Jimmy Carter working on weakening the USA
 

Most of you kids are too young to remember Carter, I'm old enough but barely.

The Hallmark of his presidency was the Iran hostage crisis, gas lines, double digit inflation, and his incompetence at dealing with just about any major issue.

Anyways no need to harp on his presidency, he did his bit and gave us 12 years of Republican presidents.

But I draw the line at this....

Jimmy, who was apparently out of the loop even when he was president, apparently wants to break up the US alliance with GB over the war on terror. You know there is something 'special' about the president. The office itself commands respect and if ANYONE knows how hard it is to be president it should be Carter who had such a hard time.

He even admits he has no real knowledge of what is going on when he says So he doesn't know whats going on yet feels the need, as an ex-president, to verbally attack our strongest ally?

I think I agree with his mother ...

Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself ~~"Lillian, you should have remained a virgin." -- Lillian Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter)

I often wonder if people take Carter seriously. I mean, I give the man props as an idealist and humanist, but that is where kudos should be drawn. You can't call him a lame duck president, he wasn't afforded a second term. He legitimately might be one of the worst presidents the Union has seen; how can you suck so much coming off Nixon and Ford is beyond me. Bottom line is the guy had a failed presidency, and in the context of our times he is not only irrelevant, but his commentary is insignificant and detrimental to the country. Hey James, how did the Camp David accords work out for you?

His criticism is entirely legitimate. It is hardly an attack on the UK.

The current UK admin HAS been (to all appearences) the current US admin's bitch. Carter, a democrat, is suggesting that the UK's admin blew the opportunity to use it's influence to temper the wost of the US admin's actions.

Many agree that had Bush just stayed focused on Afghanistan and "the war on terror" and not pissed around in Iraq, the world would be a better place. Carter, is simply supporting that position.

I see it as a reprimand and well timed one at that. There is about to be a regime change in the UK and one is looming in the US. These are important questions that we all need to ask ourselves.

Sorry you feelings were hurt because one of your ex-presidents doesn't agree with your world view, or that of your current president. That's politics.

Not that I was a big Carter fan, but If he is irrelevant and insignificant, by what measure is his commentary detrimental to the US?

BTW, I think most historians would say the Camp David Accords worked out quite well, given what the were drafted to accomplish - a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt and a process for creating an autonomous Palestinian authority in the West Bank and Gaza. Its unfortunate that subesquent presidents have not been able to build on it.

Is it just me or are old presidents now breaking the gentleman's code of not criticizing current administration choices, decisions and situations? I don't recall hearing from previous presidents in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

No, just some of them.

Well christ Ustwo who's left? The only living former presidents are Ford, Bush the Elder, Carter, and Clinton. Ford's got so many medical problems I'd be surprised if he can concentrate on what he'll have for breakfast. Bush isn't gonna criticize his own son even if he does think the president's an idiot (and he probably does- remember it was dad who said how incredibly stupid it would be to take out Saddam, and who predicted that if we ever did, we'd get exactly what's happening today). That leaves only Clinton and Carter, so now you have the convenient excuse to bash the democrats once again.

This kind of bullshit idiotic rhetoric might have worked 3 years ago when the nation was still foaming at the mouth to fight an illegal and useless war because they'd forgotten Vietnam but now that people remember that wars actually kill people, they're not so pleased that your friend Bush has gotten us into this mess. They're not gonna be as receptive to the party line anymore.

Ustwo, how is anything Jimmy Carter says relavent? Who does Jimmy Carter represent other than Jimmy Carter? The only reason anyone asks his opinion is because of the job that he held 25 years ago, and he's no longer privy to the information he had back then. Other than an attempt to flame a former president does this post have a point? It would be one thing if there was a group of supporters rallying around Carter or if there were a Carter school of thought, but he's a private citizen now (albeit one with Secret Service protection).

By the way, is a pretty cheap shot, regardless of whatever point you're trying to make. All Carter admits to is that he doesn't have any information that the rest of us don't. Cince we're all just working off of public information, how can you possibly criticize him?

Sorry if I'm being a dick, but I'm really just perplexed as to your point here.

1. There is far more press covering ex-presidents and news can move within seconds across every part of this country.

2. Yes, there were ex-presidents before now that criticized how the government was being run. The Civil War is a great example. President John Tyler from Va. He tried to find a peace between the North and South and when it couldn't be reached, he took the South's side. OR Teddy Roosevelt felt that Taft was fucking up so badly he decided to split the party and run for president. Thus allowing Wilson to beat both of them.

3. Ex presidents are living far longer and in better health when they leave office. Most died shortly after leaving office.

