What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
110 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -25/+53Carter was one of the most ineffective presidents in history.
However, his point is still salient. The Iraq war has been one of the largest strategic blunders in the history of warfare. Not only are we losing, but we made our regional foe, Iran, several times stronger in the process. We failed to achieve our goal and exacerbated regional issues at the same time. Unlike Vietnam (which was always a foe of China), the loss in Iraq will have extreme geopolitical ramifications well beyond its region for decades to come.
It's hard to comprehend how misguided we were in beginning this war. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+48I'm not sure what you people base your hatred of Carter on. He's a guy who has spent his life working toward diplomatic solutions for our world's problems. If he had been listened to, we would not be in this mess. I can't quite figure out how you can even TRY to blame him for the mess Bush got us in, but that seems to be the Republican way to address these problems, just blame the guys from years ago who had nothing to do with it. I wonder if Bush will ever be held accountable for his policies? Why bother, when you can blame Carter?
P.S. Iraq IS the biggest blunder of US history. With any luck those responsible will go to jail. - ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -15/+43You're blaming Iran on Carter?
The Iranian mess started when the Eisenhower administration helped overthrow democracy in Iran and start this ***** extremist Muslim *****.. and for what. Oil.
Carter just didn't want to get neck deep into middle-eastern affairs, and I can't say I blame him. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22So objective means ignoring all of the bad stuff that your government is doing because it makes them look bad while Fox News ignores all of the bad stuff that your government is doing and quite literally invents their own news? Funk that.
Anyway, Carter's not to blame for the Iran Hostage Crisis, but the Iran Hostage Crisis is directly to blame for claims of his "inefficiency." Eisenhower was to blame for the Iran Hostage Crisis. Carter just had no way to handle it without killing a bunch of college students and completely destroying any hope for diplomacy in the future. Carter's lack of economic pressure and negotiations that secured the release of many of the prisoners did most of the work. The rest came from Iraq's invasion.
Think about it. A group of college students takes over the embassy and spares the hostages they take. They release a fifth of them through negotiations. He made an attempt to stage a black ops rescue, but a ***** sandstorm took out every single one of your staging craft. A SANDSTORM! Give me a break.
Reagan got all of the credit for something that Saddam Hussein and Jimmy Carter managed. Meanwhile, Reagan is selling weapons under the table to a group he has broken off all diplomatic ties to.
Not that simple.
@iceperson
You mean no oversight as in the inspectors that George W. Bush REMOVED FROM NORTH KOREA? Face it, North Korea had ceased nuclear research, when Bush pulled the inspectors out, he started again. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22geekee:
>That worked out well during the hostage crisis. Reagan getting elected to office is what eventually led to the release of the hostages.
That's true, since they were released twenty minutes after Reagan's inaugural address.
For those keeping track at home, Bush isn't responsible for 9/11, nine months into his presidency, Clinton IS responsible for the first WTC bombing just a few weeks into his presidency, and Carter ISN'T responsible for the freeing of the hostages, but Reagan IS somehow responsible for the freeing of the hostages only 20 minutes into his presidency. It's Republi-logic For Kids. - rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@appleann1
Carter screwed up Iran? Really? How did he do that when he wasn't even President in the 50's when the CIA overthrew a functioning democracy and installed a brutal dictator because (god forbid) the Iranians thought that they should profit from their own natural resources. That's when Iran really got ***** up, not when Carter was President--he was just dealing with the blow back of someone else's ***** up.
No what Carter ***** up was Afghanistan--blame him for that, and we're still dealing with the blow back of that disaster. - ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Yeah so ineffective. He only managed to broker peace between the Egyptians and Jews... and he didn't have to part a sea!
Carter > Moses? Think about it. - kooft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@SFS
In all fairness, Truman gets some of the blame (as do the British), but your point is right on the money. Carter didn't install Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, that was a seed that grew under the oppression doled out by the Shah. Not to say there weren't Islamic radicals in Iran at the time, it's just that they weren't bent on taking over the country at the time (as they didn't have any pressing reasons). - Krakn3Dfx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17It's sad to see people defend the liar in office now in favor of a man who, while he may not have had the most successful presidency, at least tried to offer the American people the truth while he was in office. I'm pretty sure in 25 years you won't see GWB traveling across the world trying to garner peace and environmental initiatives that will help to improve our way of life and the world around us. It's pathetic that anyone would criticize a man who tried to make a difference, regardless of the outcome and circumstances of the time.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17@turgor
There's nothing in your link to support your assertion that Carter helped create this mess.
