digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Jimmy Carter: Iraq invasion subverts fight against terrorism

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.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -39/+30What does Jimmy Carter know about handling rogue regimes? He couldn't get the hostages back from Iran and his "Agreed Framework" with North Korea failed to put a stop with their nuclear program even after we promised them free nuclear reactors, oil, and aid.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_hostage_crisis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_carter#Diplomacy
    • afghanwhiggle, on 10/12/2007, -35/+14Ok, what do you know about it then? I find it impressive that you can use Wikipedia.
    • leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -16/+36hostages that were suspiciously released during reagans inauguration.
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -22/+30Jimmy Carter knew that proportional response and fairness in the Middle East, combined with diplomacy instead of war, would lead to a more stable situation. He also reduced our dependence on Middle East oil by 87%. The Republican foreign policy increased our dependence on Saudi and Iranian oil, sending prices through the roof. Now we not only have to worry about terrorism because we are dependent on this "cheap" oil, but we actually have to pay the Iranians to commit the terrorism.

      The fact that he has criticized Lap Dog Tony means that he is fed up with the incompetent Bush II regime, and I for one cannot blame him.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8The events that led up to the Iranian Hostage Crisis's attempted rescue mission were a tragic thing. To blame any one person on the countless accidents and terrible things that happened is a horrific show of ignorance and immaturity.
    • mayostard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13noahvail, bush has continually tried to reduce our dependence on foreign oil since his first term.

      http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bush.energy/
    • Justice101, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I think that we can all agree that invading Iraq has done more bad then good AT THE MOMENT, and that there where no WMDs contrary to the evidence we held previous to the war (hindsight is 20/20 folks). We know that Saddam's dictatorship was hazardous to most terrorist organizations. That still doesn't change the fact the he was a vicious dictator that striped people of there civil liberties and freedoms inter twined with mass genocide for dubious reasons; he was an all around bad person and I'm glad that he is in custody and Iraq is better off without him in the long term.
    • Mr.Ortiz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9"Iraq is better off without [Saddam] in the long term."

      That's how I felt about a year ago. I'm not sure I believe it anymore. More innocent Iraqi civilians have died in the past 3 years than would have been killed by Saddam, and there's no reason the expect things to get better any time soon. When the U.S. finally leaves (if we ever leave) Iraq, we will leave a Shiite majority government which will naturally align itself with Iran, possibly leading to the imposition of religious law in Iraq. Saddam was a thug, but women in Iraq were well educated and free to work, and only wore head scarves if they wanted to because they considered it fashionable. Now women are forced to cover their whole bodies and are murdered if they dare to go outside without a man. Most Iraqis are very religious, so democracy will only increase the liklihood of a religious government, and a more religious society will increase the number of potential terrorists signing up to join Al Qaeda. In short, we just took one of the few truly secular nations in the Middle East and turned it into a theocracy. Who's the winner here?
    • Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6"noahvail, bush has continually tried to reduce our dependence on foreign oil since his first term. "

      That is laughable. Sure, if you consider less than 10% of a reduction within about 10 years to be significant. Bush's energy plan is simple... help his friends get rich or lie trying.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2NoahVail,
      How do you make this stuff up? Tell the truth, you weren't alive when Carter was President, were you.
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Dude! When I learned to say the pledge of allegiance there were only 48 stars in the flag.
    • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3>hostages that were suspiciously released during reagans inauguration.

      absolutely right. daddy bush handled the negociation... that ended in trading weapons for hostages that wouldn't be released before the election...
  • AiNoMuchi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35President Jimmy Carter, bless his heart, does a lot for human kind with all his charities and global work, but the former President likes to live in a should'a, could'a, would'a world of theories and speculation that unfortunately isn't conducive to actual solutions to the world's problems. If Mr. Carter and his ilk could offer some actual solutions to the geo-political problems then I'm all ears, but I only hear, "If I was..." "I wouldn't have..." "Bush is an idiot..." ...you don't hear, "I would have..." or "This is what I'd do right now..."

    To say nothing about Bush's credibility, Jimmy Carter's credibility is certainly debateable.

    And, afganwhiggle (cool name, btw), if Raidiant Being or anyone posts an informative link be it from Wikipedia to the NYTimes to some blog by someone on the ground, give them credit for actually being engaged in the debate because it's better than your snide comments that don't engage or further the debate.
    • afghanwhiggle, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Just adding links adds nothing to the coversation, esspecially when blindly insinuating incompetence. I've found that this is getting to be pretty typical tactic from the new users in the politcal forums to dump flames and never be heard from again. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for an informative, productive link, but you gotta call em on it sometimes.