So to say, this is something new, isn't true at all.

so of all the things you could have made a thread about--you know, cowboy's george's attempts to---um---"redefine" the geneva conventions, the creation of military tribunals that would work like star chamber courts in their ability to sentence defendants to death without letting them see the evidence against them etc.--you chose not only to criticize jimmy carter for saying something about tony blair that anyone who has been awake the past 5 pathetic years has known--but also to imply that somehow carter is "weakening america"

let's have a look at the carter center and see what it does to "weaken america":

how about this, from the center's welcome page:

so if i follow your "logic" then working to advance human rights weakens your america.
working to alleviate unnecessary suffering weakens your america.

how about this:

http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/index.html

advocating peace with justice clearly weakens your america, ustwo.
emphasizing the importance of international rules--agreed to by all--also obviously weaken's your america.
so does working to address histories of oppression.
participation in the monitoring of elections to reduce voter fraud weakens your america.

thinking for a moment about the bushproposals concerning the abuse of prisoners held in the cia phantom penal system, it is clear that there are two americas--and that in one of them all these are obviously wrong: peace, democracy, social justice....
and anyone advocates these kinds of "radical" views is exactly the sort you would expect the right to paint as a traitor.

if carter really embodies the inverse of your far right america ustwo, then the question is not what is carter doing, but rather who the fuck wants your far right america?



==========
btw i was not a fan of how carter functioned as president mostly because the policy apparatus over which he presided reduced his rhetoric of human dignity to little more than words--but as an independent citizen operating via an ngo, i see nothing bad in what jimmy carter has been doing--he is much more effective in the context of this ngo than he was as president.

The Peace Agreement between Israel and Egypt can not be held in responsibility for Carter. Egypt was completely decimated militarily. Israel controlled the Sinai, which held almost all of Egypt's oil and thus their income. Egypt hardly had anything that could be considered and Army or Air Force. Israel for their part had no ally in the region.

To claim that it was Carter's superior negotiation skills that caused the Peace Treaty is bunk.

And for the Israel/PLO treaty? Yeah we all know how well that has worked.

I'm glad to see conservatives are still using this attack on people who disagree with them.

It is well known that if you don't agree with the conservatives you hate America, love terrorism, and eat babies.

Its because he was PRESIDENT Renka. He's not some guy posting on TFP, he should know better. Everything he touched as president turned to shit, and he did a bang up job for us in north korea too.

When an ex-president, who says he doesn't know whats going on behind the scenes, criticizes our one major ally on the war on terror, its more than just someone who doesn't agree with conservatives.

Its unconscionable.

Exactly there is a certain repsonsibility one must exude before opening their mouth. Carter saying serves no purpose and in no way shape or form helps America, its allies, or any of our ongoing missions. All it does is further fracture the country, the world, and plays right into the PR campaign of the insurgency and broader terrorism. Just because you can do something, doesn't make doing it smart or right; that especially bodes true when you are an ex-pres.

I find it very odd anyone has a problem with this, but I suppose it is an American eccentricity - in other nations, former leaders are free to support or oppose current policies. I think, as is often the case, some are overestimating the influence that ancient American presidents have on anything other than the stock market value of Depends.

Perhaps leaders who immediately precede the current leader have some influence, as you know, a lot of people Clinton did business with in the larger world are still around and might listen to him. Everyone that Carter did business with is long, long out of power and/or dead.

Again, this is nothing new in the scheme of ex-presidents and current. There have been many ex's that have spoken out against the currents.

The issue here is that the GOP perhaps fear that Carter's voice is respected too much and that people may listen to what he says and there maybe truth in what he says. Otherwise, why do you care so much and why is it such a big deal to you?

Every person in the US has the right to speak out and to voice their opinion. To say an ex-president cannot is wrong and against what this country stands for. You may not like what he says and there may not be any merit or fact behind what he says, BUT he still has the right to say whatever he wants.

Just because he was an ex president and voices his opinion does not mean it is any more valid or any less valid than anyone else's nor should anyone sit there and pass judgement and say "how dare he". He's exercising his right, just as you are when you say "how dare he."

so i take it that you lads of the extreme right dont really like freedom of speech.

and that if you had any power, you would eliminate it in the name of national unity, the unity of will behind a nationalist project shaped by the clear need to stomp out enemies internal and external--united in this project behind the figure of a heroic leader----one delivered by providence to guide "us" through an interminable state of emergency to impose a purity of composition to the nation--start with ideological purity, then move to the really stupid projects, eh?

it seems to me that as extreme reactionary politics american style slides closer and closer to the ash-heap that its few remaining supporters are beginning to show their explicitly authoritarian politics--they are dropping even the pretense of interest in democracy as the appeal of their politics evaporates in the face of its material consequences--no doubt the extreme right will spend its next extended period of political obscurity licking its wounds and consoling itself by repeating stories of how it was stabbed in the back by evildoers like jimmy carter.

this is a whackjob('s) thread.

