Jimmy Carter working to weakening the USA

[Ustwo]

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....

Former United States President Jimmy Carter has criticised the British Government’s “subservient” attitude towards the White House. Mr Carter told BBC’s Newsnight he believed Tony Blair was a good man, but that he could have used his influence more wisely.

The 81-year-old said: “There had once been a very strong voice from London in the shaping of a common policy. I have been really disappointed in the apparent subservience of the British government’s policies related to many of the serious mistakes that have originated in Washington.”

Mr Carter, an opponent of the war in Iraq, continued: “No matter what kind of radical or ill-advised policy was proposed from the White House, it seems to me that almost automatically the Government of Great Britain would adopt the same policy without exerting its influence. This was the case in the Middle East peace process, in the case of the Lebanese/Israeli war in the recent past and certainly in the ill-advised abandonment of the war against terrorism to substitute the war in Iraq.”

Asked if he thought Britain was exerting its influence behind the scenes, he replied he had seen no evidence of that.

“I haven’t seen the corrective effect of British disagreement with what the White House has proposed. It may be there, it hasn’t been evident to the public,” he said.

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

“I haven’t seen the corrective effect of British disagreement with what the White House has proposed. It may be there, it hasn’t been evident to the public,” he said.

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)

[Mojo_PeiPei]

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?

[Charlatan]

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.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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?

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.

[Cynthetiq]

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.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

[The_Jazz]

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,

He even admits he has no real knowledge of what is going on when he says
Quote:

“I haven’t seen the corrective effect of British disagreement with what the White House has proposed. It may be there, it hasn’t been evident to the public,” he said.

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.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

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.

[roachboy]

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:

The Carter Center is committed to advancing
human rights and alleviating unnecessary human
suffering. Join us in creating a world in which
every man, woman, and child has the opportunity
to enjoy good health and live in peace.

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:

Peace with justice requires resolving conflict according to rules agreed to by all, beginning with the shared commitment to human rights and democratic values. Today, virtually all governments claim to share this belief. The Carter Center, in partnership with others, seeks practical ways to narrow the gap between the rhetoric and realities of government policies in countries striving to overcome legacies of oppression and deadly conflict by building more just societies of their own.

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.

[Seaver]

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.

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.

[Rekna]

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.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

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.

[highthief]

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.

[pan6467]

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."

[roachboy]

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.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

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.

[roachboy]

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.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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.

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.

[Elphaba]

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.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

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.

[Rekna]

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?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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.

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.

Originally Posted by pan6467

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."

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.

[roachboy]

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?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

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.

[Paradise Lost]

Originally Posted by pan6467

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.

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.

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.

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'?

[filtherton]

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.

[1010011010]

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.

[Seaver]

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?

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.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

.... 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.

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.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

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

[dc_dux]

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!)

Rice offered a parallel between critics of the administration's Iraq policies and "people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold."

"I'm sure that there were people who said, "Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?" she said.

BTW, did it ever occur to you that just maybe it is Bush that is "keeping this country fractured"?

[host]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/nblair27.xml
Compliant and subservient: Jimmy Carter's explosive critique of Tony Blair
By John Preston and Melissa Kite
(Filed: 27/08/2006)

In an exclusive interview, President Carter made it plain that he sees Mr Blair's lack of leadership as being a key factor in the present crisis in Iraq, which followed the 2003 invasion - a pre-emptive move he said he would never have considered himself as president.

Mr Carter also said that the Iraq invasion had subverted the fight against terrorism and instead strengthened al-Qaeda and the recruitment of terrorists.

"We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that even in countries like Egypt and Jordan our approval ratings are less than five per cent. It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."

The outspoken attack by the former Democratic president shows the extent of the alienation between the Labour Party and its traditional Democrat allies in America....

......"We've never before had an administration that would endorse pre-emptive war - that is a basic policy of going to war against another country even though our own security was not directly threatened," he said. In his book, President Carter writes: "I have been sorely tempted to launch a military attack on foreigners."

But had he still been president, he says that he would never have considered invading Iraq in 2003.

"No," he said, "I would never have ordered it. However, I wouldn't have excluded going into Afghanistan, because I think we had to strike at al-Qaeda and its leadership. But then, to a major degree, we abandoned the anti-terrorist effort and went almost unilaterally with Great Britain into Iraq."

