Carter today: Didn't mean Bush was 'worst'

Mehtinks it's long past the time for ole Peanutbrain to admit himself into the nursing home!

Come on Roslyn, get Jimmy in the home! Amy, where are you?

Carter may be viewed by the knuckledragging right-wing as the worst POTUS of all time but Commander Mcflightsuit and Doublebarrel Buckshot Cheney have picked up the "worst ever" baton and run away with it.

"What are we to make of President Jimmy Carter who now has backed off his comments that the Bush Administration was the “worst in history” when it comes to foreign policy?"

What are we to make of Former President Carter? Real simple. Carter's clueless. Was as president. Is today.

Carter was right the first time. He's just trying to play nice now. But that won't change the facts!

Where is the part where the Bush Administration provides a counter argument to President Carter's original statement? Saying he's "increasingly irrelevant" is an empty statement and doesn't even address the thrust of President Carter's argument.

What are we to make of President Jimmy Carter who now has backed off his comments that the Bush Administration was the “worst in history” when it comes to foreign policy?

Why back off the comment, after all it's true!!!

Former President Jimmy Carter has decreased his
value as a spokesman for his former country. He
has demonstrated his anti-Americanism on several
occasions in print and in verbal communications.
His apologizing is a poor attempt to cover up
his expressed opinions. He was far from being an
effective president. He should retire from
public appearances, avoid the media and await
his appearance in the capitol as is beholden to
deceased past presidents.

Why can't these Dems grow a pair and stick to their guns?
Don't they realize everytime they back down they embolden the nut jobs on the right?

Mehtinks it's long past the time for ole Peanutbrain to admit himself into the nursing home!
Posted by: John D | May 21, 2007 1:02:07 PM

John: weren't you just saying the other day you felt justified in calling people names like loony because they were calling the President names? Wasn't it your argument that they were disrespecting the office when they called the man names? Seems to me if its really the office that deserves respect & not the man, then it would be disrespect full of you to call a man who still carries the title of President 'Ole Peanutbrain' Or maybe its not so much the office as the office holder's political affiliation that determines who is or isn't deserving of respect?

President Carter's military command of a nuclear powered sub, dedication to the work ethic while president: personally clearing his in box by the end of each work day, negotiating skills in brokering the Mid-East Accord far exceeds that of the current president.

He craftily made the original statement, and even more craftily made the follow-up comments to see how many of the nation's intelligent citizens could read between the lines.

Why is the question ignored? How many pixels would it take a competent journalist to post the question that Pres. Carter asserts he was trying to answer?

Jimmy Carter hit the nail on the head with his
comments on the current Bush administration.
I'm sorry Carter felt that he should back down a
bit. He shouldn't have. Participation in the
Internet News groups have given me perspective on
views from seven other countries. Without exception, the 20 or so people in other countries
that I communicate with, back Jimmy Carter's
comments about Bush one hundred percent.

Jimmy Carter is a good, decent, intelligent, and absolutely HONEST man. Meanwhile, W is a lying piece of trash!

I'm with Scott in South Loop. Carter is justified in making his assessment of this administration. Don't back down from it.

Can anyone name me an administration worst than this current one with respect to foreign or domestic affairs?

To extract only the most derogatory words uttered by former President Carter regarding the current Administration, and, taken out of context, brandish them about, is one of the lowest and juvenile tactics of media.

To then have Carter explain this, and further detail his contact with and concerns over affairs in the Middle East, only to have a bunch of political neophytes ignore all this information and engage in peanut-butter slinging is plain disgraceful.

If a person with great insight and a rich legacy of humanitarian efforts is becoming more and more irrelevant, that’s a sad state of affairs indeed.

From my own political science and history studies, I believe the current Bush Administration has done more to destroy U.S. goodwill worldwide than any other administration of the past 70 years (possibly longer). I would not have been surprised for a former U.S. president to think or say so.

This is a country where freedom of speech is both a constitutional right, and a fair target for smear tactics.

yes, when you state an obvious truth, that most of the world understands, you are "irrelevant"

gotta love the spirit of fascism & Ms. Vieira's leading, biased questions

The current administration could have used this occasion to state a single positive effect they've had on anything in the U.S., or concerning the U.S. elsewhere in the world.

Instead they chose the low road, proving peanut-head's point.

I suppose many such as C.L. Swartss consider any criticism of American policies to be "anti-American". I disagree. Dissent is valuable, and it can be an sign of patriotism to criticize the government's wrongs with the hope that they be put right.

Our nation and our liberties are better served by citizens -- an ex-President or anyone else -- expressing their views on matters of public policy than they are by people remaining silent.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." --Thomas Jefferson, 1787.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Jimmy Carter is the perfect example of a liberal nut! Attack and then as soon as you are called on it back off. All this knowing that he was the worse president in U.S. history and the worse
X-President in US history. He makes me ashamed to be from Georgia.

What is to be expected of the ex-President who made the grand gesture of carrying his own bags after his election, only to have it revealed later that the bags (like his diplomatic acumen) were empty.

Someone should ask Presedent Carter if the Bush administration isnt the worst then who was. Personally I cannot think of any Presedent who has done more harm to our country on a global basis than our current "C" student.

On the other hand I think that it may be time for President Carter to step away from the microphone, it seems that in his old age he has lost that filter between his brain and his mouth. There are certainly better ways to point out the trouble with this administrations foreign policies than telling the world that they are the "worst ever" and then backing off and saying that he didn't mean Bush was the worst. Had he attacked the policies and not the person it could have promoted meaningfull discourse and he would not have had to retract his statments and would not have appeard to be the grumpy old man he seems to be.

Whether or not Mr. Carter is becoming "increasingly irrelevant" would seem to be itself irrelevant. And whether or not the Bush Administration is the worst in history would also seem to be irrelevant. What is relevant, though, and most worth noting, is that the Bush Administration would seem to be singularly historical in that it has cared the least for what contemporary observers have said about it. "History will judge," it repeats. "Not you."
In other words, if it is not the worst administration in history, it is more than likely the most deaf. But who are we to judge, eh?

Yah jimmy just got a little itchy and said what we all know is true but cant be said on tv. he knows like the rest of us that Bush wont accept the defeat which is all too imminent. Take it like a man son.

Mr. Carter proved he was irrelevant a few years ago when he came back from North Korea waving an "agreement" that they would not persue nuclear arms. Before the ink was dry the North Koreans had purchase technology to do just that and pledged help to Iran to do the same thing. Carter doesn't get it. You don't negotiate with these people. While he was in office, His own negotiations with Iran over the hostages taken under his watch, led nowhere. Read your history books, Mr. Carter. Negotiations with crazy people has never worked. You just cemented the fact of your irrelevance, after the fact.

Every time someone of power critizes the Bush administration, they are forced to back pedal. Makes me think those conspiracy theories about the cabal ruling the world aren't so kooky after all. Maybe Carter wants an invite to Bohemian Grove. If you don't know what this is, it pays to look it up.

Carter is building homes for Americans who are less fortunate, and has been doing this for many, many years now. Bush is sending Americans to a slaughter with no strategic ideas. Who is the better American?
He was right in his original statements!

Jimmy, don't back down! The Bush Administration IS the worst in history, and we will be paying and paying long after they have finished looting the American tax payers (to fill the bank accounts of oil, pharmaceutical and weapons manufactures)of Trillions of dollars. What the heck they attacked Iraq for all the damage that SAUDI ARABIANS did at 911. That don't make sense, unless of course they have lots of oil.

I don't believe President Carter backed off as much as the press would like to portray. He appears to have done 2 simple things.

1. Clarify his statement within the context of the original question (which it sounds like the press may have conveniently ignored in the interest of inflamation)......"Bush administration is worse than the Nixon administration", and within his clarification he doesn't back off that notion at all.

2. Recognize and publicly acknowledge that if in fact his answer could be misunderstood (or more likely intentionally twisted) to the degree it apparently was, he should have been more clear in his choice of words and say exactly what he meant; leaving no room for misunderstanding.

Last time I checked, former president or not, President Carter is also a citizen of this country and as such has the same right to free speech as anyone else. He has shown candor and insight again and again in his post presidential role, and at the same time has demonstrated an even rarer quality....the ability to not self inflate the importance of his opinions while being diligent in informing people, for whom his activities hold relevance, of his actions and experiences on the world landscape.

Ron Smith needs to check his history. Carter resigned from the Navy 2 years before the first nuc-sub was launched. Nice try. This is typical Carter - pop off and then back down when someone responds critically. Hell, even Iran knew that.

Carter is just like the rest of the corrupt politicians that run our country. How about the money from the Saudi's Mr. Carter? Even Harvard wouldn't take that hate money, but you didn't hesitate. In my actions actions like this thoroughly discredit you.

Jimmy should have stood by his original remarks.
"W" is the one that is irrelevant. His only function is to serve as a cheerleader for his administration's moronic foreign policies. Bush's arrogance and ineptitude is beyond comprehension. I applaud JC for restraining himself.

The sycophantic press of course goes straight to White House spin doctors for a response. Why? Hasn't the press been paying attention? W is in fact the worst foreign policy president at least in my lifetime if only because he refuses to admit, apparently even to understand, that he screwed up the Iraq war. I'm being extremely generous in giving him the benefit of the doubt for going in in the first place: how could he know there weren't actually WMD in Iraq? By ignoring the advice of real military experts and following that of a dilettantes like Rumsfeld, he launched an undermanned invasion into a country he knew nothing about and proved himself a dilettante.

I have two regrets:

1. That Mr Carter did not point the finger directly at President Bush

2. That he partially retracted his statement.

This administration, led by Mr. Bush, has created a situation for the USA that will take decades to repair. No other administration could possibly be worse.

Hey Impeach Bush: By your line to flawed reasoning we should attack Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan, and every other country who had a 9/11 hijacker or terrorist for a citizen. Nice logic.

If it's just about oil, why don't we invade Venezuela or Angola?

Nice spin by the Chicago Tribune as Carter clarifies his remarks and places them in context. The media in general have also overblown this - as had the over-reaction by the White House since they of all people would have been aware of the context, but they found political advantage in pushing the spin (so much for the political theater Bush seems to dislike - yeah right).

Carter should stick to building homes for habitat for humanity . He is the cause of all the problems that US and the world is facing today .
He is responsible for not backing the Shah of Iran and letting Mullahs take over that country . He is an Anti-semi and has proven that during his administartion and his words afterwards . Now he should talk ! and blame this administration . This administartion may not be the best but its much better that when he was the President .

President Carter was an excellent president. His only flaw was being honest and ethical. He wasn't going to through such things to the wind. However, Regan was ready and willing to do just that. Which is why we love Regan for creating one of the least transparant and highly manipulative governments, and why we hate carter for not throwing us into a multi pronged, "cold" war with the world. Sure the cold war wasn't intirely Regan's fault but he sure promoted its growth.

My point is that we don't like real and honest people in this country. We aren't ready for a president that is honest and ethical. We all prefer to be lied to. CARTER ROCKS! Without the few people like him we have, all we would have would be Paris Hilton, George Bush, and all the other bulls--t people that make the U.s. go round!

"Worst in history" as to world affairs is an interesting idea, if not Bush then whom? Hmmmm.

Why is it that whenever a Democrat criticizes Bush in no uncertain terms, within two or three days, that same Democrat issues a craven apology for telling the truth earlier?