      Whigs fan?
    • RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@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.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4RTFA

      Carter DID say "I would have..."

      ...."But had he still been president, he says that he would never have considered invading Iraq in 2003." "No," he said, "I would never have ordered it. However, I wouldn't have excluded going into Afghanistan, because I think we had to strike at al-Qaeda and its leadership"
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6AiNoMuchi,

      Carter is extremely active in lobbying for his foreign policy views and is actively engaged with government officials and leaders around the world. Can you explain how is that not contributing to solutions? You criticize him for saying "This is what I'd do right now...", but since he is no longer in control of any government, what more do you expect him to do? You conclude a string of empty mocking comments by saying "Jimmy Carter's credibility is certainly debatable", but you haven't given one reason to support that conclusion. I don't mind a sarcastic and mocking comment, but at least include one or two real points within it.

      Carter was also extremely active in foreign policy when he was sitting President, and played a crucial role in negotiating the only lasting Israel peace agreement - with Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords
      For those who don't like Wikipedia, there's a good account of Carter's role in Israeli historian Benny Morris's book "Righteous Victims - History of the Zionist-Arab conflict" - but it's not on the net so I can only provide a link to the book:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679744754/002-1765072-1612055?v=glance&n=283155
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I would have fired rumsfield
      i would have went in with a powell army and not a smaller unequiped rumsfeld one.
      I wouldnt let the neos hijack the agenda.
      But if we absolutely had to go in iraq
      i would have left the iraqi army intact
      i would let the iraq' s get the majority of contracts to rebuild there country
      i would wait to build a nation size embassy for when iraq is done and secure


      People say "i would " all the time, problem is none of you neos listen.. all you hear is "i hate bush " and your eyes glaze and your brain turns off.
    • afghanwhiggle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@RadientBeing

      I'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.
    • dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@powercow

      With 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.
  • AiNoMuchi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Afghanwhiggle,
    I respect your view on that and for sure blantant abusers of linking for the sake of linking without making their own opinion should be called on if it's really blantantly obvious. I'm not sure RadientBeing wasn't adding to the conversation as you say because he did preface his source(s) before dropping them out of no where.

    Providing links, actually does further the conversation be it good or bad, just simply calling people on it doesn't. That was my point. anyway, debating about this is silly, I think. Now, Jimmy Carter...that's even sillier! Going to explore different threads...peace!
  • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0Whatever. I heard that guy was a Carter appointee. And some kind of activist ex-president.

    And black.
  • reiggin, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8This is an article highlighting Carter's opinion. It's not "World News." But hey, that's how diggers subvert those of us who'd rather not have our political propoganda mixed with the rest of our news... they abuse the category system.
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9An ex-President is not the same as a high-school blogger, and an interview with an ex-President about his opinions on current events is world news. The opinions in the article are all clearly stated to be Carter's. The title of the submission made all of this clear. If you're not interested, you shouldn't click.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3yeah, its not like this is ann coulter or makin spewing hate. But in all honesty, this is pretty obvious to sane people.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9he is just finding a reason to complain and then dismissing the entire article.. it is a common neo theme.
      al gore flys a plane, so al gore must be full of it on global warming.
      reuters bought a bad photo from a freelance photo journelis t so everything reuters says must be wrong.
      this wasnt posted i the opinion catagory so it must be wrong.


      Although i dont think it is opinion anymore.. kinda like smoking kills it is a fact, the war on IRAQ had nothing to do with 9/11, it has taken our military away from finding bin laden, but you are right it should have been in opinions but that doesnt negate the value of the article.
  • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Hah! You cannot seriously believe Digg is a subjective news distributor.

    Every single article related to politics on Digg (regardless of category) is heavily subjective.

    Go Carter - it's a shame that presidential foresight comes after term...
  • retsambew, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11I am glad that Jimmy Carter is not president. I can't imagine what he would do to fight the war on terror.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6yeah he might actually fight terror without making it worse..

      world wide terror attacks have increase since 9/11, not gone down.
    • Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Fight the war on terror? That's a novel idea. If only Bush would do that... currently we're fighting plenty of wars, none of them against terror though.

