Carter's Administration : the Worst in Modern American history

[solidspine]

Saturday, June 07, 2008


Carter's Administration : the Worst in Modern American history
Iran held a presidential "election" the other day, and the "winner" was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the "hard-line" mayor of Tehran. Now the Iran Focus Web site says it has identified Ahmadinejad as a terrorist depicted in a 1979 Associated Press photo "holding the arm of a blindfolded American hostage on the premises of the United States embassy in Tehran."

Let this be a lesson to those who are calling for America to cut and run from Iraq. Jimmy Carter's stunning show of weakness in the face of the Iranians' act of war allowed the mad mullahs to solidify their hold on power, so that a quarter century later they are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening us.
But how did we get to this? Carter's human rights program demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini.
No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders ?about 150 of them ?to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.
By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.
Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held its staff hostage for over a year. Only President Reagan's election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.
Carter's decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years.
And this Democratic idiot still gets air time to spout his garbage!!!!

Carter has been traveling the world these past few years advocating a policy of American weakness, but his legacy should be cause for pause for current officeholders who are inclined to agree. Not only did it create problems and dangers we're still dealing with a quarter century later, it wasn't even good short-term politics. After all, the voters decisively rejected Carter when he sought re-election in 1980.
Four days after the Nobel Committee announced that he would be the 2002 recipient for the Nobel Peace Prize, North Korea announced that it had cheated on an agreement - one which had been negotiated by Carter. North Korea removed seals on cameras installed by the United Nations, kicked out UN arms inspectors, and pretty much attempted to blackmail East Asia with nuclear weapons.
President Carter's crowning achievement was the Camp David Accords which returned the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for the end of a state of war between Israel and Egypt. While the accords ended a shooting war between the two countries, it is worth noting that the agreement was not even negotiated by the Americans - most of the diplomacy having been done by the King of Morocco and the Ceausescu regime in Rumania. Washington DC was simply the money to fund the deal.
President Carter never met a dictator he didn't like. He negotiated with the military junta in Haiti even while human rights groups condemned them. Not that his negotiation led to anything; Haiti remains today what it has remained throughout the post-colonial period - a Caribbean backwater run by military strong men conveniently ignored by the United States. He has run missions to Cuba and Ethiopia as well, providing muted criticism of regimes in exchange for their use of him to legitimize themselves and thwart the efforts of the American administration of the time to isolate or overthrow them.
He has been a self-deluded pawn for dictators, and by the anti-American European left wing.
Carter's refusal to believe that the North Koreans would not be negotiating in good faith has shown that the President is far from globalist: he is naive. Now the current administration must redouble its efforts to prevent "North Korea becoming a nuclear Kmart, complete with blue-light specials," says Jon Wolfsthal, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. At the same time the administration must contain terrorism both within the US and abroad, fight a diplomatic and possibly shooting war with Iraq, as well as handle an economy currently in a bad part of the business cycle and corporate malfeasance not seen on such a scale since the 1930s.
When Carter took office in 1977, he received a moderately growing economy in which inflation was 5.4 percent and interest rates were around 8 percent. When he left office, the Soviets were entrenched in Afghanistan, Iranian students had been holding US State Department personnel and US Marines hostage for 444 days, the American military had been gutted by the administration's post-Vietnam cutbacks, American prestige was in tatters abroad and inflation was in the double digits and interest rates were so high it was impossible for Americans to finance large purchases like homes and cars. Carter's administration is without a doubt the worst in modern American history, yet Carter himself blamed his failures on a "national malaise".
Jimmy Carter was a failure within the United States and the admission of North Korea only shows once again that he is a failure abroad as well.
Why would anyone who can think for themselves want his opinion on anything!

[2ez2brich]

Wait a couple more months bru. I think your friend Bush has claimed this title.

[Ulter]

You really have to go a long way to get more distortion than that. But that's the kind of thing people read now a days. Opinions from armchairviews.com.
You need to start looking at the facts and making up your mind instead of letting people right of Mao tell you what happened.

[bluetwistedsteel]

Originally Posted by 2ez2brich

Wait a couple more months bru. I think your friend Bush has claimed this title.

We'll see. Bush has made mistakes just like every other president but history may be kind to him in the end. Bush has had some bad breaks - the economy unravelling isn't necessarily his fault. The economy is cyclical and it just unravels. Growth is not verticle but long term growth in the US has always been strong and likely will remain strong. Bush's biggest issue by far is the Iraq war. This looks like it was a shitty idea now but what will it look like in 20 years? How about 50 years??? Nobody wants to look outside of the immediate. Did Iraq pose a potential threat to us and were they going to present a threat to us down the road? Probably not to the first question and very likely to the second. After 9/11 Bush said, "If you're a terrorist, you're our enemy. If you harbor terrorists, you're our enemy. If you associate with terrorists, you are our enemy". The American people jumped up and down and said, "lets go kick somebody's ass!" Now that we're in it, everybody wants to pretend they were totally against it from the start. Did they have chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, were the involved with Al Queda? Who knows. But the fact is they were bad news for us and were going to cause us problems in the future. I'm on the fence regarding whether we needed to take the action we did but I'll be interested to see what I think in 20 years. If Iraq is a real democracy (and in some ways even if they aren't) and there are WalMarts, Costco's and McDonalds all over the place in the Middle East then the decision was a good one. We need those Muslims to be content and complacent like Amreicans are because complacent people don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up markets.