This, Mr Carter believes, subverted the effectiveness of anti-terrorist efforts. Far from achieving peace and stability, the result has been a disaster on all fronts. "My own personal opinion is that the Iraqi people are not better off as a result of the invasion and people in America and Great Britain are not safer."...

....and this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193011,00.html
Men Plead Not Guilty to Bush-Al-Jazeera Bombing Memo Leak
Tuesday, April 25, 2006

LONDON — Two men pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges of making a damaging disclosure by leaking a memo which included references to U.S. President George W. Bush talking of bombing Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera.

David Keogh, 49, a former Cabinet Office spokesman, and Leo O'Connor, 42, a former researcher for a lawmaker, were released on bail after appearing at the Central Criminal Court.

Their trial was set for Oct. 9.

Keogh faces two charges of violating the Official Secrets Act and O'Connor faces a single charge.

<b>The Daily Mirror newspaper reported that the memo revealed details of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House on April 16, 2004.

According to the newspaper, Blair argued against Bush's suggestion of bombing Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.</b> The Daily Mirror said its sources disagreed on whether Bush's suggestion was serious.

Blair has said he had no information about any proposed U.S. action against Al-Jazeera, and the White House called the claims "outlandish and inconceivable."

....and this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...400160_pf.html
Senators Defy Bush On Terror Measure
Panel Backs Rival Bill On Interrogations

By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 15, 2006; A01


A Senate committee rebuffed the personal entreaties of President Bush yesterday, rejecting his proposed strategies for interrogating and trying enemy combatants and approving alternative legislation that he has strenuously opposed.....

.......The disagreement centers mainly on how to square the CIA's techniques with the Geneva Conventions, which say wartime detainees must be "treated humanely." The administration bill says the United States complies with the conventions as long as interrogators abide by a 2005 law barring "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of captives.

<b>McCain and his chief Republican allies on the Senate committee, Chairman John W. Warner (Va.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), say that this requirement is too narrow and that the United States should not try to limit its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, they want CIA officers to abide by the common understanding of the treaty's meaning, including a ban on "outrages upon personal dignity."

Bush's bill would also allow alleged enemy combatants to be convicted by military commissions relying on classified information not shared with the suspects.</b> The McCain-backed measure would make the exclusion of classified information more difficult, and it states in general terms that defendants have the right to examine and respond to any evidence directly related to guilt or innocence.

Joining McCain, Warner and Graham in voting for their bill yesterday were Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and all of the committee's Democrats.

The dispute has fractured the GOP establishment. Powell and numerous retired military officers wrote letters supporting McCain's position, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials weighed in on Bush's behalf. The president made a rare visit to Capitol Hill yesterday to rally House Republicans and thank the House Armed Services Committee for overwhelmingly approving legislation that mirrored his position.

"The most important job of government is to protect the homeland, and yesterday they advanced an important piece of legislation to do just that," <h3>Bush told reporters. "I'll continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation so we can do our duty."</h3>........

...and of course, it's about this:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2452354

.........Sept. 16, 2006 — In the Rose Garden Friday, President Bush was loud and clear: If Congress doesn't agree with him, the hunt for terrorist plots will be crippled.

<h3>"The bottom line is simple," he said. "If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward."

President Bush wants his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions' ban on inhumane treatment of enemy soldiers.</h3>...

<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>

[hiredgun]

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.

[boatin]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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

Originally Posted by Rekna

There are millions of different ideas of what it should be and what makes your view right?

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

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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.

[dksuddeth]

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.

[pan6467]

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.

[host]

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?

Originally Posted by Seaver

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 recall that you've posted that your higher learning curriculum includes the history of the M.E. Where did you get that "stuff"?

<b>To Read full article:</b>
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...1/ai_n10629593
Clinton aims to match Carter's summit success

'78 Camp David talks laid base for later U.S. efforts in Mideast

By JOHN LANCASTER

Washington Post

Tuesday, July 11, 2000

Washington -- Alone in his study at the rustic Aspen lodge of Camp David, President Jimmy Carter gazed out the window at the Catoctin Mountains of Maryland and bowed his head in prayer. After 10 days, peace talks with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had broken down, apparently for good. Aides began drafting a speech for Carter announcing that the summit had failed.

The speech was never delivered, of course. The 1978 Camp David talks ended in a triumph for American diplomacy, setting the stage for the landmark Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and laying the foundation for U.S. efforts to broker a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, whose 52-year struggle over land and identity is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict......