      The war against terror is simple, refuse to be terrorized. Refuse to become afraid. Refuse to let your lives be ruled by fear. Go about your daily lives just like you have always done, don't change a thing... that's how you win a war against terrorists. Instead, Bush and his administration are feeding the terrorists. They scare the hell out of us, they restrict all our freedoms, they spy on us, they threaten anyone who disagrees with them. On top of all that, they go out of their way to provoke more people into becoming terrorists. You can't win a war against terror by bombing cities.

      Our war in Iraq has killed over 25 times more civilians than the terrorists killed on 9/11... and we wonder why more and more people join their ranks? It seems pretty obvious to me... but perhaps that's because my head isn't stuck in the sand.
  • CJWright, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As background, here's an excellent on article on Jimmy Carter and his political approach by the amazing historian Victor Davis Hanson:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004952
    • jmchez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It was the 1979 "Hostage Crisis" and carter's weak response that molded my thinking back in High School.

      Carter also killed nuclear fuel reprocessing in the US because he wanted to set an example for other countries to follow in trying to reduce the possibility of nuclear proliferation. Needless to say any other that could reprocess fuel failed to heed our example. Instead we have much more nuclear waste than we would have had. By the time Reagan rescinded Carter's order, Congress was not willing to fund any more research into nuclear reprocessing. They were willing to fund a huge hole in the ground to the tunes of billions and it still not ready to accept any nuclear waste.
  • Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Jimmy Carter is a loser. He should go back to building houses.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I don't think President Carter is a loser, but he sure wasn't the greatest president we've ever had.
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2He did lose the election. His 1979 policies will ultimately be seen as wise, and Ray-gun's 1980 policies as foolish. At least Carter was not sending missile parts to Iran.
  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Well no *****. This is exactly what men like bin-laden wanted. We fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I'm guessing al-Qaeda's recruitment roster isn't dwindling the way ours is.
  • lastholdout, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9In spite of anything else I always thought he was a kind
    man sincerely interested in fostering peace.
    I visited Egypt during the Carter administration and was very happy to see his image posted all over Cairo. It made me feel safe to be there. The locals treated me nicely and I didn't have to hide my nationality (like in Europe). Jimmy did a lot to foster good relations in the region. I spoke to lots of Egyptians and the consensus was they were happy to see Americans replace the Soviets in Egypt. Looking back I couldn't have picked a better time to holiday in the middle east. President Carter was not a loser, but I can think of another president who is.
  • infra172, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Terrorists wouldn't have taken over the middle east if not for Jimmy Carter. He convinced the world that the US is full of pussies and we're still paying for it.
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Not true. Ronnie Ray-gun was the pussy. Remember the 233 dead marines? Ollie North trading missile parts for the hostages? Carter was standing firm, and was interested in the long term benefits for the region. (+ he was a real Christian, if that matters...)
  • webXL, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10HEY JIMMY: if you had been president in 2003 (president of bizarro world), it would have been your seventh term and we'd all be bowing down to Ahmadinejad right now. Thank God you sucked as president so you couldn't screw more things up. Go back to farming peanuts, you twit.
    • Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Jimmy Carter has done more to help people in the world than almost anyone else alive today... that twit is 100 times the person you are.
  • jmchez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Iran has been at war with the US for the last 27 years. I won't cite Wikipedia but let me say that back in 1979 most of us thought that the embassy invasion was a "causus belli" (wars have been started over less) but , apparently, Jimmy Carter didn't.

    When the "students" overran the embassy, the Ayatollah Khomeini and his circle were instantly worried that the US response would be war. They were getting ready to work something out as the aircraft carriers approached but then saw Carter's reaction. As soon as they noticed his vacillating weak response, Khomeini took ownership of the embassy attack and used it for his own purposes.

    Most people forget that soon after the takeover of the American embassy, "students" tried to do the same to the Soviet embassy. That attack was repelled by the Iranian guards. Back then the Soviets had threatened that they would disregard the life of their embassy personnel for the sake of the principle of inviolability of diplomatic immunity. Carter, on the other hand, put his compassion for the 21 hostages ahead of the national security the US and all American diplomatic personnel.

    I'm not saying that future presidents have been any better in dealing towards Iran. Reagan was notoriously bad in also letting his compassion for hostages drive him to disregard the nature of the war that the Iranians were waging against the US. Iran, through Hezbollah blew up 233 marines and the US just folded. No administration has a proud record in these last 27 years, but Carter's could have set the right precedent and he, by far, was the worst.
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2jmchez- You make some good points, but you forget that after 444 days of Carter's methodology, Ronnie Reagan came into power and traded missile parts to Iran for the hostages, and had the US sucking on that oil pipe like a crack addict. The problems in the Middle East are far more of Reagan's making than Carter's.

