Is President Carter the only high level politician or ex-politician who tells it like it is?
He has been a constant and lonely voice reminding us of the plight of the Palestinians under the restrictive policies of the Israeli government.
Yesterday, he told BBC radio, that Tony Blair's unwavering support for the war in Iraq was a "major tragedy."
He also said in another interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (by telephone from Atlanta):
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this (Bush) administration has been the worst in history.
"The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 106
It's unbelievable to me that a former President can denigrate other Presidents like this. He must be getting senile, because he's bordering on treason. He should know that many Americans listen to what he says, and, as a good Dem, all he does is foster conflict here, while offering no ideas. It's as if he's trying to make up for his own failures by pointing out others'.
I wonder -- is he the kettle or the pot?
More than a month ago, the Bush ratings exceeded the negatives in degree and duration than those for Jimmy Carter.
Large majorities of Americans now recognize that Bush is not "trustworthy" and is not "competent."
Unlike Bush, Carter was a very smart man who did not go AWOL from military duty.
Carter's response to the oil crisis could have been better, but he is savaged unfairly by the disgraced Neo-Cons for pointing out that no solution in the Middle East can avoid lengthy and painstaking engagement about the Palestinians, and that the arrogance of the Bush bullies has worsened the position of America in the world.
Go Jimmy, one more voice for truth amid the lies from the White House.
micky d is one of the bush apologists who thinks that shouting makes it true.
There is a great deal of research that shows insecure and frightened people, especially those with psychiatric illnesses , prefer strong leaders.
And the great flip-floppers like Romney and McCain are going to provide this? LOL
With nine out of ten Republican candidates caliing for "Stay the Course," we are going to see huge Democratic gains in 08.
Personally, I can't wait.
Keep lying, guys. And shouting. And what will you accomplish? More pain and suffering for a country you claim to love and the rest of us actually do. You're repeating history and don't have the education to know it.
Gee willikers Batman, I sound just like all those conspiracy nuts, the ones who thought Nixon was a crook, The ones who warned us that Reagan's union busting and deregulation of Pharmaceutical companies would lead to people dying from "bad medicine." The ones who pulled their investments out of the Savings and Loan industry before it devoured itself in greed.
That said, Carter was the fresh breath of air for the Nation after Watergate. Have we forgotten that? How quickly we forgot.
The hostage crisis was his undoing. Reagan was nothing more than a pretty boy, the telegenic, teflon boy-actor of medium fame and little talent, who forgot his lines during his presidency, voted in the biggest tax increase in history and spearheaded nothing of any repute.
The Reagan families support for stem cell research: now, that's another matter.
Carter's strength is his undoing: He does tell it like it is.
Tony Blair was great, but is weak-kneed. It was time for him to leave. He should have shown muster and courage and stood up to Bushie.
Thank God or someone the Dems now control congress, once again.
and he was!!! and he still is.
At least it's only when we're down. When the Far Left speaks it is always pathetic.
judging from mickey d- many of them are not willing to do that.
Interesting. Very surprising. What poll did that fact come from?
Really?
However, the betting site, Intrade, gives it a low probability, unfortunately.
Every once in a while a political party engages in tactics so divisive and arrogant that they shed supporters in droves out of sheer disgust.
We are witnessing one of the rare instances when these two odious accomplishments coincide, which may actually result in the extinction of the Republican party itself.
And here we have the die-hard remnant, wallowing in cliche insults and bits of historical spin . . . as if it could all be built up again from such debris. Like stragglers from a dispersed lynch mob, not accepting that the show is over, shouting to hold off the shame.
As an ex-president, he is just that - "ex". And as a CITIZEN of this country, it is not only his right, but his responsibility to question the current administration.
When the game is not played by the rules, it is time to disqualify the players. Nixon and the Watergate, Reagan and Iran Contra. The use of the American military might to extort submission to American exploitation of labor and resources. We need to change the pledge of allegiance, drop "Under God," and replace it with "of 205." Change the number every time a new nation emerges or a few nations federate, and make it 206 with the recognition of the government of Palestine.