<b>Abstract (Document Summary):</b>

Alone in his study at Camp David's rustic Aspen lodge, Jimmy Carter gazed out the window at Maryland's Catoctin Mountains and bowed his head in prayer. After 10 days, peace talks with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had broken down, apparently for good. Aides began drafting a speech for Carter announcing that the Camp David summit had failed.

It was a diplomatic high-wire act that came perilously close to disaster. According to Carter's account, Begin's insistence on maintaining Jewish settlements in the Sinai infuriated Sadat, who at one point packed his bags and arranged for a helicopter to pick him up. Carter, too, grew exasperated with the hard-line Israeli. "You are as evasive with me as with the Arabs," he told Begin in one heated exchange. "The time has come to throw away reticence. Tell us what you really need."

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security adviser, it was only after Carter threatened to publicly blame Israel for the collapse of the talks that Begin finally relented on the settlement issue. Begin's concession helped save the summit. In March 1979, Sadat and Begin returned to Washington to sign the peace treaty that restored the Sinai to Egypt and paved the way for the first exchange of ambassadors between Israel and an Arab state.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/...ps_energy.html
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy............

..........If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price............

.....The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.

I've given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom.

Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.

AP
Dateline: WASHINGTON, June 30
Publication title: New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 1, 1980. pg. D.1

President Carter signed legislation today encouraging development of synthetic energy sources, declaring that ''the keystone of our national energy policy is at last being put in place.''

In a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House, the President said his energy policy - two-thirds completed with the signing of the new bill -''gives us the weapons to wage and win the energy war.''

The scope of the synthetic fuels program ''will dwarf the combined programs that led us to the moon and built our interstate highway system,'' he said.

$92 Billion in U.S. Spending

All told, the program could mean eventual Government expenditures of $92 billion by 1992, although initial funding authorization is for about $24 billion.

President Carter's aides had originally contemplated a July 4th ceremony in which the President would have signed the Energy Security Act, as the bill is formally known, and another bill creating an Energy Mobilization Board to assign priorities to energy projects and place some on a ''fast track.''

But a House vote on Friday to send the second bill back to a House-Senate conference committee denied President Carter that opportunity. All but nine Republicans voted against the measure.

The President, in remarks prepared for delivery at the signing ceremony today, said: ''The fight for energy security is not a partisan fight. I ask members from both parties to complete our energy agenda in the same spirit of cooperation that has brought us the success which we are celebrating today.''

He urged Congressional leaders to turn out legislation establishing an energy board that would speed up approval of energy projects while respecting environmental concerns.

The synthetic fuels program, the energy board and the already enacted tax on oil companies' ''windfall'' profits that stem from oilprice decontrol make up the three legs of President Carter's energy program.

''The new Energy Security Act will help the American people to conserve even more and industry to produce more energy,'' President Carter said. Oil imports, he said, dropped 12.9 percent in the past year, gasoline consumption fell 8 percent and total oil consumption was down more than 9 percent.

President Sees 70,000 New Jobs

''This legislation will help create at least 70,000 jobs a year to design, build, operate and supply resources for synthetic fuels plants,'' he said.

On Thursday, the House voted 317 to 93 for the Energy Security Corporation, a concern created to encourage energy projects not now economically feasible.

Through the use of loan guarantees, purchase agreements and Government production it would encourage turning coal into gas and extracting oil from shale.

Its initial funding would be $20 billion, to produce the equivalent of two million barrels of oil a day by 1992 -slightly more than 10 percent of current consumption.

It would also spend $5 billion over five years to promote solar energy and production of energy from farm, forest and urban wastes. The Energy Mobilization Board, which the House sent back to a House-Senate conference committee by a vote of 232 to 131, almost certainly killing it, would have cut red tape that could have delayed major energy projects.

ROBERT D. HERSHEY Jr.
Dateline: WASHINGTON
Publication title: New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 11, 1981. pg. A.10

Copyright New York Times Company Jan 11, 1981

In November 1978, with the Iranian revolution about to send the world into oil shock for the second time in five years, President Carter signed the most comprehensive energy legislation ever enacted by the United States.

''Today we can rightfully claim that we have a conscious national policy for dealing with the energy problems,'' he said, adding later: ''We have declared to ourselves and to the world our intent to control our use of energy and thereby to control our own destiny as a nation.''

