghanistan-> IT ALL COMES BACK
TD BITES US IN THE ASS-> chain of events. of maybe
Iran helped us channel a few guns to Afghanistan. How
ANY of this would have been changed if we had 'shown strength
\_ Who are you, Charles Krauthammer? I don't think Iran was involved
in the whole Russia invades Afghanistan->We dump billions of
dollars and weapons on Afghanistan to ensnare Russia in a War Of
Pain->Russia leaves->Russia collapses->We forget about Afghanistan->
IT ALL COMES BACK AND BITES US IN THE ASS-> chain of events.
ok maybe Iran helped us channel a few guns to Afghanistan.
How ANY of this would have been changed if we had 'shown strength
in Iran', I do not know. Russia would not have cared. A bunch
of dudes living in caves in Afghanistan would not have cared.
Please explain your Carter fantasy?
of dudes living in caves in Afghanistan would not have cared. Please
explain your Carter fantasy?
\_ Your historical perspective is the one that needs fixing.
\_ Thanks for adding nothing. Maybe next time you'll do
better than "you're wrong, nyah!" but I doubt it.
\_ Look further back: if the CIA hadn't instigated the overthrow
of the democratically elected President of Iran and the
reinstatement of the Shah, extremists like Khomeni would never
have gained widespread support in '79. No Khomeni, no
hostage situation, and no Islamic Revolution running a nuclear
Iran today. Sure, Carter can be blamed for funding Mujahadeen
in Afghanistan, but then you'd have to paint your Saint Ronnie
with the same brush; worse, people might remember that whole
Iran-Contra scandal, and then the hagiography really falls
apart.
\_ The CIA didn't take action in a vacuum. Leaving a pro-
Soviet/anit-US government in Iran may have been worse
than what we got. It is hard to say but I'll grant that
yes Khomeni didn't come out of no where. OTOH, his group
was just as likely to overthrow any non-Islamic government
so it may not have mattered. Reagan is not my saint
anymore than Carter is my satan. They are men. They were
Presidents. They did what they did. I examine their
actions in a historical context. I don't care beyond that.
I don't even see why you'd try to bring anyone else into
it. To defend Carter? Who cares? Boost Reagan? Who
cares? That is completely unimportant trivial political
agenda crap.
\_ The charges of Bolshevism in Iran were frankly baseless.
The UK was upset about Mossadegh nationalizing the AIOC
and convinced Eisenhower to sic the CIA on him. We fell
victim to the whole enemy-of-my-enemy mindset and worked
to reinstate the Shah. (Cf. eerie parallels with Iraq
and Chalabi). While Khomeni's group was anti-non-
Islamic govt., it's unlikely they'd have had the support
they had from ordinary Iranians if it hadn't been for
the brutal repression inflicted by the Shah, and thus
it's unlikely they could have actually overthrown a
democratically elected Iranian govt. descended from
Mossadegh and co.
\_ Terrorism existed long before Carter and will exist long
after we are all dead. It is naive and foolish to believe
after we are all dead. It is niave and foolish to believe
otherwise. Unless you are trying to say something else with
your statement "the concept of terrorism as we know it
today." Do you mean that Carter changed our conception
of terrorism?
\_ "As we know it today". Meaning that I really don't care
if some folks in whatever country get pissed off enough
to take some violent but overall minor action which has
always been going on, as opposed to becoming the new way
of lesser powers to wage war by heavily funding, arming,
training, and supporting people who have nothing better
to do full time than try to do as much damage as possible.
The key difference being that the minor separatist group
is unlikely to ever do much or go anywhere while a group
supported by a state has options and capabilites sufficient
to kill thousands and make real changes.
\_ Um, Al Qaida, 9/11, hijackers, airplanes. WTC.
\_ This is not really a new phenomenea. Just off the
\_ Yeah, exactly. Did you read the thread at all before
posting?
\_ This is not really a new phenomena. Just off the
top of my head I can think of the French supporting
the American Colonial seperatists and the English
\_ and Americans blew up a lot of british in the UK?
then supporting the Southern Confederates. Also,
\_ The SC blew up the French at home?
remember that WWI was started by a terrorist, when
\_ assassin, lone gunman, not part of a multinational
movement with national level support.
he shot Duke Ferdinand. Nations have always waged
proxy war by supporting seperatist groups inside
their rivals. You could argue that the widespread
availability of WMD has changed the equation of
assymetrical warfare, but it is pretty hard to lay
that at the feet of Carter.
\_ One of my favorite historical proxy conflicts was
Rome and Constantinople duking it out in ancient
Romania and Bulgaria. Romanians and Bulgarians are
*still* mad at each other, nearly 1200 years later.
\_ It is not hard to lay the concept of modern terrorism
at Carter's feet. Prior to Carter there were many
nationalist movements but no organised multinational
terrorists funded and supported by various nations
who had vague but large scale goals of "kill all the
people in the west" or some such like we see today.
\_ To "lay it at Carter's feet", you need to show
some underlying cause. "Because it happened
around the same time" is not enough. If
coincidence was evidence, you could say the
Beatles' breakup could be lain at Nixon's feet.
\_ "Those Liverpool cocksuckers...." -RMN
\_ The Jews and the Catholics are still mad at each
other after nearly 2000 years. |
http://csua.com/feed/