He started an illegal war based on dubious information.
He got nice government jobs for his crony's like Gonzales.
Many of them had little or no credentials for the jobs
they were hired for.
His Vice President made secret deals with corporations like Halliburton behind closed doors.
Most of his 'signing statements' are unknown.
The true cost of the war was hushed up.
He didn't go to the funerals of the soldiers he sent to their deaths.
The list goes on and on and on.
The "war", I assume, is a reference to Iraq. Try Googling the Iraq AUMF and see that the use of military force in Iraq was legalized by Congress, including a large number of "yes" votes by Dems, including Hillary Clinton.
I suggest you look up the credentials of the various Bush appointees. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that they weren't credentialed.
Halliburton...LOL...conspiracism is so prevalent in both the Far Left and the Far Right.
Signing statements are available for you to read at your leisure if you take the time to look for them. They are available in multiple places.
I think you get the picture.
And your post is the perfect example of a textbook Far Left accusation to silence any conversation not conducive to your politics: Call them Fascists and suggest that they are trying to "silence dissent".
Ironic, eh?
How about that woman he tried to appoint to the supreme court? Were her credentials up to snuff? There was "Brownie". Remember Brownie?
Such a defiance of tradition challenges each of us to look at the facts squarely in the eye and take note of Thomas Jefferson's especially relevant warning about democracy: "Eternal Vigilance."
Just to take note of only two upsetting facts among countless others courtesy of the Bush administration: to openly suggest that torture is allowable and in the name of terror it is ok to suspend the writ of habeus corpus is an abomination and in my not too humble opinion a cause for possible impeachment.
Pour it on Mr. Carter - pour it on.
Hopefully he will continue to voice his opinion, although I'm sure some will try to quiet him.
As far as Micheal Brown, if Mr. "Chocolate City" Nagin had been doing his job, Hurricane Katrina would have been a different situation altogether.
Well, that might be the case if it were true. But the Military Commissions Act defines torture and makes it illegal. Thus, it is not allowable or permissible.
And, no one has suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, and I am truly trying to understand the rationale for some of the things often brought up in defense of what this Administration has done. One of the most common is the first point in your response to Brian S.
It seems kinda obvious that there was a whole lot of "pressure" put on Congress to authorize the use of force. You surely realize that no one who's given up serious hope on that adventure is unaware of the lengths the WH went to to "sell" everyone on the great threat Iraq posed. The "push for war" was clearly not in line with what the Admin knew about WMD and terrorist ties. So . . .
What is it you hope to gain by mentioning that such a push was successful? It appears from an ethical point of view that you are saying that succeeding in scaring Congresspeople into going along with it, somehow makes it OK to do such things. Surely you can see that is not the sort of argument that will impress people questioning the ethical impact of Mr. Bushes behaviour on America, so why do you mention it?
And also, what do YOU think was the real reason for such insistence on going to war?
"The "push for war" was clearly not in line with what the Admin knew about WMD and terrorist ties. So . . . "
And therein lies the fallacy in the argument. There is a powerful meme out there, propagated by the Far Left, that has entrenched the idea that "Bush lied, people died". Not so. Or, more specifically, not so according to the evidence I can lay my hands on.
The Far Left has pushed the message that because we didn't find WMD in Iraq that "BushCo" MUST have known better and therefore lied. That is not in keeping with the evidence that the Clinton Administration, major Democrats, intelligence agencies around the world, and EVEN Saddam's own military thought that the possessed WMD. Not a lie. A mistake. Very different.
My point in mentioning the Iraq AUMF was to demonstrate that it was legal in accordance with U.S. law. By the way, "regime change in Iraq" was a policy put into law by President Clinton, not President Bush. Historical note.
In response to your assertion, I would argue that the Democrats who voted for the measure had the same intelligence reports. And, no, I do not believe they were cherry-picked or slanted. Why? Because a bipartisan Congressional committee that investigated them concluded the very same.
As far as the "real" reason for going to Iraq...we know that already, don't we? All the reasons are laid out in excruciating detail in the Iraq AUMF.