What's going on here?

George Bush was the first appointed President, in history. Bush presided over the worst foreign attack, in history. Bush has borrowed more money from foreign creditors then all other President's combined, together, in history. Bush presided over the greatest human disaster of Katrina in history. Bush is responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in history, Iraq. Bush lied to start a war of conquest and lost. I don't understand what everyone is arguing about! Bush will go down in history as one of the most brutal tyrants. Those who appeased and enabled him will be scorned by history, good Americans!
regards

What? Just because he's backed off his critique, Bush is not the worst in US history? We all know the Bush administration is the worst in US history. At least Buchanan and Garfield didn't spend our children's future on a misguided attempt to 'bring peace to the middle east' by starting an illegal war. When Bush & Cheney get out of prison, they can both work for Habitat for Humanity.. if there still is a habitat on the planet.

The "Journalist" above whould work for Faux News.

Carter was saying something intelligent, and Corporate Owned Frank James crucifies him for it. Notice how he throws a dig about Dean's Rebel Yell? And as for his Obama dig, Frank James should tell us all how he never has gotten HIS facts wrong.

But to be a stupid and ignorant President, and to needlesly kill a million people? and Waste a Trillion dollars? - That's perfectly ok. Isn't that right Frank?

I wouldn't limit Carter's comments to just foreign affairs. For one, until he opens the unedited record of the still secret (for whatever reason it it was honest views presented) energy meeting he will have no credibility on any matter. His need for secrecy tells more than any thing else.

Carter is "irrelevant" and always has been. He presided over what will always be considered the most "do-nothing" administration in history.
A leader? Even those inbred Democrats of his own party in Washington refused to work with him. He "leads" the Carter center in name only.(note the recent defection of a large number of his board members)
He's an embarassment to Georgia as well as the rest of the country. Wish he would stick to teaching Sunday School.

carter was right, as are all other intelligent people. bush is a moron, he is an imbecile, his cabinet is filled with idiots and criminals. and most educated people (the 25% of the us population with a college degree) would agree that he is without a doubt the worst president in the history of this country. without reservation. sorry.

Yes it is the worst foreign policy in the history of the United States... We are certainly paying the most and getting the least for our trouble. Carter might regret having been impolite, but it is a fair assessment.

Personally I think the author of this piece, Frank James should sign up as a lobbyist and apologist for the Bush adminstration. His hatchet job of former President Carter, screams of Bush administration marginalization.

What President Carter said IS and WAS true when he said it, whether or not he was comparing the Nixon administration to the Bush administration or against any in history. It galls me when true people of conscience are often called to the carpet when speaking truth to power, by Bush lobbyists, posing as journalists. When you jump on Bush, Mr. James with the same enthusiasm that you exhibit imprinting President Carter, then perhaps you'll own some credibilty. Until then you are just another Limbaugh with a pen.

He was also correct in his assessment of apartheid in Gaza. Sadly the american Jewish lobby, and the Christian "Right" are more powerful than truth, to the detriment of an all ready horribly flawed american foreign policy. The humanity, the humanity!

We all know the truth about the current administration. Whether or not an old democrat politician can stick to his guns or not has nothing to do with it. It pisses me of when people (especially the press)imply that we should not criticize the president during war time. Is this a democracy or not? For the past 6 years its felt more like a theocracy. Everything our country was founded for has been completely crapped on by Bush and his pals. And yet there are so many people who are so willing to hand over rights to listen to his lies about "security" and a war on an abstract force like terrorism by his own arbitrary government, and that some how hes the only one who can lead us to victory.

Wow, can it get any more coloured and neo-conservative?!?

Carter is right to criticise this administration, ESPECIALLY in times of war! The dogma "hey ol' soldier, you're ready for war? But don't ask what you're fighting for!" always seemed more of a thing for manipulative, authoritarian governments; not so much a theme of democracies.

Terrible article, incredibly coloured and opinionated. In a nutshell: bad journalism that, at times, comes across more as propaganda than anything else...

My two cents.

H.

The Press should be ashamed of themselves for taking Carter's original statement out of context, and then for overstating that during the Today Show he backed away from his comments (which he really didn't). Carter had every right to voice his opinion. The White House, on the other hand, once again returned to the juvenille "I'm rubber and your glue and whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you" response we've all grown to know and hate. When are Dubya and his cronies going to grow up and play like men?

Carter is not honest nor is he, or has he ever, been legitimate. There is a reason Reagan carried 44 states...because people realized this.

Carter's administration was a train wreck and he was the locomotive of it. Most of you who are pro-Carter obviously did not live under his reign of of sludge....and that is exactly what that period was. For him to come along and say what he did...then try and cover it up again because of well, it was taken out of context...is laughable.

Enough of Carter. He should be relegated to the back pages of history because the only thing he accomplished was to get Anwar Sadat assassinated.

The following was published more than 20 years ago by I. Mitroff. It's amazing how relevant it is to today.

-----------------------

A Fable For Those Who Believe in Rationality

There is a story about a strange king who for some odd reason decided to cut offhis head. Some say it just struck him like a good thing to do at the time. Others say he really didn't know that that was what he was doing. Somehow he just got himself into a situation that he couldn't get out of. Whatever the reason, the king began to appear in public with a crown in the form of a very shiny saw sunk partially through his head.

Now, the initial decision or commitment to cut off his head got the king through the first cut. Consistency, or the desire not to appear foolish or wishy-washy, allowed him to follow through to the end with the inevitable result. He thereby proved himself consistent. He cut off his head.

Moral:

1. A foolish or simple minded consistency is not only the mark of' a small mind, it is often the mark of no mind at all.

2. It is sometimes better, by changing direction abruptly, to lose one's face than it is to lose one's entire head.

3. It takes a truly rational mind to know the difference between losing one's face and cutting off one's head.

4. Rarest of all, it takes an act of heroism to realize when one is cutting off one's head, to admit it, and to stop it.

DOES THIS SOUND LIKE SOMEONE WE KNOW?

Former President Carter has lost any semblance of objectivity or ability to see reality. He berates the lack of peace conferences and ignores the increased terrorist influences within the Palestinian territories, including Hamas and other Iran backed killers. Bush isn't doing well at running a war, but Carter does himself, our country, his charitable endeavors and the Democrats no favors by playing blind man to the Terrorist/Islamist fanatic elephant in the room.

In his single term in office, Carter got Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty that still stands today. Can Bush's two term administration point to anything more significant and long-lasting than the bombing and occupation of two countries as a means of "diplomacy"?! Rash and foolhearty decisions have cost America thousands of its troops, many of our compatriot nations' trust and friendship, plus a billion dollars a day that is going directly out of our tax-revenues and into corporate coffers. (See Costofwar.com).

Out of fear of WMDs, we pushed into Iraq when we should have gotten everything settled in Afghanistan first. And every time someone becomes critical of this administration's blunders, its defenders get sensitive and blame the critic. Let's stop making nice with this administration and hold them accountable. Stop hiding behind the flag, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove and Ms. Rice!

Jimmy Carter was a terrific peanut farmer and a nucular sub commander of some note. He is a Nobel Prize winner and a wonderful example of humanitarian selflessness. However, in the time between those two periods of his career, he demonstrated a remarkable incompetence and an inability to understand the world around him. HE is the worst President in history, and his prevailing legacy will be that he beat out Bill Clinton for that sobriquet. Mr. Carter's mishandling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the economy (remember 20% prime rates, high taxes, high unemployment and inflation?) during his administration are but a few of the legacies he cannot overcome. Wonderful man, horrible leader. But remember this, as bad a President as Jimmy was, and that is as bad as there has been, America survived. God Bless Ronald Raegan.

He's starting to sound like Reagan,unfortunately Reagan was still President!

Everyone with a brain knows that Carter's administration was the worst in history.

He, in fact, is responsible for many of the problems that we are still facing in the Middle East today.

Let's see ... he also gave away the Panama Canal to the Chinese. He also gutted our security agencies. He also ... don't get me started!!!

He is not an American, he only lives here.

Something I can also say about 100s of others in Washington, DC ... it's called Congress.

Jiminey Carter is having brain gas.

I have nothing to add to these statements, except that the majority rules and it seems Mr.Bush is caretaker to one of the worst presidencies in this country. But we're all too blame since we voted for him and we still let him stay in power.

Could the old peanut farmer, then, explain exactly what hid DID mean? Or does he not know that either?

Turns out this whole brouhaha was the exact same thing as Jimmy Carter's 4 years in office: a mistake. The administration was right to not dignify it with a counter. This failed president is even more irrelevant now because of his inability to keep his mouth shut. And he was hardly relevant to begin with.

He should have added, "he's even worse than I was."

It figures the Administration would reply with a comment like Carter's irrelevant. They basically respond to any criticism that way, and it allows them to try to write him off as a dithering old man, a weak-minded liberal do-gooder. I find this really funny because for years now when I have seen Carter traveling to other countries, monitoring elections, writing books, helping get houses built for poor people, it has always made me thought about what a contrast Bush will be in retirement. He'll play some golf, fish, go to church in his polyester pants, go through the motions of some charity work that his wife makes him do. Just like any other retired rich white guy. You know, have dinner at the club on Saturdays with the cronies, the frat guys from Yale. Super. And very relevant.

Carter should not back down from his original statement. The truth does not have to be very pretty or complimentary

Jimmy Carter is one of the most intelligent, honest and straightfroward men to have ever been elected President. His problem during his single term was that he didn't like how the game was played and attempted to change it. He was unseuccessful and was crucified for it. This is a man who turned down the thermostats at the White House and appeared on TV wearing and asked Americans to do the same, he even admitted to wearing long underwear to underscore his sacrifice. Now I disagree with virtually everything the current Administration does, particualrly in regards to Iraq, but if President Bush were to appear on television and ask Americans to sacrifice to solve a problem I would at least respect that. This President would never do that, however, he wants to fight his little war and tell the public that everything's under control, go on with your lives. Nothing is under control. We are losing an ill advised war and our standing in the world has dropped to the point of embarassment. On top of this gasoline prices are out of control and will, according to experts, remain that way until consumption goes down. So how about President Bush go on the air and tell the American people that we must start reducing our us of gas. In short, asking us to sacrifice. I will never like the man but I would respect a gesture like that. The kind of gesture that Presdient Carter made. Because like it or not we are all in this together.
Jimmy Carter speaks the truth. He speaks it about our foreign policy, he speaks it about the Israelis and he spoke it when he was President. The problem is that we don't like the truth.

I wish he would have stuck to his original statements, because he was right, and a majority of Americans also think he is the worst! And most of the world for that matter... I agree with Carter 100% art least I agree with his original statements. Time to remove your W stickers people... Bush is a joke hiding behind Christ, he is the real wolf in sheep's clothing!

Jimmy, next time just have the balls to stand by your words... you owe no one an apology, not Tony Blaire especially, he has stood with this evil president from day one and they both have a lot of blood on their hands for the lies and deaths caused by this fabricated war for their selfish purposes! The French were right! Natalie Maines was right! Carter is right! And on and on and on, I always wondered how it was possible that Vietnam went on so long and people just turned a blind eye to the atrocities, now it's happening all over again and we need to have the balls to say... stop this crap before it goes on any further! Assinine idiots & warmongering republicans cause more division and destruction than they do good, period. Amazing how so many so-called Christians are so UN-Christ like, war and greed and justifying lies! From now on they should be labled Khristians with a K, as they come in his name with their blasphemy!