I like how I am representative of the "extreme right" because I think certain people should use some responsibility when speaking. To me this is not an issue of free speech, I never said he shouldn't be able to say something, I said he should not willingly. It's funny how in this instance of war/conflict, the left finds themselves in a position of little power and sway, and their agenda has been crushed. What's worse is they have totally and utterly failed to grasp the reality, that the troops are staying in Iraq, they are not going anywhere, even if you take a lead in these midterms, there will be no dramatic shift in policy. You are the ones who do a disservice to the armed forces by keeping this country fractured, you only empower and embolden their enemy ala Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia; and now Iraq.

mojo: i am not interested in trading vague pronouncements beyond what i wrote above--which pertained to the logic of posts (including yours) within the thread.

unlike yourself it seems, i make no pretense to know what the future holds.
i do not have any magical understanding of what november will bring.
but i did see a national review article that said almost word for word the content of your post above.
it seemed like a piece designed to rationalize defeat for the faithful.

but i am less confident in my oracular abilities. perhaps because i do not precede my thinking with assumptions about having "mastered reality" as you do. so far as i am concerned, master of reality is best kept the title of a black sabbath record.

Very contradictory statement, sounds to me like you are saying: "I know he is allowed to say anything, but he better not say anything that I deem is hurtful."

To me this isn't about the context of what Carter said, because I don't allow anyone to influence my opinion based on just who they are or what office they hold. I base my opinion on my knowledge, what facts on both sides I can get, and the opinion of people I respect, and again that doesn't mean just because he held an office I respect his views, more than another's or because he is from my party, I respect his views more than another's or or because he suffers from mental issues, or is/was a convict I don't respect his views, less than another's.

In other words, what Carter said doesn't change my mind on this issue, or for that matter even add to my opinion on the issue. Basically because, I truly don't find what Carter said to be of any use in forming my opinion.

To me this is the Limbaugh GOP'er trying to cry about how someone, people may respect and value the opinion of, disagrees with their views and how that person should not have the right ..... oops..... that person should not say what they feel they need to, because it puts forth a differing view.

I find it odd that this is being described as attacking an ally. Anyone interested in international politics would know that in the last two weeks the Labour Party has all but enacted a coup on Tony Blair, forcing him to give a date for his resignation (as promised in the last election). The sole reason for this action was Blair following Bush in lockstep for any Bush policy, without regard for the best interests of Britain.

Carter didn't say anything that the Labour Party or the majority of citizens had not determined for themselves.

I don't get where this prevaling notion of defeat comes from. Shit in Iraq is bad, and is uncomfortably behind schdule, but in no sense of the (or maybe just mine) imagination is it lost. I'm going to have to leave it at that for right now so as not to completely thread jack. As for my words acting off of predictions of the future, or my monopoly of reality, I don't see it has that; I call it thoughts and notions stemming from observation, and deductions from reasoning.

For you RB a question, which I'm sure you stated before, would you indulge me once again. You are a teacher, what is your field?

And a thought, the biggest impediment to truth is not ignorance, it is arrogance.

Ustwo and Mojo, it isn't that his comments hurt America it is that they hurt your view of what America should be. There is a big difference. I'm sure there are many people out there who feel that what he is saying helps their view of what America should be and what Bush is doing hurts it. Let's not confuse what each of us individually feel America should be with what everyone else feels it should be. There are millions of different ideas of what it should be and what makes your view right?

It's not really just limited to the article Elphaba, I'm coming more in response to the recent torrent of active and interviews coming from Jim Carter.

Maybe it all does stem from my perspective, but how does anything Jimmy say help the current situation? He has no cards in play, and as stated repeatedly he has no more information on the issues then we do; he's pretty much incontinent/crazy grandpa spouting off at the dinner table.

It is accepted that not all speech is protected.

mojo: my field?
most of my history work is on post-1945 france.
but i work in a number of areas.
why do you ask?

Trying to get a feel for the basis of your knowledge perhaps. Not that I would limit you merely to that, or invalidate you in any way, just curious mostly.

Unfortunately, many people do form their opinions or at least listen more intently when it comes from a person such as the ex-President. Although, I believe you already hinted at that.

What seems to be implied here though is that anyone who criticizes Blair's willingness to follow in the exact footsteps as the President is wishing for us to break our Alliance with England. Which I find absurd. That's almost alone the same lines as we're unpatriotic if we don't like our own country's policies.

And besides, who cares how Carter ran his Presidency? That has nothing to do with how he forms opinions about how current/future Presidents run theirs. And yes, he does have the right to say what he wishes, because we let Journalists agree with or disagree with other Presidents even though they have never been President either.

Besides, as it was stated before, the English people are very mad at Blair for following our President's footsteps for quite some time now. Are they too against our alliance? Do they hate America? Do they want the UK to rot in total anarchy! No. They just think what's going on is wrong, and the UKs policies shouldn't precisely mirror our's without more thought. We can still be allies and disagree.

You've also given us no reason why he should agree with you. Is what Tony Blair did in reality the right thing to do, for us and for his own country? Are you mad because if we lose one more military-ally in the war, it will yet again weaken our own cause for fighting this 'Global War on Terror'?