There's a little about how this mess was created in this link, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi - killj0y, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I will readily admit that Jimmy Carter was not able to handle the Presidency, but he was the last President to have even a shred of integrity. And as for foreign policy, he did manage to broker peace between Egypt & Isreal.
P.S. Yes, I was alive during his term. - TexMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13You may not like what President Carter says but his statment is true. Also one of our greatests western military historians also agrees. Martin Van Creveld has said about Iraq: "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them" I have been to one of his lectures and let me tell you this man is sharp. But don't take my word for it, the US Army thinks so much of him that his book "The Transformation of War" has be put into military doctrine.
Way to FUBAR IRAQ Neocons............. - m00dc0ntr0l, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I second ScornForSega on this one. To be so stupifying myopic as to think that Carter was anything other than bad foreign policy on the part of his predecessor is, well, stupifyingly myopic.
And to pretend like Iran didn't play right into our election, releasing the hostages to Reagan instead of Carter . . . you're in need of a history lesson. The Iranians played our country like a fiddle, and you're singing right along with them. Good for you. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"That worked out well during the hostage crisis. Reagan getting elected to office is what eventually led to the release of the hostages."
Wrong. Saddam Hussein invading Iran led to the release of the hostages. - lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Hands down? no.
Have you ANY knowledge of Warren G. Harding?
He is BY FAR regarded as the worst president hands down. - xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11If anything, Carter was the victim of a previous American+British screw up over oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
Iran democratically elected a leader who wanted to nationalize their oil because (now) BP wouldn't pay Iran what they wanted for the oil coming out of Iran. Long story short: CIA overthrows the government & installs a dictator, iranians eventually revolt, iranians harbor ill will towards US.
Now, over all, I like Ike. But this was a blunder that's came back to bite us in the ass. If the iranians had waited a few more years to revolt, people would be blaming Reagon.
edit: others beat me to it. - xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There's another difference. Most Americans support the attack on Afghanistan. If (when) that fails, Bush is at a position similar to Carter. Iraq is a whole different ball game. If we had put into Afghanistan what we put into Iraq + Afghanistan and not attacked Iraq until there was success in Afghanistan (or ever), we might have fared better in both countries.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but similar situations will arise in the future. Every generation here has its war. - MaxUdargo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Carter's presidency didn't go well, largely for reasons beyond his control, and largely because he tried to drive a stake through the heart of pork-barrel politics and alienated almost every powerful player in Washington, but his failures don't even come close to the disasterous administration of George W. Bush.
Carter didn't create the revolutionary situation in Iran, but he did orchestrate the greatest breakthrough in the history of Arab-Israeli relations with the Camp David accords. Getting Egypt to recognize Israel and Begin and Sadat working together was what Carter will always be remembered for. No matter how bad things have been subsequently in terms of the Israel/Palestininian problem, they would be much, much worse had Carter, Begin and Sadat not taken the dramatic steps they did.
So don't compare Carter to Bush. Carter wasn't the greatest president, but he certainly wasn't the worst. Bush, on the other hand, is a top contender for Worst American President Ever. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I would agree with you if I had EVER heard a winning plan for Iraq. Everything I see pretty much calls for more of the same, which obviously isn't working. As Einstein said, the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
- Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I saw a recent interview with Carter on PBS and came away very impressed. The guy knows what is going on in the Middle East. Because of his criticism of Israel however, there is a smear campaign going against him. Wake up America!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You're committing the tu quoque fallacy. It doesn't matter how effective or ineffective Carter (or any other president) was, it doesn't improve Bush's standing.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Funny, I'm 23 and I grew up with Islamic terror, too. Get over yourself.
Think about what the Iranians are learning in school. They don't have anything to hide about the overthrow of Mossadehq because we're the ones responsible.
Think of it this way. In Japan, they teach school children that they were bombed by the United States. They do not teach kids that they invaded Manchuria and China, kidnapped their women, and sold them into sexual slavery. So Japanese students grow up thinking of Japan as the product of a power-hungry Emperor and a grossly overreactive United States.
In the United States, we have the same problem. We cover Eisenhower but never mention that we overthrew their government. We cover Truman but never mention that Japan offered a surrender. Nor do we mention that we wiped out 69% of their infrastructure with constant firebombing BEFORE we dropped nukes.
Think critically the next time you try to get a historical perspective. Little exists in a vacuum, and just because your schoolbook and the television tell you one thing, does not mean that a different perspective may actually have the right of way on some matters that seem unconscionable. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8ice:
>Wow. You really don't know anything about the Iran Hostage crisis do you?
