Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I thought about many of the posters here while I was reading this opinion piece in IBD. I think Carter should be embarassed rather than going around the world critisizing the current administration. Don't you agree?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...44423511626964 |
Many of the 97 reasons are laughable, particularly many of the post-Carter (ie. Clinton) myths listed that have been debunked by the 9/11 Commission and others. But assume all the charges against Carter were all true, the most you could say is there are reasons not to elect him again again.
In any case, I fail to see how someone who was responsible for bad policy does not have the right to criticize a successor for equally bad policy.
Quote:
|
From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans
|
Asst. Sec of State Karen Hughes implied recently that the terrible image of the US around the world is a result of bad PR (
link).
I would suggest the dramatic deterioration of the US image around the world in the last five years, particularly among Muslims, and the resulting increase in terrorism worldwide (granted, not on US soil) is in large part the result of bad policy -- invading Iraq (NIE finding that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists), disdain for the rights of unaccused civilians, etc. (I admit to not having 97 reasons yet) -- not bad PR.