At least now, when iraq descends into civil war and we get hit by the terrorists again you folks can blame it all on jimmy carter. Certainly, if our nation is any weaker it can't have anything to do with the people who are actually in charge of it.


Jimmy carter is working to weaken the usa? Please. Jimmy carter has no power whatsoever. You know who's really working to weaken the usa? The guy who has overextended our military in an irrelevant struggle against a weak and unthreatening country.

What kind of crazy world do you have to live in to twist a cliched phrase like "I haven't seen any evidence of it" into a confession of ignorance of the world around you?

T'were it not for stagflation and the hostage situation, we'd probably remember Carter as the guy that really established diplomatic relations with China, formed the Dept of Energy, and helped the SALT II treaty... and beat a bunny rabbit with an oar.

On the subject of stagflation and the hostage situation and 12 years of republicans. Well. Iran-Contra to the Carlyle Group. Might have been something going on behind the scenes, there.

Oh my god, dont let this man speak? If you can show me in this post any of us who wishes to make his speech illegal you have a point. Until then you're creating and burning your own strawmen.

None of us said he should be imprisoned or silenced. All this happens to be is a man who was worthless as president, and now flings his presidential seal like a rent-a-cop who flashes his cop badge because 20 years ago he was in the force before being fired for incompetence.

Why am I not surprised that it would get around to blaming anyone who speaks out against the current war policy as fracturing or weakening the US.:eek:

I didn't say anything about policy, I said the disservice done to the armed services and their efforts.

Thanks for your clarification. I wasnt sure what you meant by "empowering and emboldening their enemy"

At least your comments were not as strident as recent comments by Condi Rice, making some convoluted comparison that opposing Bush's war policy would have been like abandoning the Civil War and letting slavery remain in the south. (WTF!)
BTW, did it ever occur to you that just maybe it is Bush that is "keeping this country fractured"?

....and this:
....and this:
...and of course, it's about this:
<b>This thread, and the crisis of leadership that we are experienceing at the federal level in the US, today, is what the discussion is about. It's not about Carter, It's about the shrinking space, and perceptions, of those who support the failed leadership...I think that it makes them a lil "panicky", and very...very....cranky!</b>

Leveling a specific criticism at an ally doesn't "weaken America" (particularly when the criticism is an apt one, but on that matter I concede that reasonable people may disagree.)

For those who are in agreement with the OP on this issue, do you not think that the perception of our main ally as an obedient client state has damaged our ability to win the ideological conflicts in which we're now engaged?

Will America's interests be well-served once Blair is out and the backlash against his policy towards the US begins? It is fairly clear that his successor will not have the same attitude towards the United States.

It's not at all self-evident that Carter's position or his statement hurts America. If you truly think it does, then it follows that, as roachboy said earlier, we're talking about two very different conceptions of what America is and should be.

Why, arrogance, of course. But I'm guessing you knew that, Rekna. :D I'm going to absolutely agree with Mojo on this one. Anyone think we should be passing out mirrors?


I would suggest that anyone that is barely old enough to remember Carter shouldn't be calling anyone a 'kid'. That's almost... arrogant...


What strikes me as ridiculous is that no one has given us any reason to disagree with the Carter statement. Is something that is completely apparent really a problem to America? We're in sad shape if such a statement causes us a problem.

But I guess it's harder and harder to find things outside of the administration to point a finger at.

Carter was just #3 of the new deal democrat presidents bent on destroying America. He just got off to a late start is all.....like 20 years after his presidency.

What amazes me is the people on the Right keep bringing up Carter's presidency, yet as others have stated, noone has challenged what he said.

In fact by bringing more attention to it and just being all hateful with no debate, no true discussion other than how bad a president he was, and how he "weakened us" and basically saying, he had no right to say anything and should be shut up...... you weaken your whole stance.

Personally, I was 9 when he was elected in '76 and I was 13 when he left office.

Carter faced an uphill battle. Nixon and Agnew had pretty much destroyed faith in the government, we were coming out of an extremely expensive unpopular war, and the nation was alreadfy hurting.

Carter, really didn't do anything to help the nation or hurt the nation. Inflation, high interest rates and unemployment were pretty much coming anyway. There wasn't anything he could do to stop it at the time.

Carter also was too trusting and put in some people that were corruptable.

Carter, as a president, was probably one of the worst, but not because of what he did or didn't do, but because of what he walked into. The GOP and Nixon had pretty much left the nation in a mess. Carter's biggest strength is his diplomacy and intelligence on world affairs, his weakness was trusting the wrong people and quite frankly he wasn't cold hearted and self centered enough to be president.

But, he was what the country needed at that moment to save it domestically...... someone the people could trust and like as a person.

How will true history judge him in another 20+ years when it's been 50 years since he was president.... I really don't think he'll be thought of much. He'll go down as a Buchanan, Fillmore, Polk, Cleveland.