What a whimp. I wish Carter had stood up and said, "yeah, I did mean is the worst in history, he is". I cannot beleive that we let the administration get away with taking this appropriatness posture. Our culture is going down the tubes because we are so hypersensitive about everything. When can we get back to calling it like we see it.

JJ, if you folks can call Bush "chimpy" and "hitler" and whatever else name you folks dream up, I can't call Carter "peanutbrain"?

I love the folks that bring up me calling elements of the Left "loony," which is about the only name calling I do as well as some variations of the loony moniker, yet time and time again we see wingnut for the right or neocon (I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why I'm a "neocon"), then there are the assortment of names for Bush including the aforementioned Chimpy and Hitler, as well as Smirky McFlightsuit, terrorist, madman, bastard, ass, idiot, moron, etc., and the names for Cheney including Darth Cheney. I oculd go on.

We've had you, JJ, also use Bible-thumper for Christians.

Oh and John E has called me "limpwristed," and used some sort of gay terminology on Leo T. We've had "Nicole" say Leo T and I wear dresses.

All of that is fine, call me whatever names you want, just don't whine when I call elements of the Left "loony" or Carter as peanutbrain.

Mr Carter is just so happy that Bush and his administration have screwed up foreign affairs even more than the Carter Admin. Finally someone is just as inept as Mr Carter. He is happy to show us all that his Admin. is now in a position to move his foreign policy mess out of being the worst.
To that end blame lies in the lap of 3 presidents for the USA being at war in the middle east again: Carter, Reagan, and Clinton. All three either bailed out or gave up and if they hadn't we likely would not be in the position we are in today. All three former president's policies weakened our stance in the middle east. Clinton and especially Carter showed weakness and ineptitude with N. Korea and the middle east and weakened our military. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon due to the Beruit Hilton bombing and didn't show any strenght there either.
The thing about Mr Carter is that he knows that his adminstation was the worst in the modern era and he loves to have someone else take the heat, its pretty transparent. The Bush Administration has done about the most harm to our foreign policy but Carter really started the ball rolling and his ego is trying to put those hated Bushies in the hot seat. Looking at it objectively Mr. Carter, unlike more statesmanlike former presidents, just can't keep quiet about someone screwing up more than he. He should stick to building huts because that's what he is qualified for, not making more wacky more statements that have to be retracted. Don't forget that Carter completely screwed up the economy, gave in to N. Korea, harmed the Olympics, grossly mishandled the hostage situation in Iran, weakened the military, and lately has made a fool of himself. He tried to micro-manage the US and deserves his reputation as a screw up. Bush shouldn't have put us in this war but we can thank Carter and the other appeasers for the fact that the USA is not respected by the terrorists in the region.

Sometimes the truth hurts as is shown here by what Jimmy had to say. Tell me who doesn't believe that the Bush Administration will go down in history as the WORST presidential administration of U.S. history? What had GWB and his boys done to benefit the USA? Why do you think Collin Powell resigned?

GWB & his staff suck, it's just that simple!

[QUOTE]Can anyone name me an administration worst than this current one with respect to foreign or domestic affairs?

Posted by: WhoMe | May 21, 2007 2:25:51 PM[/QUOTE]

I can...the Carter Administration!

Jimmy Carter - a nice man with no ability to form firm convictions. He slammed the President the other day in unequivocal terms, claiming the current administration was the "worst" as far as foreign and domestic policy is concerned. Now he's saying he didn't mean Bush was the "worst."

No, there is no misunderstanding. He meant to say what he said the other day. His contrary claims today are just a hollow testament to the fact he can't stand confrontation. The White House has a point: he really is irrelevant.

I read a lot of where people think Carter was the worst president; and then from others how Bush was the worst president. I lived through Jimmy Carter's administration as a sentient adult. It was pretty bad for the same reason he changed his story today: lack of spine and leadership ability. He insisted on negotiating with the bad-guys in Iran long after any other reasonable person would have given up negotiations as futile. The single issue of hostages had his administration in gridlock so that nothing was getting done. He could at least have tried to give the impression that he was taking care of business while working through the hostage crisis. But, no; the U.S. was served up television footage of Carter and Mondale glued to the T.V. and radio, and taking turns sleeping on a couch. The effect was demoralizing.

Was Carter's the worst presidency? I'm not sure. No one ever mentions Warren Harding, who was clearly one of the most corrupt presidents we ever had. He didn't even finish one term because he was killed - more or less - at the hands of his personal physician who was a quack. Up until recently, he was considered the worst President.

To be absolutely fair, G.W.B. is in the running for worst President. He has made himself a dictator by ignoring the Constitution, by granting blanket non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment and the dictates of FISA with regard to domestic wiretaps. As a so-called conservative - i.e. a "neocon" (e.g. a "pseudo-con") - he has shamed himself by running up deficit spending. His conservative credentials have been further tarnished by his "Big Government" and foreign interventionist policies. He couldn't even take advise from a former P.O.W. and fellow G.O.P. member that torture and similar techniques are both wrong and useless. Whatever anyone else has to say about the Iraq war, it was foreseeable that toppling Saddam Hussein would create a power vacuum that couldn't be filled. As such, it was a very foolish move at the git-go.

So, who is the worst President? I don't know. I suggest we decide this issue in a scientific manner:

Mud wrestling.

"In this corner, in the blue trunks, Jimmy 'the Crab' Carter. In this corner . . . no; get into your corner. You don't know what a corner is? Ask the q-bald guy in the glasses what a corner is. He knows how to get cornered. Okay. In this corner, in the red trunks, . . ."

[QUOTE]Sure the cold war wasn't intirely Regan's fault but he sure promoted its growth.[/QUOTE]

Good grief! The cold war started when Ronnald Reagan weas still an actor! I remember hiding under my desk when I was a little kid. When you try to blast a good President try to, at least, know what you are talking about. Ronald ended the cold war by not kissing Russia's butt!

Can anyone say "early Alzheimer’s"?

When President Carter declared the Bush Administration the "worst ever", I applauded him for boldly saying what "Thinking America" has been feeling for some time. However, I'm now dismayed that he took his words back, and by doing so, gives credence to the White House description of him as being not "relevant". I now wonder if this recent display of wishy-washiness was the reason he only served one term. He apparently still hasn't learned to mean what he says, and say what he means. A man of strong convictions and certitude will stand by his words. I'm saddened and disappointed he lacked the will to do so.

It was a mistake for Carter to retract his statement. He was right the first time, and he knows it, as do we all. Its sad that he did not stick to his guns, and the truth. He is just trying to be nice since the White House obviously took great offense at his statements. And Carter is not a hurtfull type of man. Still, he should have left it alone, he was right the first time.

I am saddened by us --Americans. We, the people are so completely ignorant of history and the lessons of history it could make a grown man weep. Yes you my countryman, you are ignorant of general historical knowledge and have no common sense compass to direct you to what is right and wrong --instead, you have replaced it by selling out your sense of trust by becoming bankrupt of true and honest values by becoming cynical and distrusting of all things. The weeping is not for Bush, but for you.

Without this compass, Americans have grown into cynical, ignorant distrusting and as always apathetic sadlings that follow political "trends" like fashions --with "don't confuse me with the facts" --I have a close-minded agenda to force fit my emotional political fashion into.

Instead of understanding the morally of right thinking of trying to free millions of Iraqis we choose believe our (Bush's) motivation is money --oil money. Americans today would never never never have been able to pull off the American Revolution much less embrace the radical ideas of the day --these wild notions of freedoms --much less understand that radical country FRANCE who were aiding the rebels overthrow the oppressive tyrants (the English). When you watch the movie "The Patriot" do you hate the French (the equivalent of the US in Iraq today)? Or do you think the French were just in it for the money? You will now lie to yourself and say "That was different" because your compass spins wildly --pathetically sad.

Would you personally try to free an oppressed person? --or just do it if cash were involved? Then why do think Bush is not trying help free an oppressed people? Would you personally have the guts to send Frenchmen off to die helping the Americans gain their freedom during the Revolutionary War? Could YOU have been one of those Frenchmen, yes or no? Are YOU willing to die for another mans freedom --can YOU send a few men to die for the freedom of many? --or do you have to get money for it? Do you really think Bush would have Americans die for money?

Could it be your personal cynicism at play here? Is it that YOU are projecting your own corrupt values into our President? It my be mismanaged war, it may be unpopular with the rest of the world --but what we are doing in Iraq is a truly nobel thing --and Americans are DYING for that nobel cause of FREEDOM for the oppressed --don't be cynical, try be a real American, be a rebel.

Ha! I would expect the 2nd worse president in US history to call the 4th best president "the worst". It's what makes our country work so well, two totally opposing parties. Tell Jimmy C to say hi to his dictator buddies for us. We'll say hi to them with bombs. (Worst president ever: Clinton. Best presidents ever: Lincoln, Washington, Reagan, Bush Jr.)

It doesn't take much, listening to both Carter and Bush to know, with certainty who has a mind of his own and who is a fool.

Let us not be confused by the lunacy spewing from the administration currently occupying the White House.

Be glad we have Jimmy Carter, if for no other reason, he speaks clearly and intelligently
without a script!

He is active on the ground. His inspiration transcends his generation.

He could just sit at home and grow old but instead is devoted to our country.

Thank you President Carter.

Imagine if someone so thoughtful, articulate and wise was president today!

Whether Carter mis-spoke or was careless he is right. The current damage to foreign relations will take decades to reverse. Bush is historically at least one of the poorest diplomats we've ever had in office.

Former President Carter has the distinction of having the "Worst Admistration In History".
Just ask anyone who lived through it.
The interest rates were over 20 PERCENT for home buyers ! Many people were out of work and could find no jobs. Carter and "Economic Stagflation" were tied together in history.

Iran held nearly 500 Americans hostage UNTIL just before Ronald Reagen was elected president.
The Iranians weren't afraid of Carter (No one has been afraid of Carter). But, they sure were afraid of what Reagen would do after being elected.
On top of that there hasn't been a Former WORST PRESIDENT than Carter for coddling dictators and terrorist organizations. Carter CRIED when Daniel Ortega lost the election in Micaragia after the Reagen backed Contra took the country back from Ortega, the Soviet Unions' Puppet.

I was disappointed when Jimmy Carter was elected President – he is a brilliant man but an inadequate leader. Why? - I believe he would have been an outstanding senator (probably still would have been serving to the present day) making many contributions, while the other senators would have protected him from his excesses (like other senators who may disturb us as individuals).

Jimmy Carter had it right on the first go around, why back off? Probably he thought he
made a booboo in the social political arena. Look around; the bush administration has
caused havoc throughout the world. You don’t have to apologize for anything Mr.
Carter; you spoke the truth.

"Former President Jimmy Carter has decreased his
value as a spokesman for his former country. He
has demonstrated his anti-Americanism on several
occasions in print and in verbal communications.

Posted by: C.L.Swartss | May 21, 2007 1:57:35 PM"

- Former president Carter Being anti-Bush is not being anti-American. Bush has tried and succeeded at degrading our constitution and civil liberties which I'm pretty sure he has sworn to protect - not defy. He has degraded our good standing in the World and has seriously tarnished the American reputation with his failed foreign policy and mis directed war on terrorism. Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism that is fertile and growing more terrorists every day that we stay there occupying their contry without welcome.