      As soon as Ronnie announced his "hands off" policy, Israel invaded Lebanon (with disastrous consequences), and Argentina even invaded the Falklands. Let's face it, we were on a much better trajectory under Carter than with the Republican line-- unless you think you are going to be Raptured into Heaven.

      The one thing that disappoints me about Carter's regime is that he welshed on his promise to decriminalize marijuana. Dude! He lied to us!
  • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Good for Carter. Why did US invade Iraq anyway. WMD. There weren't any. End of story.
  • brick71, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9All of you are saying "good for Carter"because he is speaking out against Bush. Most of you probably aren't even old enough to remember the fiasco that the Carter administration was. He does not know how to handle foreign policy issues (Iranian Hostage Crisis). He totally ruined the economy at the time (some of the highest inflation rates in history). I'll admit he has done some good things, but matters of state, no way.....
  • SnapETom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9***** Carter. It's his fault that a mad man in North Korea has nukes now.
  • mistertwister, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8As bad as many think Bush is, his two terms don't even come close to the disaster that was the Carter years. And Carter didn't have CNN, Fox news and the blogosphere to contend with.
  • serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Anyone citing Jimmy Carter on anything obviously didn't live through his administration, or was too young to notice. I lived through it, and can tell you, any President who has double digit inflation, 21%+ interest rates, long gas lines with no energy policy whatsoever, and a foreign policy that emboldened terrorists for many years has no right to judge another Presidents actions.

    Carter was the worst President this nation has ever had. End of story.

    You may not like Bush, but America is a much better spot now than we were in 1976-1980.
  • serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Don't get me wrong - Carter isn't an evil man. He's just too blinded by his own ideology to realize that in the real world, sometimes you have to beat the crap out of people who are out to do you harm.

    As a President, he was a complete and utter failure.

    However, if I ever need a low cost house built, I'll call Jimmy and Habitat for Humanity up.
  • jmchez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9As serpicolugnut has pointed out, it seems that all the praise for Carter comes from people who only know him for his Habitat for Humanity work. I'll repeat, 12+% inflation 20+% interest rates, gas lines of 50 cars or more at one station, a hostage crises that humiliated the country and emboldened terrorists and a "malaise" that he blamed on the American People and not on himself. By all accounts any other president should have skunked off and retired in ignominy. The fact that Carter is still out there interfering with in-office Presidents (Clinton and Bush) shows that the man knows no shame.
  • psyduck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I would replace Bush with just about any former President, except Carter.
  • rino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The US gets about 40% of it's oil from a big group called OPEC which is comprised of many middle eastern, persian gulf states, Venezuala and a few African countries.

    What's strange is the break down present in this chart:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0504.html

    Where they list separately Persian Gulf and OPEC states. This chart claims Iran as a "Persian Gulf" state but Iran has membership in OPEC. Hmmm.

    Suffice it to say, from this chart it appears we have decreased our imports from OPEC and increased imports from non-opec.
  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i 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
  • Antebios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7We all know that Jimmey Carter is in love with Dictators and Communist/Socialist regimes. If you want to see a picture of pussy in a dictionary, you'll see an image of Jimmey Carter. No, I'm not a white devil. I'm a hispanic guy with logical thinking.
  • ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Jimmy Carter was one of the worst president US ever had and is a politician like any other. He got his fame with a foreign policy "that respects human rights", but he backed Indonesia's genocide in East Timor and established the mujahedin in Afghanistan from which came the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
    There are several other reasons below and these don't cover all that was bad with his presidency:
    http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/010313.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/tucker6.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates31.html
    http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200408310659
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Don't quote Lew Rockwell. You cannot blame the one-term president Carter for the effects of programs that continued under Reagan & Bush for the next 12 years!
  • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6jimmah Carter caused most of the current problems in the middle east that we face now(Iran), iraq not included.
  • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5not to mention, that while in campaigning in the south, he referred to Jews as kikes to get the white supremacist vote. Not the Jimmy we all know.
  • jimmyk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Jimmy Carter has broken a tradition of past presidents, most of them shut the hell up after they leave office. He has no class. He wants to try and do the same thing Clinton is doing, save their terrible legacies from the ash heap of history.
  • w8less, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Jimmy Carter was, is, and will continue to be an enemy of the west.
  • bollox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Jimmy Carter was, is, and will continue to be an enemy of the west.
    What a looney tune!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.