Here are the effects, in borrowed dollars, of "leadership" choices:

From: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
12/29/1961 $296,168,761,214.92 Start of JFK's First budget year
12/31/1969 $368,225,581,254.41 Start of Nixon's first budget year
12/30/1977 $718,943,000,000.00 start of Carter's first budget year
12/31/1981 $1,028,729,000,000.00 start of Reagan's first budget year
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32 start of Bush 41's first budget year
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 start of Clinton's first budget year
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 start of Bush 43's first budget year
09/12/2006 $8,534,633,344,894.82 http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

In 1980 When the total treasury debt stood at $995 billion, and the US was well into the process of turning away from the failed policies of militarism that resulted in the 1975 withdrawal of US presence in South Vietnam, and had developed a "model" foreign policy with a foundation firmly anchored in a new priority for championing human rights, nationally and internationally,
and national priorities were identified with energy conservation and independence, the US electorate chose: <b>Republican leadership that stressed militarism over diplomacy, WASP centric discrimination against women, gays, and minorities, over equality, resulting in huge deficit spending,</b> accompanied by cuts in domestic social programs, workers rights, worker safety regulation, environmental protection, energy independence research and subsidies, and taxes on the wealthy and on business. Spending shifted to finance a huge military buildup, and to corporate entitlements and agency wrecking, "cronyism" appointments, similar to what we witnessed, last year, with the FEMA implosion.</b>

When the US electorate shifted away from the political leadership that had sponsored what I described above, the national treasury <b>debt was almost 4-1/2 times the level of 12 years before, at $4,411,488,883,139.38.</b>

After eight years of reduction in all of the areas that I described above, including an increase on taxes on the income of the rich, reduced military spending, aggressive environmental regulation and protectiong of federal lands and wildlife habitat, the rights of gays, women and minorities, and a renewed pursuit of diplomatic solutions in the M.E.. with China, and in world trade, with a long term emphasis on solving CO2 emissions damage to the environment, the US electorate <b>by a razor thin margin, if any....</b>chose: <b>Republican leadership that stressed militarism over diplomacy, WASP centric discrimination against women, gays, and minorities, over equality, and huge deficit spending,</b> accompanied by cuts in domestic social programs, workers rights, worker safety regulation, environmental protection, energy independence research and subsidies, and taxes on the wealthy and on business. Spending shifted to finance a huge military buildup, and to corporate entitlements and agency wrecking, "cronyism" appointments, similar to what we witnessed, last year, with the FEMA implosion.</b>
This time, the militarism included a policy of preemption, resulting in an increase to the national treasury debt of $2,727 billion, in just 59-1/2 months....

Can anyone who "knows" that the republican leadership that, for the last 45 years, always makes us "stronger", except in the areas of diplomacy, respect for individual and human rights, policies and programs to keep less of us out of poverty and uninsured medically, and progressive taxation, government ethics and quality of political appointments and "open" government, energy conservation and independence, environmental protection and private encroachment and exploitation of irreplacable resources on public land, and appointment of judges committed to a priority of protecting the least of us from the rest of us, safeguards that insure a fair and transparent bidding process on government contracts that results in best price and quality for the taxpayers, financial support for public housing, mass transit, and vital inner city infrastructure, parks, and public safety....along with mind numbing, eye popping, deficit growth, <b>explain to me how the "tax and spend liberals" are worse, when the numbers and the results are compared, during and after the leadership time periods of each?</b>

....because, I don't see it. I see that one choice, is so clearly superior to the other....based on the experience of the last 45 years, and of the deficit numbers and the rise and fall of the reputation of the US in the global community, and how our goverment regards us, relates to us, protects us and the environment, who and how it taxes the most, and increases and reduces taxes on, and what it willingly discloses to us, and refuses to disclose, that I wonder how those who are so sure that "Carter was a bad president", and Reagan was a wonderful one...." come by that opinion. I'm guessing that it must be the influence of ideology, because the numbers and the trends, when each was in office, and from the legacy that each left the rest of us, speak clearly, for themselves. For the nation, is "stronger" with a huge, unserviceable, recently accumulated treasury debt, a legacy that is "less weak" than a legacy that leaves a debt less than half the size, with less militarism, but a well respected diplomatic reputation, human rights principles, and perceived equality at home, a stronger social safety net, a judiciary that defends individual, and consumer rights, and environmental protection, over corporate and government lawyers priorities and arguments? Looking at the numbers, is the militaristic party governance, if it spends much more time "leading us", even sustainable, financially?

Would we really be worse off today, if Carter had been given another four years, to pursue the following agenda, and if the "Reagan Revolution", had never occured? How?
I recall that you've posted that your higher learning curriculum includes the history of the M.E. Where did you get that "stuff"?
Why is Carter held in such low regard, compared to Reagan, and why are democrats demonized as "tax and spend liberals", given the record that I've outlined? Why would it be in the interest of any working class American, to support Reagan or either Bush? Did Americans receive more from government versus the taxes they paid, the debt that they owe. and pay the interest on,
from the Reagan and 2X Bush administrations, than they would have from four additional years of a Carter presidency, and six years of Al Gore, vs, the ten years that the republicans held the presidency, instead?

