telegraph.co.uk — Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said the Iraq invasion had subverted the fight against terrorism and instead strengthened al-Qaeda and the recruitment of terrorists. In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph newspaper, Carter said that if he had still been president, he would never have considered invading Iraq in 2003.
Aug 27, 2006 View in Crawl 4
radiantbeingAug 28, 2006
@afhanwhiggle, I'm not "blindly insinuating incompetence." To the contrary, I am stating my opinion outright that Jimmy Carter has a terrible record in dealing with rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea. The links to Wikipedia are merely proof or background for people who haven't heard of the Iranian hostage crisis or the Agreed Framework with North Korea. I notice you have only responded with ad hominems. Probably because the facts are not on your side. But perhaps you would like to defend Carter's handling of Iran and North Korea and how these events lend themselves to bolstering his credibility on security matters.
tuna1Aug 28, 2006
I don't think President Carter is a loser, but he sure wasn't the greatest president we've ever had.
Closed AccountAug 28, 2006
@RadientBeingI'm not standing behind Carter and his tatics. Never did. However, it's pretty easy to monday morning QB the situation. What would you have done, is what I was getting at.
aceg1357Aug 28, 2006
i do respect the charitable things jimmy does but when it comes to politics he just doesn't get it, and worst, he is dangerous. Isn't this the same guy that gave a nuclear reactor to North Korea in 1994? Isn't this the guy that supported the islamic revolution (greenbelt policy) in iran because he thought they would be more of a foe to the atheist soviets than people of the book americans. then they turned against america on a dime and captured the US embassy. radical islam got support from good old jimmy in its infancy and now its all grown up.Thanks jimmy but don't be offended when i say PLEASE stay out of politics. You were a terrible president. stick to the humanitarian work
dancpsuAug 28, 2006
@powercowWith that plan, you would have had a massive army that was still loyal to Saddam in place. The massive army would have kept Saddam in hiding (and in power) instead of in jail. The number of troops would have an extremely detrimental effect on the public's view of the war (unless you want to add controlling the media to your plan), although firing Rumsfeld would buy you 3 months. Iran and Syria would still be pushing insurgents into Iraq to attempt to take advantage of the political instability of Iraq, and with more troops as targets, would have killed more U.S. troops.You also haven't addressed border security, the factions (Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds) who all have differing goals, the Imams who would call a large invasion a modern crusade that needs to be met with jihad, and the problems with starting a new economy so that you can pay the local contractors.I don't think Bush made any obvious mistakes in executing the war in Iraq. The mass media has certainly done a far better job in shaping public opinion on the war than the administration, but with a much decreased audience. Future adminsitrations will have to figure out how to deal with public opinion through a much wider variety of media channels, using different tactics. In fact, the terrorist groups have this down very well, and should probably be studied for their effect on the media's reporting of their actions.
bolloxAug 31, 2006
Jimmy Carter was, is, and will continue to be an enemy of the west.What a looney tune!