Think of it this way. Lots of Iraqi civilians have been killed in the conquering and occupation of Iraq. Quite a few have been children. Family's of fallen civilians are most likely terrorists at this point. I dont believe two wrongs make a right but these people certainly believe in an eye for an eye and there will likely be fallout from this disaster for decades to come.

I personally detest Bush, but his administration is not the worst in history (and neither is Carter's for that matter). The worst administration in US history is actually a two way tie between Ulysses S. Grant and Herbert Hoover. Perhaps more people should study history before levelling summary judgements. Of course, if more people studied the history of this country, then Bush would never have been elected to a second term. But that's a different topic for discussion.

President Carter expressed the views of 25% of this country and the world, and should not have to answer to his views. Once again freedom of speech in the Bush administration is being un-american. Bush and his cohorts trashed President Clinton when he was running for the office, and I did not see any uproar over it. What a bunch of hippocrits

Once again, Jimmy is hung by his tongue! I thought we were long past the peanut era!

The behavior of an organization reflects the management philosophy at the top. While top executives may think they have the "right stuff", a lack of experience or knowledge will ultimately lead to ineffectiveness. There are people who have the skills to become top management without the long tenure required to obtain experience, these are people who intrinsically understand the "cause and effect' of decision-making. In my humble opinion (nobody listens to me anyway) George W. Bush has been a transparent failure from the very beginning. In no aspect of his adult enterprises has he succeeded. He did get elected but he failed at the job, a pattern the voters should have noted.

George W. Bush will be judged by history, and I believe that judgement will be that he was the worst President in these United States.

George W. Bush is the worst President in U.S. history!! Plain and simple.

worst foreign policy in history? how about jackson:decimation of the cherokee and seminoles(foreign nations), buchanon: forcing japan into trade submission.,mckinley: attacking,destroying the spanish fleet and occupying (stealing) their possessions in retaliation for a single drummed-up ship sinking.(ps the phillipinos didn't want us there, then or now.), wilson: the wimp went to war against germany 2 years after the lusitania was sunk going down with over 100 american non-combatants including children., fdr: giving away western europe after to the communists thus the cold war., kennedy: bay of pigs,cuban missle(horny jack almost got us vaporized.)., nixon: vietnam, cambodia (let's start a war then quit half way.), carter: hijackings,hostages,opec runamock (living proof that aliens had relations with amphioxa) clinton: the great pretender, all the world loved him then how come he did nothing when,somalia happened, the cole,lebanon marine barracks bombings,world wide terrorist attacks,OBL and the first WTC attack, bosnia and the balkans(still screwed), most favored trade status to china(human rights violations), etc,etc,etc. please learn to discern or get burned. jpm

Carter was the worst President of my lifetime, and continues his self-loathing to this day. During his administration he constantly blamed us for the worlds problems, and punished us for our success. The bad guys around the world are people with whom he wants to talk...not his own people.

"as far as the adverse impact on our nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history"

Not only is that statement clear and precise, it's also true. And he never mentioned George W. Bush by name. He could have, as far as I'm concerned. I can't think of another president who's been worse than Bush or caused more damage to our nation.

Go Jimmy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm so disappointed in Jimmy. Why did he change his mind and retract what he said? They really are the worst in history!

This administration is the worst. Why can't we all cut the crap and tell it like it is? What is blinding this country? It is sad.

He neither should have backed down on calling the current president a douchebag NOT should he have apologized for calling the Israelis a bunch of racist pigs. They are what they are.

Perhaps when the world finally turns and wakes up, both the US nutjobs and Israeli lunatics will be seen for what they are and not hide behind their cloak of omnipotence.

Dan Cook...

Well said...who in this country wouldn't believe an eye for an eye if their child was murdered and butchered by barbarians dressed in military clothing.

I don't blame people over there one bit for their reactions and actions. They are being raped in front of the world's eyes and we're just sitting hear laughing.

I wish the American people would look at the overall performance of this administration. Everywhere you look, help wanted posters are posted. Unemployment is down, wages are up; even people living at what is considered the poverty level (myself included) are living at a standard that would have been considered the lap of luxury in 1929. Actually, even much better off than when Mr. Carter was President ! Yes,
gas is high, but at least we don't have to wait in long lines and only be allowed to purchase gas on certain days. How quickly we forget ! Of
course, most of the comlainers were probably not even born yet.
As far as the war goes, we are fighting for our very freedoms in an area of the world that would love nothing more than to see all of us dead
or completely stripped of our freedoms (especially religion) and forced to conform to their way of life. This great nation was founded by war!
If we had not fought the British, AMERICA would never have existed, and GOD only knows where we would be had it not been for the courage of our forefathers to stand up to Germany and Japan. All of us need to remember
that we are in the greatest struggle of our lives to maintain the freedoms we have and it is being done by an all volunteer military service, with bold, brave, freedom loving young men and women who are willing to lay down their lives to fight for the rest of us to enjoy what
we have in this country. New volunteers are signing up every day, knowing what they may face and they are proud to be AMERICANS and are proud to serve and preserve what so many of us take for granted.
You naysayers that sit on Capitol Hill and enjoy these freedoms and the money you receive while you ridicule the true courageous ones that gladly shed their blood for what they know to be right and just, are the cowards. You are quick to say that all is lost while our courageous military says that we have not yet begun ! This country was founded on faith and belief and positive attitudes and there are plenty of us that
still believe this way. I for one am one of those people and I am proud every time I see a person in our military, while I am disgusted almost every time I see a politician. Capitol Hill needs to give these young people what they need to win this struggle, which is immediate funding with no stipulations, and most of all, belief, faith, and RESPECT. That
is why you were elected, now do your job and let them do theirs !

bush administration will go down in history as the most immoral, and illegal. When was the last time bush built a house or did any humanitarian deed? The answer is never. When was the last time he won the nobel peace price. The answer is none. President Carter has accomplished all of these and more. How much did you pay for gas today? How many soldiers died today? These are just a few of Bush accomplishments.
Leon Hutch
lahutch@sbcglobal.net

The peanut doesn’t fall far from the tree. Just ask Billy Carter. (Does anyone remember Billy Beer?) If it wasn’t for the liberal press, we wouldn’t have to put up with foolish comments from babbling old former presidents. I should design a “foolish comment” filter for the media…but it would get clogged with democrats.

All you know-it-all mouthy democrats who back stab Mr. Bush: I hope you enjoy the freedom purchased for you since the inception of our country almost entirely by Republican sweat and blood.

"When you watch the movie "The Patriot" do you hate the French (the equivalent of the US in Iraq today)?"

Someone point out to me where the French swept in, killed the British governor, disbanded the British army, and dragged off thousands of suspected Loyalists to be tortured? Where the Minutemen were called "insurgents" and the French were unhappy with any new American congress that didn't take their input? And refused to go home after the Americans asked them to?

I hardly think the French in the American Revolution and the US in Iraq today are the same thing.

What's wrong with this Country? Politicians are wimps raising our kids to be wimps. We are becoming a timid Country and will be defeated because of it.

We all know we could win the "war" in Iraq tomorrow if our country wasn't too afraid to "offend" someone.

Just like Carter wouldn't offend Bush.

OMG The Monsterous Battle For The Title of US
Worst President Ever Rages between Wimpy Total
Clueless Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican
Idiot Currently in The Oval Office,The Commander
Guy,Liar in Chief George W Bush and so I must
propose a Bi-Partisan Compromise to end it,and
which is just officially proclaim both Mr Peanut
Jimmy Carter and Mr Drug Store Cowboy President
George W Bush Co-Worst Presidents Ever! Or, shall
we let Keith Oberman Decide it as it would be
kinda of unfair to let The Decider Bush Decide
it? Or did The Commander Guy Bush Name A Decider
Czar by now? LOL

It's a shame that Carter is intimidated by the media and has been cowed into recanting his criticism of George W Bush. On one level it is understandable because the elite seem to be moving in lockstep since 9/11 until just very recently. Even now, the so-called "loyal opposition" in the Democratic party has shown little backbone in their watered-down responses to the atrocious record of this administration. How telling it is that even our so-called leaders do not have the courage of their convictions.

At this juncture in our nation's history, when all the worldwide heartfelt and genuine goodwill that America enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks has been squandered by this short-sighted administration, one would think that SOME of our elected officials would have had the courage to lead a serious correctional movement among our citizenry. Instead, our elected officials have all failed the nation in a most fundamental and serious manner. Who, among both houses of congress, could have earned a chapter in JFK's book "Profiles in Courage"? This is a sad, sorry, cowardly, complicit group of "politrical hacks". There doesn't seem to be a genuine statesman in the entire crowd! How shameful. How disgusting.

"Former President Jimmy Carter has decreased his
value as a spokesman for his former country...."

Posted by: C.L.Swartss | May 21, 2007 1:57:35 PM

______________________

You mean Jimmy Carter renounced his American citizenship? Please, No! It isn't worth it, Jimmy. Jimmy, come back.

______________________

" . . . He has demonstrated his anti-Americanism on several occasions in print and in verbal communications."

Posted by: C.L.Swartss | May 21, 2007 1:57:35 PM

You mean, as opposed to the patriotism he expresses by gesture, body language and other, various forms of non-verbal communications?

Sorry, I'm just a smart-ass.

Carter's problem today is the same problem he had as POTUS: He is tragically irresolute. You'd think his being a submarine skipper would have cured him of that or at least brought the problem so far into the light of his attention that he would have been discouraged from seeking higher leadership positions. Too bad: it did not happen.

I say these things as someone who voted for him in 1976 and who admires him still for his humanitarian works. I did not vote for him in 1980 because I didn't think I needed to. I never in my wildest dreams thought Reagan had a ghost of a chance, so I didn't go to the polls that year.

Not voting was a mistake, of course, and one that I've never since repeated.

To bad Carter apologized because this administration is the most incompetent I have seen in my lifetime and most people would agree with that statement.

President Bush has been an embarrassment to our country and the Republican Party. No President has done more to destroy the Republican Party than President Bush.

Of course the past Republican Congress were cowards and contributed to this mess! Bush has spent money like no one else and then he releases these statements that we must cut government spending. You have to wonder whether the lights are on and no ones home. He's the guy who signed off on all of the reckless spending and he can't seem to understand that.

Walter Reed Hospital a disgrace to our troops! This all happened under President Bush's watch. President Bush has even proposed cutting funding to the Veterans programs. The man says one thing when hes on TV and then another behind closed doors.

Its taken awhile, but Jimmy is finally approaching politics and politicians like his brother Billy once did; calling it like he sees it. And Billy would have made a better president then "W".

President Carter through his vitriolic statements has tarnished his own image and diminished his relevance.

Examine the obvious disagreement(s) between President Clinton and President(s)Bush. President Clinton expresses his obvious opinions in a refined, dignified manner and as a result his reputation has grown with time.