Are we, as a nation, safer, enjoying higher environmental quality, more energy independence and conservation, more individual rights, better education and social services, less poverty, better maintained public infrastructure, and better relations with our allies, and non-aligned nations, in a world that has a higher priority of promoting human rights and uniform justice....are our courts more representative and sensitive to today's population demographics in the US....is the workplace safer, and labor organizing oversight, and SEC oversight, and the fiscal soundness of our corporations, because of the higher debt that the ten extra years of republican presidential administration, and congressional "leadership", has provided to us, than if democrats had been elected and served? Is our government less corrupt, more transparent?

Can anyone make an argument that Carter and Gore could have governed in some way that would have been less fair, shortchanged us more, left us with more debt, and in a worse state in our relationship with the community of nations, than we find ourselves in, today? Could we possibly be more dependent on imported petroleum, have a higher trade and budget deficit, have cities and race relations in worse shape, than they are today? Speaking for the 150 million Americans who control less than 2-1/2 percent of the national wealth, and the forty percent who control another 27 percent of that wealth, I just don't see how they could have produced worse results or greater debt, or more gender, race, and sexual orientation based discrimination and inequality or worse international relations, or a greater threat to national security that exorbitant treasury debt and disproportionate energy consumption and dependence, compared to all other nations, than what we currently experience, in all of those categories, can you....how?

America's image around the world is at an all-time low and it has nothing to do with Carter and everything to do with Bush's foreign policy and actions.

From a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project

America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/252-1.gif

The survey shows that the Iraq war continues to exact a toll on America's overall image and on support for the struggle against terrorism. Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great Britain, America's most important ally in Iraq, 60% say the war has made the world more dangerous, while just half that number (30%) feel it has made the world safer.

The U.S.-led war on terror draws majority support in just two countries - India and Russia.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/252-4.gif

When much of the world considers the US a greater threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea, how does that help our global war on terrorism?

THe full Pew Report: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

You are right, America should conduct its policy based on international popularity and polls.

mojo:

because this administration has chosen to use the discourse of morality to justify its actions, how it is perceived internationally as a viable "moral agent" if you like is fundamental.
the legitimacy not only of the administration's action, but of the administration itself rests on it.
this was a choice the bush people made in the period immediately after 9/11/2001--and they have been consistent in their obsessive use of this language.
so the problems that their actions create for them are fundamentally their own fault for choosing a strategy for marketing their ideology that is, quite simply, extremely vulnerable. the illusion of strength of purpose it provides is a very thin and tenous one.
while the discourse of morality may appeal to the far right christian set, in the real world, it is a very risky tack to adopt.

oddly enough, this lesson was also learned by the carter administration, but in a very different context with a very different (and to my mind far more sane) agenda behind it. maybe that is an underlying reason why the far right seems to be having fun the past couple days in excoriating carter--he threatens the illusion of monopoly on morality that the bush people like to claim for themselves.

i think colin powell is right about the implications of the practices associated with the bushwar in its most general sense for the legitmacy of the united states as an international actor. i think mcain and warner are right as well.

the bush administration is the worst enemy the discourses of democracy and morality have had for some time.
the arguments that you have been making, which are all based on raison d'etat, overlook what machiavelli was very clear about: if you are going to wrap your actions in claims to morality, you cannot in fact be moral---but you MUST maintain the appearance of consistency, otherwise you will be reviled.
and even you would have to admit that, at this juncture, the bush administration is reviled.
everywhere.
you might not like it, but you can't deny it.

this points to a significant political problem that you cannot simply wish away.
there is little to be done after a loss of legitimacy.

I dont think anyone said our policy should be based on international popularity and polls, but nice attempt at trying to spin it that way because you dont like the resuts. :thumbsup:

The US can never win the global war on terrorism alone, and not understanding the value of having support of foreign governments AND the citizens of those countries is short-sighted and jingoistic.

Mojo, would you agree that terrorist cells are likely in place throughout Europe and the Mid East. Do you not see the downside of having citizens in those countries more sympathetic to terrorists than to the US?

DC, I think it is a stretch to suggest that citizens in those countries would be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to the US.

I more relevant point, as far as Europe is concerned anyway, is that they are democracies and a democratically elected goevernment can lose its support base by making decisions to support a war that is not popular at home.

European nations recognize that their people do not support adding their arms to the folly of Iraq. To do so, would be political suicide.