In the past two years, still more elements have been added, capped last June 30 when Mr. Carter put his signature to the bill establishing the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, which is to spur creation of an industry producing the equivalent of two million barrels of oil a day by 1992.

It is to be backed by as much as $88 billion in Government funds, largely from the ''windfall'' profits tax on domestic oil that is being freed from price controls. The program will provide more money than was spent on the Marshall Plan, the space program and the interstate highway program combined.

But in spite of the statements of high principle and all the laborious policy making, little has been done so far to improve the country's day-to-day energy position, and many argue that the threat to national security of a abrupt oil cutoff is graver than ever.

Indeed, some of the energy measures have already proven hard to implement, perhaps reflecting the crisis atmosphere in which they were framed as well as an overreliance on dubious assumptions about the changing future.

An example of how hard-won legislative consensus has been imperfectly carried out is found in the synthetic fuels program.

Construction of the nation's first commercial-scale coal gasification plant, for which its sponsors began planning nearly a decade ago, finally began last July just days after the Department of Energy gave its conditional commitment to guarantee a $250 million loan covering most of the first year's costs.

Then, last month, just after the department had raised its backing to $1.5 billion so private investors would lend all the money needed to build the North Dakota plant, a Federal appeals court ruled that the agency that regulates pipeline charges had overstepped its authority in approving a price schedule for the synthetic gas.

As a result, the pioneering Great Plains Gasification Project faced collapse, and the prospects for similar plants became clouded.

The prospects for coal gasification had already dimmed because national energy planners appear to have underestimated how much competing natural gas remained to be found in the United States. Some critics suggest that the price controls that have been in effect since 1954 had simply blinded policy makers to the fact that rising prices almost always lead to increased supplies.

Just as it has had trouble projecting supplies, the Government has not done well in forecasting prices. The Energy Department in the spring of 1979 said the world price of a barrel of oil in 1985 would be from $16 to $25, a level already passed. It said the recent $32 price would not be reached until 2000. And last year, as John C. Sawhill, chairman of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, noted, the Energy Department was saying crude oil could reach $32 a barrel by 1985 even though it had actually hit that level.

Another deficiency in carrying out energy policy is found in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was authorized in 1975 with a goal of storing one billion barrels of oil in underground caverns in Louisiana and Texas. Currently, however, the reserve contains only 100 million barrels, enough to replace less than 2 1/2 weeks' worth of imports.

Filling the reserve was suspended because of tight world supplies in the summer of 1979 and not resumed until late last September, despite the recession-aided 1980 oil glut. Many in Congress and elsewhere thought the Administration was far too sensitive to the objections of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern oil exporters, and it is widely agreed that a major opportunity to acquire oil was missed.

The United States now also has on the books an elaborate emergency gasoline rationing plan under which car owners or drivers would be entitled to a basic monthly allocation. Additional gasoline could be bought in a Government-approved market where the public could trade surplus allotments at a presumably higher price.

Even Federal officials concede, however, that the plan would take up to 15 months to implement and would require a huge, costly bureaucracy. It is more likely that some stiff, quickly imposed special tax on gasoline will be proposed.

Two bills that failed to pass Congress last year point up difficulties with the two main alternatives to imported oil: coal and nuclear power.

Utilities are having little success switching to coal-fired units from oil because of environmental restrictions and lack of cash to finance the conversions. A move to provide Federal subsidies failed because of Republican opposition to ''corporate welfare'' and opposition by liberal Democrats who wanted to use the occasion to tighten the Clean Air Act of 1970.

And 35 years after the birth of the nuclear industry, the nation has not yet permanently disposed of its first pound of nuclear waste. Failure to pass a bill creating a schedule for Federal disposal sites is regarded as a major setback for the industry. A number of those who look at America's energy policies in broad national security terms think too much attention has been paid to reducing the number of barrels imported and too little to the prevention of or response to a serious supply disruption. The fact that many Americans are apparently willing to risk war to protect Persian Gulf oil routes but are unwilling to pay higher taxes on gasoline to discourage consumption led Joseph S. Nye, a Harvard University professor and a formerState Department official, to declare recently that "Americans have not yet risen to the challenge" of the new world oil realities. "Our dependence on oil imports increased 25 percent between 1973 and 1979, and our overall energy security diminished," Professor Nye said. "We talked the high rhetoric of energy security, but our policies belied our words."

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?

[dc_dux]

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.



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.



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