	ASS Nelson Montana

[Ulter]

The economy is entirely Bush's fault. His war, his borrowing trillions of dollars, his energy policies, all of it, led to the state we're in. American's jumped up and down and said let's go kick someone's ass and we did. They were in Afganistan. But the neocons wanted Iraq and that led to the entire mess we're in now and will pay for for generations. By trashing the dollar, he's driven up oil prices. By refusing to invest in alternatives. By not giving greater tax incentives to the auto makers to build more hybrids 6 years ago and instead lowering oil company taxes. By scarring the world about our global intentions which again, lowered the worth of the dollar, and the telling them to fuck off if they weren't with him in this debacle.
And on and on. He had the chance to change our dependence on foreign oil after 9-11 when the country was behind him. People were willing to sacrifice for the good of the country. This economic state and need for middle east oil could have all been avoided. But instead he divided the country, divided our allies, emptied the treasury, borrowed trillions from China, and created an environment ripe for the pillage that is taking place by the oil companies.
All that money he blew should have been spent here fixing THIS country. Funding the Corp of Engineers and education. But instead the schools are broke, bridges are collapsing, aid for Katrina has dried up, and we have 4100 dead soldiers, and 50,000 disabily wounded. And why did they die or become disabled? So we could build a Walmart or McDonald's. Yeah, that's worth it.

	ASS Nelson Montana

[bluetwistedsteel]

Believe me, I don't take the blunders lightly. My point was that we'll see how this all looks in 20 years. I'm on the fence because the future safety of the US depends on the next generation in the Middle East to have a life that takes their mind off of the brainwashed hatred they have for Americans. My point of McDonalds, WalMart etal was that when you have a society that is consumer driven and materialistic the PEOPLE become less militant (in general). The US has a policy to spread democracy across the Middle East. Fighting in Afghanistan should have remained the focus but winning there wasn't going to create a free market society in the more developed middle eastern areas. It sucks that people have died for what many believe to be meaningless reasons. I'm too old to have many friends in Iraq but I have freinds that have sons and daughters there and they are scared to death. One of my good friends lost a son AND a nephew. But this war was going to be fought eventually. Is it better now than later? I don't know, which is why I said I'd be curious to know how I'll feel in 20 years. The economy would have unraveled regardless who was in office. The real estate market collapsed on Bush's watch the same way the stock market collapsed at the end of Clintons watch. Overblown priciing and the feeling of invincability led to both collapses. The dept burdon is a very valid point and we'll see how we work our way out of it. It's going to be tough and I do agree that it needs to start with the taxation on oil companies but that's a tricky situation.

[midlifecrisis]

There are PhD's who study politics and hisotry, dedicate thier entire lives to it. And even they say you cant really evaluate a Presidents real contributions or mistakes until years later. They wont tell us about steroids, how bout we not tell them how to write history. Jeez, know your limitations for God sake. No man can know EVERY fucking thing Ulter.

[midlifecrisis]

This is an article about a study of historians during Bush's first term. Its old, but the points made are just as valid today.


Historians vs. George W. Bush
By Robert S. McElvaine
Mr. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College.




Although his approval ratings have slipped somewhat in recent weeks, President George W. Bush still enjoys the overall support of nearly half of the American people. He does not, however, fare nearly so well among professional historians.

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.



Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush’s presidency is only the best since Clinton’s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.

Among the cautions that must be raised about the survey is just what “success” means. Some of the historians rightly pointed out that it would be hard to argue that the Bush presidency has not so far been a political success—or, for that matter that President Bush has not been remarkably successful in achieving his objectives in Congress. But those meanings of success are by no means incompatible with the assessment that the Bush presidency is a disaster. “His presidency has been remarkably successful,” one historian declared, “in its pursuit of disastrous policies.” “I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives,” another commented, “which makes it a disaster for us.”

Additionally, it is, of course, as one respondent rightly noted, “way too early to make a valid comparison (we need another 50 years).” And such an informal survey is plainly not scientifically reliable. Yet the results are so overwhelming and so different from the perceptions of the general public that an attempt to explain and assess their reactions merits our attention. It may be, as one pro-Bush historian said in his or her written response to the poll, “I suspect that this poll will tell us nothing about President Bush’s performance vis-à-vis his peer group, but may confirm what we already know about the current crop of history professors.” The liberal-left proclivities of much of the academic world are well documented, and some observers will dismiss the findings as the mere rantings of a disaffected professoriate. “If historians were the only voters,” another pro-Bush historian noted, “Mr. Gore would have carried 50 states.” It is plain that many liberal academics have the same visceral reaction against the second President Bush that many conservatives did against his immediate predecessor.

[Ulter]

You can't evaluate Bush on one term.

And even they say you cant really evaluate a Presidents real contributions or mistakes until years later.