Charlatan, I think dc_dux has asked a legitimate question. I would only alter his statement to include insurgents in the case of Iraq. Disaffected citizens of Great Britain were responsible for the tube bombings, reportedly due to the occupation of Iraq. This is just one example, but others exist as well. Reasonably strong allies such as Egypt and Jordan are now soured toward us as well. We did far more harm than good in global relations with this ill advised adventure.

In the past 10 years, the US lost to terrorism 5 consulate members in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 12/6/04, 2 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 6/9/04, 1 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 5/29/04, 2,992 on 9/11, 17 in Aden, Yemen 10/12/2000, and 19 in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia 6/25/96, totalling in about 3036. I mourn for these people and their loved ones, but ydo you have any idea how many people we have killed in the past 10 years? Do you have any idea how many Arabs we have killed in the past 10 years? Do you have any idea how many Muslims we have killed in the past 10 years? Do you know how many have died because we supply Israel with weapons? And finally, do you know how many of those terrorist attacks that claimed American lives in the past 10 years were carried out by Iraqis?

I do see a downside to people becoming sympathetic to terrorism. Terrorism as a political device is extreemly dangerous and even as a last resort cannot be condoned. I certianally understand their thought process, though. It's easy to interpret the US actions in the past 20-30 years as being that of an empire (and I don't mean empire like the apple, I have nothing against apples and I support them), and empires have no place in a world that claims to be more and more democratic. As we can see throuhout history, the most succesful tool against an empire is terrorism.

To make my point clear: with an empire comes terrorist resistence, always. Whether you believe the US to be an empire or not, our actions clearly draw the connection in many people's minds.

I invite you to peruse the following evidence that the betrayal of the economic wellbeing and the present national security of the US, was intentionally planned and implemented,, by the politicians and the party that you support, despite the vision, planning, legislation, and appropriations of funds, by the very former president who you are on display here, mocking, apparently because you are unaware of the details of the "history", posted arleady on this thread, and...... at this link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108616 and here:
<b>By the way, you are still supporting the traitorous menace perpetrated on the American people, and on the rest of western civilization, carried out now by former oil "biz" executives, Bush, and the former ceo of the largest oil services corp in the world, stock symbol, "HAL", your VP, Dick Cheney.</b>
HAL quadrupled in price, from the level where it traded on the NYSE in early 2003, on the eve of the Iraqi invasion, and it's peak, ealier this year......

Would it be too much of a "mind fuck" to consider that Carter met the US growing dependence on foreign oil, "head on", drafting a 3 legged plan of conservation and price deregulation, strategic reserve stockpiling, and research, public funding,and tax credits to promote new and alternative energy resources, that was prescient enough to avoid the negative effects on progress that swings in free market pricing. and the natural tendency of wealthy competitors of alternative energy to buy up the fledgling industry and stifle it's growth?

Is it possible, at all, for you to consider that <b>the opposite</b> of what you believe, what you stand behind politically, is most likely more accurate......that Carter put our country on the correct path, towards balanced trade, foreign energy independence, national security that doesn't depend on cronyism from the money and influence of the oil and defense industries, and the "politics of fear" that is required to attract votes and to blind the electorate as they are made less safe and less prosperous, mired in astronomical debt? Can you not even suspect that this is the legacy of Reagan and the two Bush's? The proof is in what happened to alternative energy and the program of tax credits and government funded research that Carter persuaded the congress to pass and to fund. The treasury debt numbers show which administrations cut the taxes on the rich and domestic spending, while they continued to grow the government and accumulate the debt, and which presidential administrations reversed the growth of debt, slowed military spending, enjoyed better foreign relations with other nations, operated in a more open and accountable manner with the electorate, and stifled oil industry profits, while protecting the environment and public land, lessened the poverty rate, and the number of Americans without health insurance.

Does it puzzle you at all, that Reagan could destroy Carter's energy reform initiatives, end the tax credits that were vital and offered pay back in so many ways....from new employment in the alternative energy industry, to savings in military spending for a nation relieved of the dependence on foreign oil, and the cost, that we've experience, avoidably for 20 years? Does the initiation of a period of tax cutting and military spending, all to insure that the "fear" message would enrich the defense industry and attract the votes, that caused a 12 year federal borrowing "spree", that increased the treasury debt, by a factor of 4-1/2 times, the existing debt as Carter's single term ended, give you pause? Hasn't the last six years, going from reduced oil industry profits, elimination of deficit spending, reduced military spending, to the opposite.....and a new, six year deficit of $2750 billion, cause you any doubt?

Can you consider that former oil industry executives, as US president and Vice president, and the cronyism and influence of multi national oil corps. that they've brought into our government with them, are a cancer on the fiscal health or our nation, on our security, and on our legacy to our children....a pox on all of our houses, that we just got through enduring, as recently as in 1993, and here it is again?

If the newly minted treasury debt, the oil and defense industry profits, the message of fear, are not all a repeat of the post Carter period in America, than what are they? How stupid do you think we are? We've opposed the influence, money, and the agenda of "big oil", and of the defense industry, on our governance, and on the quality of our lives, since high school, et tu?