Jimmy Carter should follow the example. "Flame throwing" through the news media only arouses public opinion on both sides and brings out the worst in commentary.

senile geeza

Why did Carter soft pedal the facts? Well, maybe administration thugs threatened him with waterboarding. Could be Gonzales and henchmen showed up with Rohypnol. Dick may have invited him out hunting. Or maybe George sent him an e-mail, itself a sort of torture-by-malapropism, inviting him to the Guantanamo Ranch. Maybe all the above. The only certainty is that, as long as dubbya is president, we'll never know the truth.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Carter's administration and foreign policy flubs make his one of the worst presidencies. He has also taken a decidedly left turn with his latest work on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict with language and ideas that can only further embolden the terrorists. Lastly, irrespective of one's politics, it is highly inappropriate for an ex president to condemn a current president with this kind of language!

The ONLY reason why Carter was elected was because America needed a non-"Washington insider" to inject a breath of fresh air into the stench of the Nixonian seventies: Watergate, bombing runs into Cambodia, "peace with honor", Spiro Agnew...

(Heres a trivia question for all you history buffs: What political party did Richard Nixon belong to?)

Carter was ineffective as president, but was far more productive with humanitarian efforts, as witnessed by his Nobel Peace Prize.
Something that I feel will strongly elude GW Bush...

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL PEANUT BRAIN THAT HE IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!! FOR SOMEONE CLASSIFIED AS THE "WORST PRESIDENT" IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S.A. HE CERTAINLY HAS A PAIR TO BE CALLING PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE ADMINISTRATION THE WORST. LET US SEE...CARTER ALLOWED 50,000 CUBANS, MOSTLY UNDESIRABLES AND PRISONERS FROM CUBA TO COME TO THE U.S.A....GAVE THE PANAMA CANAL TO THE PANAMANIANS...ALLOWED THE U.S. EMBASSY PERSONNEL TO ROT IN IRAN FOR OVER ONE YEAR...YEP, WHAT A GREAT MAN HE IS??!!

Jimmy knows his stuff on Iran. Just ask our former hostages about how he rescued them.

He's a visionary that brought Kudzu to Georgia which has strangled out much indigenous vegetation.

He's an energy guru that swore we'd be out of oil in 20 to 30 years back in the '70's.

He's our disciplinarian voice that said Americans should get used to living with less and we should like it.

A financial wiz kid that unleashed the worst US inflation in last 40 years.

I will say his habitat for humanity built 1000 homes for the homeless but that might qualify as an oxymoron.

I sat and read about 3/4 of the statements here and for the most part all I read is a bunch of biased opinions.
President Bush has made mistakes as did President Carter. All Presidents do. But I see comments that President Bush has done NOTHING but hurt America. Well we haven't been attacked again on U.S. soil since 9/11/01 and I thank him for that. And I keep reading how HE'S sending all our men and women to die in Iraq. I must have been asleep when the draft was reinstated, the last time I checked we were still an ALL VOLUNTEER military force.
And I was in the military for 1 year under President Carter and 4 under President Reagan, I have not ever seen morale as low as it was under Carter and nor as high as under Reagan.
Carter is a GOOD man but wasn't a very effective President.
If President Bush is such a bad President why was he reelected to office? Oh thats right, conspiracy. Come on get real!!! He is having to deal with situations few Presidents have to. I have a novel idea, lets all support our democraticaly elected President WHILE he is in office and come the next election actually VOTE and get the man or woman we want at that point.

President Carter said that he was "careless or reckless" and that his remarks "might have been misinterpreted". Also, he restricted the comparison to President Bush' foreign policy to president Nixon's foreign policy.

After reading his statements, and assuming that he is carefully choosing his words this time, I do not believe that President Carter has stated that he was wrong, or that he disagrees with the misinterpretations.

Likewise, I do not believe that President Bush's spokesmen are able to muster a good rebuttal. Otherwise, they would not have resorted to name calling.

Sandlance and whoever your protagonist was.

These are the facts:

He was educated in the Plains public schools, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf.

And wow. Yes, I am from Texas. Yes, I am ashamed that GW Bush will forever represent to the world the citizens of our great state. I can only speak for one. To me, Texas is about hard work and making your own way, accepting newcomers on their merits. If you can perform and produce, you are accepted and welcomed as equal. A man is known by his actions, not his words. Actions can't lie.

Carter's life has been exemplary. Who said, 'for those who lived through it'? I lived through it. The Carter years were rough when it came to high interest rates. The Iran thing was a boondoggle. You may not agree with his political views, as I did not at the time, but NEVER, NEVER was his integrity in question. In his entire life. How can this man be compared to the cardboard cutout that was hand-picked to be cleaned up (alcohol and cocaine), groomed, and propped up as the mask of some dark, Byzantine organization?

I know that our state voted hands down twice to elect W President, so, the people have spoken. In my view, the group of individuals making up the current administration is a little short on "actions" when it comes to their combined resume'. "All hat and no cattle" as the saying goes here.

Authored by a Real Conservative (from back in the day when that meant to pay as you go and take care of your own. Not a cloak for religious idealogue, zealot, warmongers)

Regards,
Disappointed in Texas

Maybe just a little too much "Billy Beer" over the weekend? What a bitter, sad little man Carter is.

A free press, while an important part of any democracy, consistently put its own self-interst first and then leave the public to sort out the mess they create. Mr. Carter should have never attempted to answer a question framed in the mind of the reporter and especially a question that did nor reflex the true substance of his comment. Never apologize for the imaginations of someone else and do not retreat from the truth

i have always believed that as president was clueless and he should be held responsible for this whole mess with iran and this so called religion he thought he brought peace to palestine when there is no hope for that ever and if we let it be maybe they will get tired of it and if carter would have had a spine my thinking is we would not have this president and the mess we are in.

I guess Bush figured out a way to avoid criticism -- start an ill-advised war and then accuse all your critics of "criticizing a sitting president in a time of war." Better yet when the war is a nonending one. And you "educated" people thought he was a moron.

Vitriol? From Jimmy Carter?
He's not exactly the red faced neck vein-popping type of personality that many of his critics and supporters in these comments are.
He's thoughtful and benign. Sincerely trying to make a difference.
I don't get the comment that he's made himself irrelevant. It's typical 'political opposite speak', lacking any content. Like those who day 'Suicide bombers are cowards'. They're not cowards, cowards don't blow themselves up. They are are hate-filled indiscriminate murderers of innocent people.
As for Jimmy Carter - you make disagree with him, you may think he is misguided, but when he speaks millions listen and he provokes debate, so he cannot be totally irrelevant.

Thank you, Mr. President Carter, for having spoken out about the mess in the middle east, which, as you pointed out recently, has become a worldwide disaster. It doesn't matter who says what about the White House or about your views. We feel less alone because you are providing some leadership!

Maybe someone from the Bush camp threatened him with "enemy combatant status" or the equivalent if he didn't back down. The Bush regime truly is the most vicious I have ever witnessed in this country.

Carter isn't the most savvy President we've ever had, which is actually a compliment. If it takes one to know one, then an honest man surrounded by a the sea of crooks that exist in mainstream U.S. politics is obviously at a disadvantage. Despite his sometimes naive perspective, I would take him over Bush any day of the week, year, century, or millineum. There's no comparison. Carter is a man. Bush is a well-dressed psychopath.

Interesting facts developing here....

For the White House to respond or counter what they deemed an "increasingly irrelevant" Past President seems to illustrate that the White House has nothing better to do than to respond to "irrelevant" criticism targeted at them.

If "irrelevant" why make it "RELEVANT" by responding. Therefore, what Carter said must be "TRUE and RELEVANT" to the American society, otherwise, White House would not counter respond to make it a relevant issue (for the White House to comment).

Perhap then, the Bush Administration is the "WORSE EVER". Now that's RELEVANT. Hmmmmm... so......... it's like........... making BUSH "IRRELEVANT"????

President Jimmy Carter got it right the first time. We americans didn't misinterpret, and he wasn't reckless in his remark.

Overall, there is a very strong case to say that the Bush admin. is the worst in history, period.

(My political preference is Republican.)

How can any sane human being compare President Bush jr. to Presidents Washington and Lincoln. Washington one of the framers of our constitution, Lincoln who saved our country. Bush should be compared to Harding and Coolidge totaly inept, intellectualy challenged and misguided.

I was proud of Mr. Carter's first description of
the Bush's administration as the worst in the U.S. history in foreign relations, and I praised
him for in comments then. But his retraction just proved the Achilles Heel of the Democrats
in general: The flip flops that cost them most past elections by trying to play the jack of all
trades at the heat of the moment. The priests of today who show up as the clowns tomorrow. The accusers of today that wake up as the accolades
tomorrow. The statesman that puts his values upfront today, only to discard them as spin offs
of the moment to the press tomorrow.

I guess that once one goes through the Washington politics, they come out as wheeler-dealers on everything - including their beliefs, values, and political expedience that expires overnight. Mr Carter begged to differ, only to come out the next day to wag his tail at the White House. Now those who praised him will have to eat some crow, and he can hope that Bush will
relent, withdraw his "irrelevant" status, and
declare him "relevant" again! What is next, Mr. Carter?

In part, Robert F. wrote above:

"I have a novel idea, lets all support our democratically elected President WHILE he is in office and come the next election actually VOTE and get the man or woman we want at that point."

This is a nice idea, but it doesn't work. I mean, when was the last time anyone running for president was a good match for the job?

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "I shall... return with joy to that state of things, when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be, is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?" I think everyone can agree that anyone running for President should have these traits.

Unfortunately, I don't see our current President having these characteristics. He has fractured the Constitution on a number of occasions; his entire administration is beset with scandals over falsehoods and breaches of trust (both imagined and real); and he has been a bit flatfooted when it comes to leading decisively. Many of the same criticisms can be laid, with equal justice, at the feet of John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton and the usual suspects on the campaign trail. So, how do we pick someone we want when everyone who runs is an undesirable alternative? It's just like what was said in an episode of South Park: Elections are always a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich - because those are the only ones who suck up enough to get nominated.

Find someone with good leadership qualities, who is honest, industrious, bound by integrity and an overpowering urge to follow the Constitution and do what is right - and then you idea will have its place. Until then, we have to keep our political leaders honest and accountable with criticism and confrontation.

Hmmm, many of you seem to want to blame Carter for having let the hostages be taken, but not blame Bush for letting 9-11 happen.

Do any of you have a clue that neither president could have stopped either incident?

Oh, did it ever sink in that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 but Bush picked a fight anyway? Or that the hostages were eventually freed without so much as a gun shot?

Carter was right, he only backpeddled because he is a southern gentleman.

Glad he's still around.

Viera is that worst interviewer that I've ever seen.

Even some of the comments are funny

The president and his posse have made a bigger mess of a bad situation by playing into the hands of the terrorists in the middle east. Thanks to his six-gun, OK Corral, international policies my toddler grandchildren may someday be asked to risk their lives to fight this more widespread terrorism.

Worst president? Maybe not but what does that matter now?

Radical Islam launched its first attack on the United States in 1979 when Iranian "students" invaded our Embassy and held 52 of our diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days. Except for one pathetically ineffectual attempt at rescue, then President Carter's response was to wring his hands and wish those radicals would just be nice.

In the 1990s, former President Carter again displayed his formidable foreign policy prowess by allowing the lunatic Kim Jong Il to take make a mockery of our effort to get tough with North Korea. Obviously, Jimmy Carter's idea of diplomacy is to avoid doing anything that might make someone mad at us for some reason.