The very few mistakes, grand mistakes, I listed are not going to need decades to determine. If Bush would have pulled this country together and removed our dependence on foreign oil as his legacy then WHATEVER comes of this war would have never mattered. Because if he had done THAT, and he could have done anything after 9-11, we wouldn't care any more about what happens in the middle east than we do what happens in Bolivia. And we wouldn't need to buy oil from OPEC at $170. We could tell them to kiss off and let the Chinese buy it.

[midlifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Ulter

You can't evaluate Bush on one term.



The very few mistakes, grand mistakes, I listed are not going to need decades to determine. If Bush would have pulled this country together and removed our dependence on foreign oil as his legacy then WHATEVER comes of this war would have never mattered. Because if he had done THAT, and he could have done anything after 9-11, we wouldn't care any more about what happens in the middle east than we do what happens in Bolivia. And we wouldn't need to buy oil from OPEC at $170. We could tell them to kiss off and let the Chinese buy it.

Mistkaes according to you, and according to those who have heralded those so called mistakes to the people, daily, 24x7, for six years!!! Do you not get that there are two different agendas, two different schools of thought, and that these things you call mistakes may not be to everyone? They simply differ from what you and other liberals (media, professors, etc) judge the man by and you get all your info on all these "mistakes" from his detractors?

Im not denying he hasnt been a disappointment to the GOP. But you should be happy he was ineffective as a GOP president with a majority senate. He could have inacted policies you would really find horrific!! But to blame the few policies he did see through for every ill in society is just dishonest and really being blown way out of proportion. If anything, he was mostly ineffective, and democrats should be happy about that!! Its us, his supporters, who got screwed by his LACK of action.

[Ulter]

I didn't list every ill in society. I listed very specific mistakes there were not even mistakes. They were things that did not fit the agenda and things that would not benefit oil companies or the ideology of the neocons at the time. Neocons that oh by the way left Bush because he messed up their messed up plan.

What I wrote is common knowledge, common sense, and does not need to be classified as liberal. You're not a liberal or a conservative if you're agenda is to remove our dependence on foreign oil. That's just common sense good for America.

[2ez2brich]

Originally Posted by bluetwistedsteel

We'll see. Bush has made mistakes just like every other president but history may be kind to him in the end. Bush has had some bad breaks - the economy unravelling isn't necessarily his fault. The economy is cyclical and it just unravels. Growth is not verticle but long term growth in the US has always been strong and likely will remain strong. Bush's biggest issue by far is the Iraq war. This looks like it was a shitty idea now but what will it look like in 20 years? How about 50 years??? Nobody wants to look outside of the immediate. Did Iraq pose a potential threat to us and were they going to present a threat to us down the road? Probably not to the first question and very likely to the second. After 9/11 Bush said, "If you're a terrorist, you're our enemy. If you harbor terrorists, you're our enemy. If you associate with terrorists, you are our enemy". The American people jumped up and down and said, "lets go kick somebody's ass!" Now that we're in it, everybody wants to pretend they were totally against it from the start. Did they have chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, were the involved with Al Queda? Who knows. But the fact is they were bad news for us and were going to cause us problems in the future. I'm on the fence regarding whether we needed to take the action we did but I'll be interested to see what I think in 20 years. If Iraq is a real democracy (and in some ways even if they aren't) and there are WalMarts, Costco's and McDonalds all over the place in the Middle East then the decision was a good one. We need those Muslims to be content and complacent like Amreicans are because complacent people don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up markets.

but all muslims don't strap bombs to themselves bru and it was a shitty idea because we are there under false pretenses.


the issue with the economy is not a coincidence, it's causation.

[bluetwistedsteel]

Originally Posted by 2ez2brich

but all muslims don't strap bombs to themselves bru and it was a shitty idea because we are there under false pretenses.


the issue with the economy is not a coincidence, it's causation.

Obviously all Muslims aren't suicide bombers - it's an ideology that is pervasive among the Muslim population though that those that do martyr themselves are to be esteemed.

We're there under false pretenses???? We're there because they hate us and we wanted to force our will on them. We wanted Sadam out and we wanted his sons to not come into power. We wanted at least a somewhat American friendly government established and we wanted to eliminate a potential future threat. Where are the false pretenses? The whole WMD argument is old and will never see a conclusion. The likelyhood is that there were WMD's at some point but who the hell cares.

Every event has a cause and effect but when it comes to the economy, there are cycles that repeat themselves in spite of our desire to figure out how to control them. In a free market certain facets of our economy got out of balance - that's the beauty of the free market. Those that get lucky or are very astute are able to establish fortunes due to the economy's volatitlity and resiliency. Things are horrible right now but in the next couple of years an opportunity will present itself to change the course of your life. Maybe it's taking advantage of a collapsing real estate market by buying at a bottom and through leverage selling for a 1000% profit. maybe it's buying Washington Mutual stock at $7 and watchint it recover to an all-time high. Maybe it's an alternative fuel company. Who know's. The point I'm making is bleakness creates opportunity. An economy that grows at 5% (great growth by the way) from now until forever would not equal the opportunity that an economy like the one we are currently in will.

[midlifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Ulter