Charlantan, it goes well beyong the democractic governments of Europe loosing their base by supporting Bush.

Bush is the face of America and among the citizens of much of the world, he is the bullying Ugly American - perceived as an arrogant cowboy who tells the world "do it my way or fuck off." That does not generate sympathy or support for America. More and more, opinion among foreigners is reaching the point of "they (the US) deserve what they get."

Now, there is an ominous new report that our "oil industry run" government, may be planning a "double or nothing" military move in the M.E., timed with the eve of the midtern, november election in the US:
The following, 16 year old reporting, speaks volumes of the decisions that got us here, as well as the Aug. 16, Bush comments in my sig. "Free market" is a euhpemism for selling out the interests of almost all Americans for the enrichment of a corrupt, corporatist class of petroleum and defemse industry interests. 26 years ago, and again in 2004, Voters has another choice, but they voted in reaction to rhetoric of fear and on "maintaining a strong military", and in the 2004 election, Americans did not even face a rival super power to "re=arm", against.

If Time.com knows this... oh, fuck me...

I was about to ask the obvious question as to who can stop the president. Bush believes he has been given carte blanc by congress to make any military move he deems necessary in the "war on terror" without any further consultation. Rumsfeld will obey/welcome the order. Seconded by Cheney, of course.

If the neocon administration is intent on an attack of Iran, there will be only the military chiefs of staff to block that move. They are pledged to obey the CIC, but first of all to defend the Constitution.

I suspect we are about to learn what "Americans" are made of.

Ustwo...I am still trying to understand your original premise....that " Jimmy Carter is working to weakening the USA." Perhaps you can explain further.

Is he weakening the US because of how his remarks will be perceived in the UK. The people of the UK were already overwhelming against the war and the Labour Party lost seats in the last Parliamentary election, partially as a mandate against Blair's support of the US policy in Iraq.

Is he weakening the US with other allies? Of the major members of the original coalition in Iraq, only Australia continues to support the policy. The other two major coaltion members, Italy and Spain, have elected new governments, both in part, as opposition to supporting the US policy.

Is he weaking the US at home? I would suggesst that most Americans are not even aware of Carter's remarks (the same applies to most people among our allied countries) and have already formed an opinion about the war, with most now opposing.

Is he weakening the moral of the troops, as Mojo seems to imply?

Would you say the same about Colin Powell's recent remarks about Bush's bill to redefine prisoner interrogation policy:

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 (of the Geneva Convention) would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

I fail to see how Carter's remarks have done any of the above. In fact, both Carter's and Powell's remarks demonstrate that there are voices in government, past and present, who have different moral standards than Bush.

Why are such remarks bad and how does it weaken the US?

Any clarification would certainly help me and others understand your premise.

As nearly as I can tell, there are only two who do so. Bush Sr. publicly announced that he wouldn't second-guess Clinton.

Maybe we could limit it to the last 50 years or so. Other than Reagan's comment that Bush Sr. "didn't seem to stand for anything" (which might have been Alzheimer's talking) I can't recall a president in my lifetime who behaved in such a classless fashion.

Now you have Mr. "Astroturf-in-the-bed-of-my-pickup" lecturing us. Lined up right behind him is Mr. "I've lusted in my heart" who was pretty much raised and educated in his young years by a sharecropper on his parents' farm. Who nominated himself for a Nobel prize.

Reagan wouldn't even take his coat off in the oval office, because he thought it was disrespectful. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a classy act from someone who couldn't keep his pants ON in the oval office.

Did you read any of the documentation that I've posted in this forum about Reagan, and if you did, do you disapprove of anything that Reagan did.....the reversal of the entire "alternative energy" policy, the energy independence policy, his cessation of tax credits and R&D funding for alternative energy, his appointments of crony incompetents to manage the Synfuel corp., and his budget "Cuts" that resulted in the federal treasury debt previously accumulated.....$995 billion, in total, between 1789 and Jan., 1981.....then jumping up to $2,500 billion by the time Reagan left office?

I am not impressed that Reagan kept his effing "coat on" as he sold out almost all of our interests to corporate financed interests that simply bought up and "slowed down" the progress of Solar energy, and permitted "big oil" to "price out" fledging alternative energy.....exactly what the plans that Carter put in place, were designed to prevent from happening.

Shouldn't your post "measure up" to the work that some of us did here to present the "other side" of this thread's OP argument? You only get one chance to make a first impression, and I did not learn anything from what you've posted. IMO, it isn't supported by what we know has happened.

Is there any extreme policy or decision.......below the degree of something as farfetched and obvious as a current president doing something totally "off the wall".....like launching an unprovoked "aggressive war" of preemption.....similar to what Justice Robert Jackson condemned at the Nuremberg trials, where you could support a former president's public questioning of the official performance and integrity of the sitting president, or for you, is silence always the "rule"?