Unfortunately for all of us, Carter's obsession with having everyone like us is one of the primary reasons why we are at war with radical Islam today and why we recently watched Kim Jong Il test the very nuclear weapons that nice Jimmy was charged with talking him out. Tyrants don't see niceness; tyrants see weakness.

And it is on this point that President Bush got it exactly wrong in his rebuttal to the former president: Jimmy Carter's fantasy world diplomacy is increasingly relevant today, and we are all unsafer for it.

I certainly hope he IS the worst president in U.S. history.

That would mean that things can only get better.

I don't want to know what worse than this would be.

I'm sure if you look back through the past 200 years there have been several horrible administrations worse than this one. The worst in my memory was the Carter administration. I was in college at the time and remember wondering what kind of world I would graduate into. At home we had double-digit interest rates and high inflation and abroad we had become weak and increasingly irrelevant.

I will say this for the Bush administration, though - with its blatant disregard for the Constitution, it seems determined to wrest that title away from the Carter administration.

This group of politicians in the current administration made a decision to just flat-out TAKE whatever they want. They feel that America is the only remaining superpower in the world since the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. Since the USA lost Iran in 1979 and the Saudi government recently insisted that USA military can no longer use Saudi territory to station troops, the neoconservatives have determined that Iraq would be easy pickings. Obviously, they miscalculated. Instead, Iraq has become a training ground for international Islamic extremists who want to hone their skills in terrorist methods. When the Sunni minority held power under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was no such training ground. Now that the Bush administration has unleashed the power of the Shia majority in Iraq, the Iranian Shia population feels a strong sense of affinity for their neighbors. This administration has made so many horrible decisions that, if one did not know better, it would appear that our leaders have absolutely no idea what is going on in the world.

What we are witnessing is the possible last throes of American world hegemony. Oil is not infinite in supply. United States power can no longer be projected with impunity in the world. So what's next? The increased weaponization of space? Nuclear proliferation unchecked? Global conflagration? American citizens have a slight chance to force a change of course, but that window of opportunity is closing rapidly. We need a total reexamination of our policies, both domestic and foreign. Empire is incompatible with democracy. If we want empire, we're going to end up with a military dictatorship in the USA. If we want our cherished democratic principles, we must willingly divest ourselves of the overseas domination that we have historically exerted upon the globe since the late 1890's. The choice is clear. The decision is ours.

I certainly hope he IS the worst president in U.S. history.

That would mean that things can only get better.

I don't want to know what worse than this would be.
Posted by: Michelle | May 22, 2007 10:49:22 AM

Michelle, how old are you? Worse than this? Are you not aware of American history?

Perhaps you've heard of the War of 1812? Slavery? The Dred Scott decision? The Civil War, including the suspension of habeas corpus and the draft riots? World War I? The Great Depression? World War II, including the Japanese interment and the draft? The era of segregation? The Cold War? Korea? Vietnam? The 1970s (high inflation, high unemployment, Watergate, gas rationing, international humiliations galore?)

No, of course, I wouldn't want America to have to relive any of those eras, either. I'm perfectly content to live in the 21st Century, thanks.

Dove … “He [Carter] is the cause of all the problems that US and the world is facing today .He is responsible for not backing the Shah of Iran and letting Mullahs take over that country .”

LOL! Who was it who empowered those Mullahs, Iran, the Taliban, and the Mujahideen with either weapons or hatred towards the U.S.?

Sorry .. that would be "Ketchup is a vegetable" Ronnie. O.K. I see it’s time to educate some people on the inconvenient facts of history now! It was the Gipper who: 1) cut and ran under the cover of darkness after over 200 unarmed marines were killed in Beruit; 2) trained Osama and Al Queada (you know, the guys we're fighting NOW?) vs the Soviets even though he already knew Osama was a religious fanatic at the time; 3) let the Taliban (you know ... the guys who harbored Al Queada and the training camps?) step right into the power vaccume created when the Soviets left - because it wasn't so much about helping the Afghanistanis as it was STOPPING the Soviets; 4) supported Saddam politically and militarily even after he gassed his own people; 5) sent arms to Iran; and 6) never met a terrorist he didn't support as long as he was anti-commie. Try AGAIN buddy! History proves Ronnie enabled and/or supported pretty much every enemy we're facing today!

Here’s some FACTS about U.S. foreign policy and the Shah. The U.S. started meddling in the affairs of the Iranian government since the 1950’s by having the CIA (under Eisenhower) secretly help organize protests that helped overthrow DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (via the now declassified Operation Ajax) in 1953.

And all this was done in SPITE of the fact that Mossadegh was popular with his own people. Why? Because he nationalized Iran’s oil fields - much to the dismay of the British’s "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" (AIOC ) - in 1951 after negotiations for higher oil royalties failed. And why did he want a higher royalties for his own country’s natural resource? Because the AIOC was getting 93 percent of the profits as long as they controlled them! Mossadegh nationalized the oil fields only after a more-than-fair 50-50 split was rejected, which resulted in a blockade by the British to limit Iran’s oil exports despite Mossadegh’s attempts at a peacefull solution.

Meanwhile, the U.S. was waiting in the wings, just looking for an excuse to return the exiled Shah to Iran since we would get a STEADY SUPPLY OF CHEAPER OIL in return for the dictator’s reinstatement. In 1953, it got it’s wish via a coup. The results of the U.S.-led coup were disasterous for the Iranians as the Shah spent billions of dollars on U.S. weapons but let his own people live in squalor without the freedoms and social reforms he promised in the early 60’s. But, as usual, the U.S government didn’t care about what the suffering Iranian people wanted! It wanted LOWER GAS PRICES and a pro-US puppet govt bordering the USSR. The Ayatollah Khomeini capitalized on the widespread resentment of the Shah (who fled the country) and took over in the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Iranians feared that the Shah receiving medical treatment in the U.S. for his lymphoma in October of that year was just cover for yet another U.S.-backed Operation Ajax coup attempt to reinstate the Shaw again and oust Khomeini who had the support of the people at the time.

As a result of both this real (via the coup) and perceived (cancer treatment) American govt sponsored meddling, American hostages were taken and Iranian Revolutionary teams stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The teams found and displayed secret documents taken from the embassy (sometimes painstakingly reconstructed after shredding) showing that U.S. intelligence was trying to destabilize the new regime. As Ebrahim Asgharzadeh, a former hostage taker, said the move [taking of American hostages] “was just a reaction against the US intervention in our country”.

So you see, the simple FACT is this … had the U.S. government not economically and militarily supported the Shaw (who trampled Iran's democratic freedoms, dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch when he returned to power with U.S. support), the Ayatolla Khomeini would never have risen to power based on his hatred of America (the country who propped the Shah up) in the first place!

Jimmy Carter was THE WORST President on foreign policy in the last half century, if not in our entire history. The Iranians made such a fool out of him when they released the hostages the day after he left office, that I was embarassed to be an American.
Furthermore, his book comparing Israeli policies to the South African Apartheid is totally wrong. He falsely restated history many times, as he coddled up to his Arab friends.
He should keep his mouth shut and throw his pen away forever to save all Americans from further embarassment.

Let's face it - George Bush Jr. is an absolute trainwreck and his administration is a trainwreck worthy of the title "worst in US history". He and his constituents have mocked the constitution, been dishonest, are self-serving, and responsible for the poor decision making that has cut short and destroyed thousands of young American lives & families as well as exterminated countless Iraqi men, women, and children. Shock and awe is not a solution. The years of bombing and killing these people has only made them stronger and more violent. Has anyone ever considered that maybe Iraq is not ready for a modernized democracy ?

JB,
I'm 40, not that it matters. And I was fortunate enough to flunk US misery twice in high school. I say fortunate, because I had to restudy everything enough times to memorize the damn dates that always eluded me.

And what exactly does my age matter Mr. Historian? Of course there were worse times than now, that's what the PAST is all about. I'm worried about the FUTURE. And for the jackass we call president, in light of our less than perfect past, to go and be the world class numb-nuts that he is and do what he's done...
I stand behind my comment as such.

Michelle, how old are you? Worse than this? Are you not aware of American history?

Perhaps you've heard of the War of 1812?
Slavery? The Dred Scott decision? The Civil War, including the suspension of habeas corpus and the draft riots? World War I? The Great Depression? World War II, including the Japanese interment and the draft? The era of segregation? The Cold War? Korea? Vietnam? The 1970s (high inflation, high unemployment, Watergate, gas rationing, international humiliations galore?)

No, of course, I wouldn't want America to have to relive any of those eras, either. I'm perfectly content to live in the 21st Century, thanks.

Posted by: JB | May 22, 2007 12:49:25 PM

Two things:

1) First, Jimmy was an awful leader and President. The negatives far outweigh the positives. Here's some good info:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264640488332348

2) Second, the comments here are so interesting. People tend to find information that just supports their point and everyone is talking past each other. I've read many of the comments and have done quite a bit of research on Jimmy in the last few days and, as I said above, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

For Rick, who does the "selective information based on a timeframe" argument (meaning that you pick a time, like when the Shah came into power and select information in a vacuum to support your point), your analysis is wrong. Why is your analysis wrong? Because you put Iran in a vacuum and ignore other information about the times, the circumstances, etc.

We had the Soviets who wanted a warm water port. They said this in relation to Afghanistan – where there is no port. They may have planned to go right through Iran too. Why did they think they could do that? Because they knew Jimmy was weak and spineless.

Obama speaks about new leadership for the world. Well, some people in some countries don't want his leadership and they would call it meddling. No matter what we do, we will be seen as meddling. Should we meddle in Darfur? What about other places in Africa? What about in Lebanon these days? The fact is we have to assert our power. What liberals are incapable of doing is judging good from bad. Islamic terrorists are not freedom fighters. By definition, they would have to be fighting for freedom and Sharia law does not equate to freedom. As JFK said in his inauguration:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more.”

That means we meddle because it is right. Democracy is right and many other systems (Socialism, Communism, non-Democracies) are WRONG. So, yes, to spread democracy so future peoples can thrive, we “meddle.” The alternative is for people to suffer. It’s real simple why we act. And when I hear that the “rest of the world” doesn’t like us, I laugh. People are killing themselves to get in here and escape the places that espouse what liberals stand for (Socialism and Communism.) The people who don’t like us are the leftists.

Well, I guess this is more than two things.

Certainly, it's appropriate for a former President to criticize the sitting one--who else is really entitled? What I really wanna know is why hardly anyone remembers his second grade punctuation: President of the United States is *always* capitalized. Mr. President, the President, former President, etc. OK, Bush has made it "president" with a small p, but, as long as it's the Exec-in-Chief, it's upper case.

Isn't it clear by now that we need to look at the long view and make some pertinent observations? Britain held its empire from the defeat of the Spanish Armada until just at the tail end of the 2nd World War. The English decided that they wanted domestic democracy more than they wanted overseas empire. They clearly saw that they could not have both. The Romans, on the other hand, decided in favor of retaining their empire and so they accepted military dictatorship at home. There has never been a case in world history in which a nation state effectively implemented democratic principles at home while simultaneously maintaining empire abroad. The reason for this should be obvious: the tactics and strategy and means for controlling and dominating populations in order to hold power over foreign lands. That course of action is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of democratic government. Simply put, pre-emptive justifications for war abroad almost guarantees loss of democracy at home. You cannot have both.