Come on, Ice, give us something substantive. Tell us how Reagan was responsible for the Algiers Accord for example. - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Where is this "fanatical left" of which you speak? This page seems to have mostly fanatical right wingers.
- heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Kill the messenger! Kill the messenger!
Then it is OK to ignore the message, right guys? - kuejon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@JJsays
inventing reality... interesting. Just what the current administration did to get into Iraq! Bush administration outright lied to the american people so that they could go into Iraq. There's no denying that. Lies got us into this current mess! No WMD's... but tons of money for american oil interests as well as defense contractors. Sad to think of the scale of loss of life that has happened and will happen just for greed and lies. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"It's hard to comprehend how misguided we were in beginning this war."
What "we" are you talking about? Half this damn country didn't WANT to go to war in Iraq. But we were left in the dust while freaky warmongering ***** who pollute our country's soil were trumpeting their warsongs. *We* were still concerned with meting out justice to Bin Laden (who happens to still be waltzing free in the backcountry of Afghanistan).
Please, do not group me or anyone like me in with the "we" who wanted this damn war. - scottc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Like any other President, Bush and Carter will both be blamed for the outcome of events that they dealt with while in office, whether or not they started the problems and whether or not they had the means to solve the problems. That's due to the short-sightedness of the public and the media.
The major difference between the problems of the Bush and Carter administrations are that Carter inherited most of his from previous administrations and Bush created his own (with the exception of 9/11 and Afghanistan) and now will apparently leave the mess for whoever follows. If Bush had responded to the terrorism threat after 9/11 he could have become a true American hero. Instead he played right into the hands of the terrorists and created a following and haven for them in Iraq. - yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How was that whole World War 2 fiasco?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So Jimmy Carter is the secret identity of Captain Obvious? Who'd a thunk.
- Bushlied, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Whether or not Carter was a bumbling idiot, is not the argument.... Bush has ultimately destroyed any legitimacy we have in the middle east for decades to come. We are no longer favored amongst the rest of the world. This may not concern most domesticated Americans, but for those who do business and vacation over sea will pay for his stupidity.
Ah the ingorance of doublethink. - MaxUdargo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think you're wrong about a couple of things, thinrim.
The truth is that WMDs were NOT the real reason we went into Iraq, but rather, ironically, bringing "peace and democracy" to the Iraqis was always the goal.
WMDs were the excuse and a rationale that tied the Iraq invasion to the war on terror. But long before 9/11 the neocons had been pushing for a war against Iraq and for "regime change." They pushed for this because they believed that in a post-Cold-War world the United States should use its military power to reshape the political landscape in the Middle East (and other regions throughout the world). They weren't concerned about terrorism and rarely mentioned it. Rather they had this idealistic and ultimately arrogant belief that US military power could be used to set things right in the world by forcing nations down a democratic, pro-Western path. And they believed America had a moral obligation to use its power for this purpose.
It's not surprising most of these neocon rich boys who were cooking up these thrilling ideas over at PNAC and AEI never served in Vietnam. And they obviously hadn't learned any lessons from that war. Otherwise they might not have been so clueless about using military force to redefine societies.
The neocons wanted to bring democracy to Iraq - and then Iran, Syria, etc. - as part of this dream of remaking the world in America's image through military means. It was a dumb idea, obviously.
But WMDs were just a way to justify the invasion they had long desired. The threat of WMDs could be used to connect Iraq with concerns about terrorism and thus exploit 9/11. The American people never would have bought into the neocon nonsense were it presented to them honestly. By making Iraq a front in the war on terror, using the spector of WMDs, Bush's people were able to sell the war. - Bushlied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@samcatLu,
You should put yourself in a little box and label it, "stupid." Never trust a man who is willing to put a label on himself. Republican, Democrat, and all this liberal ***** needs to stop. You sound so fake. Don't have any real thought or ideas. So you bite off of what you think is right, but logically is so very wrong.
Carter did screw up. But I don't see him initiating the elimination of Habeus Corpus, instituting the Military Commission Act. Destroying our civil liberties and made a mockery of the American People. You and everyone else who defends the likes of Bush and his policy should be hung for treason. - smashedcrackpot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Did anyone here actually read the interview?
- AAjax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like Carter as a man, but I for one remember him as a president. (Im old) Anyhow Vietnam still seems like a far worse Idea, and it was brought to you by his party. Yes kiddies the Democrats sent home far more bodybags in my lifetime than the repubs have. Though personally i think they are just the right and left hand of the same bully.
- mulling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Carter was a naval officer. He married his high school sweetheart and attended church every sunday.