This article about Carter and Bush is only useful because it stimulates dialogue. The deeper discourse among our citizenry ought, by right, to be focused upon the larger issues of where we've been historically, where we are right now, and where we want to go, and what is the best way to GET there.

Dear Concerned Citizen,

I can appreciate your discussion of "Empire" and the lesson it teaches. However, I cannot quite connect this discussion intellectually to any factual reality relevant to the United States. Unlike the former practices of Great Britain and Rome, the United States does not maintain large, vassal states or colonies among foreign nations. We let go of Cuba and the Phillipines. Now we only have the 50 states and a few island territories - all containing U.S. citizens.

If you think for a minute that any nation in the middle-east is a vassal state or colony, think again. Even our allies in the middle-east want us gone, and would prefer our non-existence in their vision of a "perfect world." The government in Iraq would love to see us gone if they could afford to do so while still retaining control.

Nor can I fully accede to your comments regarding "preemptive war." Regardless of what its detractors may call it, the war in Iraq was not truly a preemptive war at all.

Lest we forget, the First Gulf War did not end in a peace treaty. It ended in an armistice - which is nothing more than a cease-fire. According to the terms of the armistice, Iraq agreed to abide by certain U.N. resolutions. The ensuing 12 years saw nothing but flagrant violations of those resolutions and the armistice. Iraqi radar and missile facilities targeted allied aircraft in the no-fly zone. The Iraqi government openly and routinely refused inspectors access to suspected weapons facilities to search them. The Iraqi government consistently failed its *duty* to account for stockpiles of WMDs that we knew had once existed, even though compliance only required Iraq to submit some plausible proof that such weapons had been destroyed. Also, the Iraqi government did, in fact, attempt to produce missiles that could travel further than the limit permitted by the agreement. Hans Blix, himself, demonstrated as much during the U.N. hearings, when the U.S. sought to get the U.N. to go after Iraq. I might add - contrary to the popular misrepresentations of the news media - that most Democrats were howling the removal of Saddam Hussein by force back in 1998 based on their belief that he had re-started his WMD program. I might also add that all our Shiite friends in southern Iraq were also howling for some action on our part because they had come under intense persecution by Saddam in the wake of the armistice.

A preemptive war? A war based on a violation of an armistice is not a preemptive war. In fact, it isn't even a different war. It is merely the resumption of original hostilities occasioned by a breach of the armistice.

Having said so, I will tell you that I don't believe it was a wise move, in any sense, to re-start hostilities in Iraq. I never thought it was a good idea. Anyone with any knowledge of Iraq's history during the 20th Century, or even of its religious history during the past 1300 years, would have known that removing Saddam's dictatorship would result in another Yugoslavia. We have yet to see the worst of it because we cannot close Pandora's Box.

And, yes, I also agree that the article about Carter and Bush is valuable - if for no other reason than the fact it demonstrates just how polarized our countrymen (and countrywomen) have become in their political views. I am not sure, however, that it helps us understand too much of where we have been and where we are going. We have lived a long time with too much historical revisionism to be able to see our past clearly. What is touted in academia and the news media as business as usual in politics would have largely been condemned by the founding fathers as political heresy. The founding fathers believed in the rule of law, federalism, and a hands-off approach to government. That is not the current trend.

Dear John W,

So that we do not get bogged down in semantics over what DOES and what DOES NOT constitute such things as :
imperialism, colonies,neocolonialism, preemptive war, etc...let us see if we can broaden the discussion to touch on a few questions.

*The current administration has done a disservice to the citizenry of the USA by its flagrant violation of the U S Constitution.
Yes? No?

*The massive propaganda campaign leading up to the attacks upon Iraq was based on, at best, highly questionable evidence.
Yes? No?

*The attitude of this administration towards the American people seems to be arrogant and oblivious to questions of proper/improper use of executive power. Yes? No?

*The ongoing revelations of scandal after scandal in this President's two terms of office seem to dwarf whatever "complaints" the neoconservatives had about WJ Clinton. Yes? No?

*American political discourse has been significantly trivialized, coarsened, and cheapened by resort to name-calling and personal attacks. Yes? No?

*The gap worldwide between haves and have-nots is such that eventually it will significantly exacerbate world instability beyond current levels. Yes? No?

*The United States of America is the most powerful nation on earth. Yes? No?

*It is both prudent and indicative of enlightened self interest for those with the greatest power to exercise the greatest responsibility. Yes? No?

*The recent actions of the government of the USA since 2000 indicate a disregard for the "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" in our own Declaration of Independence. Yes? No?

So there are many more questions and/or propositions that could stimulate worthwhile discussion on this site. Why not have a go at it and let's see if we can broaden the discourse.

In response to:

"There has never been a case in world history in which a nation state effectively implemented democratic principles at home while simultaneously maintaining empire abroad. The reason for this should be obvious: the tactics and strategy and means for controlling and dominating populations in order to hold power over foreign lands."

It is possible for a country to spread democracy, and impress themselves upon others, successfully. WE are doing it right now; have been since the end of the Cold War. It is not just democracy, but free trade. The reason why it works is because we practice protectionism. Meaning we shove democracy and free trade down other peoples throats only when it will benefit us in the end; we practice selectively. The US tells others how to run their governments and economy, but considers it sole super power status as a right to abstain from making any moves that will jeopardize that status.

The sole super stardom came with the down fall of a conflicting ideology, Communism, and their main proponent, USSR, and was easily accepted by Third World countries, and those not aligned with the failed communist states.

Obviously, this will only work for as long as other countries allow it. The influence we had up to 9/11 rarely went past cultural, ideological, or economic. Though, we had our military ventures in places like Kosovo and the Gulf War it wasn't on the scale of any of the World Wars; and, they were really an intervention.

We did have some rouge states like N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq. States able to exist free of the US's influence, and maybe even interested in beginning on the road to contend with the US. However, the US had really no justification to allow the international community to allow the US to venture, with out some sort of objection, to a different country and exert our military might in a self serving way. We didn't need to, but the Bush Administration took hold of the White House. Made up of neocons, and very much influenced by Cold War experts they aligned themselves to believe the US should not only spread democracy and free trade to willing countries, or the defenseless poor, but spread it with our soldiers, if need be to maintain our status. And, clearly Iraq was a definite need be, as Iraq was a country that remained unwilling to be influence in any other way.

9/11 gave the US the opportunity to allow the world to allow the US to go in, because the US showed that we have a stake in doing so. The US came under the guise of terrorism, but really based on on an ideology, of self preservation before anyone else. The US came because the US had a chance to avenge, and then conveniently carryout the over throw of Saddam. The convenience lied in the ill defined and murky word terrorism, which conveniently could link AlQueda to Afghanistan, and then to Iraq.

Why Sadam? Bc states, like Iraq, do pose a threat to Bush's self preservation ideology, that Bush usually frames in the context of our national security policy. That ability to be the only ones to dictate disarmament for certain countries, and not abide be it ourselves. The ability to spread democracy and free trade, and practice it selectively. The US can not simply afford states that have the economic means to surpass, or make the US dependent on them; whether through availability and control of oil reserves or an interest in nuclear arms. In the case of Iraq it was the abundance of natural resources that were under an opposing ideology; there in translating to the ability to obtain nuclear weapons if need be. (That is where the Bush Administration failed. The perceived possibility and probability to obtain has nothing do with hard facts. The facts were dismissed by the Administration when weighted with the opportunity 9/11 and Afghanistan provided to ascertain themselves militarily in the world in the name of self preservation.) Since Iraq would not allow us to influence them, the only way is to strike militarily. Can't do that without a reason, and terrorism was enough of one.

The ideology of spreading the good cheery about democracy and trade while insinuating a right not to abide where fit to maintain the status quo is what gave birth to this Administrations preemptive war fare. Which in total it is preemptive. The first thing the Bush Administration did was back out of nuclear disarmament treaties in 2000 (before 9/11); in order, to maintain military superiority and protectionism. That superiority and protectionism then rang aloud in the Washington Consensus (after 9/11) that raised eyebrows for its blatant assertion of, pure verbatim, an American right to strike enemies preemptively.

So in total, it is possible to spread democracy and practice "imperialism" (I use the term loosely.). It is happening now, as it is the ideology guiding the Bush administration. And, as the ideology guiding the Bush Administration is flawed it has done a disservice to the left and right. That is bc now the world will not be as willing to accept our perceived superiority over them, and because it has given more rise to those willing to challenge us. Almost like shifted the status quo where, if nuclear weapons come into the picture, America will have to become of a player in the game versus the rule setter.

That's my very two long cents.

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Are we in a courtroom? Am I under cross-examination?

When advising my clients how to testify on cross-examination, I always told them to answer "no" if they couldnt answer with an unqualified "yes," and "I don't know" if they lacked any necessary bit of knowledge to correctly answer. Otherwise their answer would not be correct. I am taking the same tactic now in answering your questions.

The answers are:

1) Yes. 2) No. 3) I don't know. 4) No. 5) Yes. 6) I don't know. 7) I don't know. 8) Yes. 9) I don't know.

Now, if you had asked me for my opinion, or even given me the space to explain, I would suspect my answers might seem a little different than what they appear to say now. But this is what you get for asking questions in this manner.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060109.htm

A Tale of Two Quagmires
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Michael Hastings
Newsweek, January 9, 2006
Hastings: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?
Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example. The United States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, not anything else.

Once we recognize that, we're able to begin talking about where Iraq is going. For example, there's a lot of talk about the United States bringing [about] a sovereign independent Iraq. That can't possibly be true. All you have to do is ask yourself what the policies would be in a more-or-less democratic Iraq. We know what they're likely to be. A democratic Iraq will have a Shiite majority, [with] close links to Iran. Furthermore, it's right across the border from Saudi Arabia, where there's a Shiite population which has been brutally repressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. If there are any moves toward sovereignty in Shiite Iraq, or at least some sort of freedom, there are going to be effects across the border. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see the ultimate nightmare developing from Washington's point of view.

You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?

I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.

Was the antiwar movement more successful in the '60s than it is today?

I think it's the other way around. The United States attacked Vietnam in 1962. It took years before any protest developed. Iraq is the first time in hundreds of years of European and American history that a war was massively protested before it was launched. There was huge protest in February 2003. It had never happened in the history of the West.

Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?

He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacity—Russia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.

The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.

You gotta be kidding re: the following from your column:
In the book, Carter wrote: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

That passage appeared to endorse terrorism, something Carter acknowledged and apologized for.

******
Your conclusion that Carter's statement appeared to endorse terrorism is like the old example of a trick legal question? Did you always beat your wife.

Carter was just saying that since nothing else had stopped Palestinian terrorism surely it will stop when the peace iniative is accepted.

As possible food for discussion, here's an article about the Patriot Act
http://www.counterpunch.org/neale04102003.html

April 10, 2003

A Patriot Attack on America
Ashcroft's War on the Bill of Rights
By GEOFFREY NEALE

With public attention riveted on the war in Iraq, politicians may be planning to launch a sneak attack against the American people.

Their weapon: Patriot II, a piece of legislation that would give the government frightening new powers, including the ability to make secret arrests, issue secret subpoenas, create a vast new DNA database and even strip Americans of their citizenship and deport them.

Formally called The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA), the legislation has been shrouded in secrecy, prompting civil liberties groups to fear the government has been waiting for an opportunity -- such as war or another terrorist attack -- to rush it through Congress. That's exactly what happened with the USA Patriot Act, which passed the House and Senate with lightning speed just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Now with war raging in Iraq, history may be about to repeat itself.