The republicans smeared him so badly they were able to elect an actor who never served his country in uniform, wasn't religious, and dumped his wife. Ironic, but not a bit out of character for the republicans. Rove has continued their proud tradition. - rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow got a really deep thinker here...
It's not in our best interests to overthrow functioning democracies and install brutal dictators. Iran was a secular, functioning Democracy until the overthrow of Mossadeq. It was not in our interest for Iran to become what it is today because of our actions in the 50's (which actually was a British operation with the support of the US CIA under Truman, not Eisenhower). It was done purely to protect the interests of oil companies not our national interest. Washington warned against foreign entanglements--and there is nothing in the constitution that says we have a right to overthrow a sovereign government.
. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, it ranks right up with Taft getting in that tub.
- MaxUdargo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Of course a democratic, pro-Western Iraq would be a good thing. And the failure of Iraq as a state would be disasterous. Do you really think the fact you understand this makes you clever or more informed than the rest of us?
Stop arguing with straw men. I know it feeds your ego, but it doesn't make you much use as a citizen.
Just because a certain outcome would be a good thing doesn't mean it's reasonable that the outcome can be achieved. Bush and the neocons were idiots to think they could orchestrate such a transformation given the political realities of the country. Invading Iraq was quite possibly the stupidest thing any president has ever done. Surpassingly stupid because it required incredible ignorance combined with unbelievable arrogance.
You can't just desire that the world be better. You have to have a workable plan with reasonable odds of success. That's the very least you should have before you start killing people.
We aren't defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we're enabling them. We've given them the greatest gift we could have: a new Afghanistan. We've given them a rallying cry, a recruitment center and a training ground. It is the stupidest thing we could have done as part of a global war on terrorism.
Will it be even worse if the Iraqi government collapses? Oh yes. Much worse. Is there anything we can do to orchestrate political developments in Iraq at this point? I doubt it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Couldn't find it, but this is close.
Larry King and Carter
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=541650368
Your welcome - heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And when Regan left Beruit with his tail between his legs, thus showing terrorists we aren't that tough, what did that create?
- mulling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uh, farmers are the backbone of this country *****. Carter was also a decorated veteran. Are you going to slander veterans next?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@mutatron
To people like p0s3r, anyone an angstrom to the left of them is a super-liberal communist Muslim-lovin' atheist fanatic. To their way of thinking, Fox News is fair and balanced, Bush is a non-partisan president, and O'Reilly is a rational moderate. It's *everyone else* who's fanatical, not p0s3r and gang! - JoeBlunt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Where did all the right wing wackos come from today?
Tired of listening to yourselves in the Murdoch-ClearChannel echo chamber?
Maybe it's Free Republic day on Digg.com. - rockets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So difficult to digg up the comments by the people that were actually alive when Carter was president, or at least that know their history.
Summary:
Carter: worst president, created islamic government radicalism - jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -26/+27In other news, Pot calls Kettle "black".
- nybe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5good god, this following article really is true!!! Bush supporters ARE ***** NUTS!!!
http://www.ctnow.com/custom/nmm/newhavenadvocate/hce-nha-1123-nh48bushbash48.artnov23,0,1695911.story - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Carters presidency was a trainwreck, but I can't really see it as being worse than Bush.
For me the difference is intent. The Carter administration appeared to mean well but was inept - Carter was smart and a nice guy, and he meant well, but he was never a leader. The Bush administration lies - there's no other word for it - incessantly, and appear to primarily be motivated by personal greed.
What were the lasting contributions of the Carter era? Damn if I know any.
What are the lasting contributions of Bush? A gutted constitution, a divided country, and an unfathomably immense national debt.
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I bet your anus could give a more intelligent answer than Bush.
- drsnooks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Another funny thing, I'm British, and I grew up with terrorism as a normal part of life, via the IRA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles.
This is why you won't find bins (trans: garbage cans) at any English train station, because people used to put bombs in them.
Over the many years of "The Troubles", we tried just about every approach you can think of :
Harsh crackdowns - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
Didn't work, just made things worse by giving the nationalists a cause to rally round and an injustice to cite
Locking people up without charge - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius
Ditto.
Fighting back "whenever, wherever" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland
Ditto
Encouraging paramilitary groups who were on "our side" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubles#Collusion_-_British_Army_and_loyalist_paramilitaries
Ditto. Just destroyed any vestiges of credibility that the authorities had, and resulted in a free-for-all bloodbath.
So what *did* work?
Getting people to talk to each other - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process.
(sigh) Sorry to be a wishy-washy liberal leftie commie pinko lunatic, but in the end, it's the only thing that works. An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind. -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is