Patriot II was drafted in secret earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Justice. When rumors of its existence started swirling around Washington, Attorney General John Ashcroft denied it. When a leaked draft was published on the web page of the nonpartisan Center for the Public Interest on February 7, the Justice Department refused to comment.

But when the bombs began to fall on Baghdad in late March, Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo finally confirmed that such a measure would be introduced soon.

Yet if Patriot II is actually good for America, why all the secrecy? After all, politicians don't normally lie about the existence of "good" programs; they brag about them. They resort to stealth and deception only when they're doing something they're ashamed of, such as creating pork barrel projects, lining their pockets with another congressional pay raise -- and spawning more police state powers.

Simply put, this legislation would destroy some of the legal protections that make America different from totalitarian states like Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Iraq. For example, Patriot II would allow the government to arrest and detain people in secret, paving the way for the midnight knock on the door that terrorizes the population in police states.

In such countries, relatives never know what's happened to their loved ones -- and police don't have to explain. There's no need to file charges, present evidence, or even hold a trial. A simple accusation by the police or an anonymous informant is all that's needed to lock up an innocent person for life.

Think such a thing could never happen in America? It already has. Dozens of individuals rounded up during the 9/11 investigations are still being held without charges and without the right to see an attorney.

The authors of Patriot II want to keep things that way. Its secret detention provision was created to circumvent a federal court decision requiring the Justice Department to identify those 9/11 detainees.

Under this legislation, prosecutors could also issue secret subpoenas, and jail people who reveal to anyone except their attorney that they have received one. Since most people who receive subpoenas are not criminal suspects, this amounts to letting the government conduct mass, secret interrogations of completely innocent Americans, then jailing them if they tell anyone what's happened.

Secret arrests, secret evidence, secret subpoenas -- haven't thousands of American soldiers died fighting this kind of government?

Even one of the most cherished rights in America -- the right of citizenship -- is targeted under this bill. Patriot II empowers the Justice Department to strip citizenship from Americans who associate with a group designated as a "terrorist organization," even if they've done nothing illegal.

Individuals who contribute money to such a group, even unwittingly, or attend the "wrong" political rally could lose their citizenship -- and thus become easier to prosecute and/or deport.

Imagine this scenario: Two years from now, a violent individual blows up an abortion clinic. President Hillary Clinton responds by labeling Operation Rescue, and a number of other conservative Christian groups, "domestic terrorist organizations." She orders everyone who has ever contributed to one of these organizations or attended a meeting rounded up, stripped of their citizenship and deported.

Or this: A radical environmentalist attacks an oil tanker, and President John Ashcroft responds with similar tactics against Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. He denounces them as domestic terrorist organizations, freezes their bank accounts and starts arresting their members.

Couldn't happen in America? It already has happened -- to several non-citizens rounded up during the 9/11 investigation. But if Patriot II is approved, it could start happening to American citizens as well.

Other provisions of this legislation are just as chilling. For example, the government could create a database of DNA collected not just from "suspected terrorists," but from non-citizens suspected of ordinary crimes, such as burglary and assault.

In direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, prosecutors could conduct a wiretap for 15 days without a judge's approval, and monitor an individual's Internet behavior for two days without a warrant.

The attorney general could deport any foreigner, even a permanent legal resident, by deeming their presence "inconsistent with national security."

Local police departments could resume spying on political protesters, because the legislation overturns court decrees prohibiting such surveillance.

Simply put, Patriot II would make America less of a free country -- and there's nothing patriotic about that.

Geoffrey Neale, Austin, Texas, is national chair of the Washington, DC-based Libertarian Party.

Time is NOT on the side of prevarication and equivocation. The nation needs to be clear about democratic principles and institutions RIGHT HERE AT HOME! It is ludicrous to wage horrific war against some poor country in the Middle East under the guise of bringing their people "democracy and freedom" while the neoconservative powers in America are religiously eroding those very things from the fabric of society in the USA! Hypocritical!

So it's OK for the USA to launch "preemptive" strikes against other nations, but if any other nation so much as THINKS about beefing up their military capabilities the USA elites get jittery. What did the neoconservatives EXPECT would be the result of their maddening escalation of military solutions? Check out the story below:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/features/article_1309537.php/U.S._warning_on_Chinese_buildup

U.S. warning on Chinese buildup

By Pamela Hess May 25, 2007, 20:52 GMT

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- A new Pentagon report claims China is building an expanded military with a force projection far beyond its home area.

'Analysis of China`s weapons acquisition ... suggest(s) China is looking beyond Taiwan as it builds its force,' states the Defense Department`s annual report to Congress on 'Military Power of the People`s Republic of China.'

The report came as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates prepared to attend the Shangri-La conference, an international Asian security meeting.

The report said new conventional missile units already deployed at various locations in China could be used against targets other than Taiwan.

Beijing`s investment in airborne early warning systems and in-air refueling jets permitted extended operations over the South China Sea. Its investment in five different classes of submarine and a stated desire to build an aircraft carrier 'reflect Beijing`s desire to protect and advance its maritime interests,' the study said.

Over the long term, improvements in China`s command, control and reconnaissance capabilities, including space-based and over-the-horizon sensors, could enable Beijing to identify, track and target military activities far into the western Pacific Ocean, the report said.

A Pentagon official told reporters Friday that China was developing a hard-to-target, road-mobile long range intercontinental ballistic missile known as the DF-31, which it assesses as 'available' although not yet integrated into China`s missile force. It is also 'developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses,' according to the report.

Exactly what China`s strategic interests beyond Taiwan were remained unclear, according to the report. As in previous years, the Pentagon report complained of China`s lack of transparency as to its intentions, as well as in its published national security budget.

'We would like to have greater insight into their intentions, why they are developing this force,' the U.S. defense official said.

China`s aggregate national defense budget is officially about $45 billion. But the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency and other U.S. government and research institutes put the number much higher, when added to China`s 'defense-related' expenditures, including in space, missiles and shipbuilding. The DIA expects China`s 2007 defense spending to total between $85 billion and $125 billion.

One of China`s possible areas of interest is securing the sea lanes that connect the country to its imported fuel and coal.

'At present, China can neither protect its foreign energy supplies nor the routes on which they travel, including the Straits of Malacca through which some 80 percent of China`s (crude) oil imports transit,' the report said.

'China`s concern over vulnerability and other resource supply is increasing ... (and) may end up shaping how they view force planning for the future,' a defense official said.

In 2006 China signed a large number of new energy contracts -- its largest annual increase -- with Saudi Arabia and several African countries, according to the report. China held an African summit in November in Beijing that was attended by 40 heads of state and delegates from 48 of the 53 African nations, according to the report.

Beijing has sold military technology to nations in order to secure access to energy reserves, and has strengthened relations with 'countries that defy international norms on issues ranging from human rights, support for international terrorism and proliferation,' the report said.

The report noted China seemed to be shifting from just buying modern military equipment to training its forces properly to use them -- moving from a military whose strength lies in numbers to one with real capabilities.

The report also raised the possibility that China was developing a military organized for 'preemptive' strikes, including surprise attacks. It notes that Peoples Liberation Army writers describe 'preemption as necessary and logical when confronting a more powerful enemy.

'According to PLA theorists, an effective defense includes destroying enemy capabilities on enemy territory before they can be employed,' the report stated.

Copyright 2007 by United Press International

"Your conclusion that Carter's statement appeared to endorse terrorism is like the old example of a trick legal question? Did you always beat your wife.

Carter was just saying that since nothing else had stopped Palestinian terrorism surely it will stop when the peace initiative is accepted.

Posted by: Susan | May 25, 2007 12:29:51 PM"

And his "saying" so was equally erroneous. The Palestinians have twice been handed a two-state solution to the strife in that land **on a platter.** Some of the moderate Palestinians have expressed genuine interest in peace according to the plans given. But it always turns out that some group like Hamas shows up, pledges the destruction of Israel, and the majority of Palestinians elects them to power. This is exactly what is going on there now.

This whole scenario proves nothing about Israel and the Palestinians, but it proves volumes about Mr. Carter. It proves that Mr. Carter lives in an alternate universe where none of the aforementioned peace gestures were offered and rejected by the Palestinians. Had Mr. Carter been aware of such things in his alternate universe, then surely he wouldn't suggest that simply yet ANOTHER peace accord is going to do the trick.

But I jest. We know Mr. Carter doesn't live in an alternate universe. He must be aware that the Palestinians have rebuffed peace initiatives unilaterally, and that something other than the Roadmap to Peace is going to be needed. As such, he is not merely mistaken. He is either lying, deluding himself, made himself one of George Soros' stooges, or a combination of all of the above is true.

I used to respect Mr. Carter because I believed he was a good Christian and a man of principle. My trust and respect for him are gone because I have read his works. No one other than a D.N.C./MoveOn.org/Soros man could spew that nonsense. What a disappointment.

The above exchange between John W and Susan is underpinned by certain assumptions. The first assumption deserving of examination is the one that posits a substantive difference in world outlook between, say, Carter and Bush. By extrapolation, the assumption that there is a substantive difference in world outlook between the "Liberals" and the "Conservatives" in U S politics seems to be fairly commonly accepted by the general public. This assumption needs to be challenged and discussed.

The one common thread running through all administrations at least since the defeat of Hoover in 1932, and probably long before that, is the steady and inexorable aggrandizement of Executive power at the expense of Legislative or Judicial power. The one moment in recent U S history that temporarily seemed to reverse that trend was the removal of Richard Milhouse Nixon from office.

Democracy is an imperfect system of government, but so far no one has produced a preferable alternative. Totalitarianism on both the right and the left have been thoroughly discredited by the results they produced. Nevertheless, the powerful interests in the USA, predominantly huge corporations and the "military-industrial complex", circumvent truly democratic processes whenever possible. The reason is quite simple: corporate decision-making is incompatible with genuine democracy. A corporation is essentially a dictatorship.

Ideology is nothing more than a mask for interest. The elected officials, the entire administrative structure of government, is predominantly and primarily accountable to the powerful elements that own and operate the economy. That which is inimical to corporate accumulation of wealth is most strenuously, and for the most part most effectively, resisted.

Lyndon Johnson got what he wanted (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) from Congress, empowering him to radically escalate the war in Vietnam. He was a traditional FDR New Deal Democrat. George W Bush has gotten what he wanted from Congress to prosecute a war aginst "terrorism" in the Middle East. He is a neoconservative disciple of people like Richard Pearle and Karl Rove. The real power behind both political patrties, however, is corporate wealth.

The largest corporations generally support both the Democrats and the Republicans, by means of lobbyists and donations,gifts, bribes, and endowments, as well as many other behind-the-scenes influences not visible to public scrutiny. By so doing, corporations ensure that they will have the strongest voice no matter which party gets into office. The Reagan mantra against "big government" was a cheap facade. The Federal budget underwent a huge, massive explosion during his 8 years in office.

All the "chit-chat" about Democrats versus Republicans is meaningless because the real dangers that beset us as a democratic society have their roots in the ideology that blindly worships corporate profits at the expense of all other values. Until and unless human values begin to inform the allocation of society's resources, war and the steady erosion of our most cherished Constitutional freedoms will be the reality.