Mickey? The documents that Sandy Berger took were copies. The originals never left the archives and are there now, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. He got in trouble because the information in those documents was classified, not because he took original documents. You're not a member of Free Republic, are you? Your writings sound amazingly like some of the things I've read there.
GRAHAM AMENDMENT PASSES: HABEAS CORPUS GUTTED
Bush's New Assault on Democracy: Habeas Corpus Stabbed in the Back
Synopsis
The Bush Administration, through an amendment introduced by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, has just successfully stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear applications for habeas corpus brought by those unilaterally declared enemy combatants without any process and held by the U.S. indefinitely throughout the world and even in the United States. This was accomplished by means of a last minute amendment to the Military Authorization Bill, brought up on the floor of the Senate without committee deliberations and virtually no advance warning to the American people that it was happening.
It was not only human rights groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights, but many in the military or retired from the military who opposed the Graham amendment: Judge John Gibbons, who argued the landmark CCR case Rasul v. Bush before the Supreme Court, John Hutson, Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center and former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, and the National Institute for Military Justice, among others, wrote open letters to the Senate to oppose the dismantling of habeas corpus.
The Graham amendment will create a thousand points of darkness across the globe where the United States will be free to hold people indefinitely without a hearing and beyond the reach of U.S. law and the checks and balances of the courts enshrined in our Constitution. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus has always been to relieve those wrongfully held from the oppression of unchecked executive power. The most reliable way to determine whether someone is properly held or a victim of injustice is to have a right to judicial review of the detention. This has been understood at least since the proclamation of the Magna Carta in 1215.
While the Administration and its supporters have tried to characterize the men being held at Guantánamo as the worst of the worst against all evidence, the fact is that even the military has admitted that they often apprehended the wrong people. Most have no ties to Al Qaida, many were turned over to the U.S. for bounty, and many more were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they have no way to appeal their innocence or their status, they will be left to rot in detention indefinitely.
Senator Graham's jurisdiction-stripping efforts come as allegations of secret CIA detention facilities around the world dominate headlines; the Bush Administration has consistently sought to put itself above the law and evade oversight and accountability for torture and other abuse. It is no secret that arbitrary indefinite detention and widespread prisoner mistreatment have taken and continue to take place at Guantánamo and other U.S.-run facilities. The Graham Amendment will only serve to reinforce the growing perception in the world that the United States has become an enemy of human rights.
As has been the practice of this Administration, this latest scheme was accomplished stealthily and in secret. The Center for Constitutional Rights vows to continue to fight for the rule of law. We will not allow American democracy to be eroded a little at a time, until, finally looking around, we can longer recognize what has become of this democratic nation. (http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=B9iXnQkBmm&Content=664)
and with respect to torture that is not torture but is in fact torture:
" The Torture King and Loss of Habeas Corpus
September 27, 2006
by Zen Garcia
Bush has stated over and over, "We do not torture detainees" and yet when Senator McCain, a once held prisoner of war, dissented against the White House position on the treatment of detainees and together with the Senate passed a law outlawing the torture of detainees; Bush issued a 'signing statement' - an official document in which a president lays out interpretation of a new law -in which he reserved the right to ignore Congressional demands outlawing the torture of prisoners.
He claims authority as commander in chief to bypass any law, in context of broader powers to protect national security. Bush believes he can waive any restrictions which would impede his ability to protect the American people from the threats of terrorism. "The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President...as Commander in Chief... in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President...of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Bush had stated on numerous occasions not only that America does not torture detainees, but that America is not running black sites in which detainees are flown to some obscure location where the rule of law does not exist so that extreme measures can be used to excise information it deems necessary to protecting our citizenry. Having had the program of extraordinary rendition called into question by several federal judges, the White House has had to fess up to the existence of such a program. "I cannot describe the specific methods used - I think you understand why," Bush said during a 5th anniversary speech of the attacks of September 11th. "If I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful and necessary."
He reiterated his insistence that detainees have not and will not be tortured, claiming "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it." What the world and Americans do not realize is that what we the people traditionally consider torture, is not the same torture Bush speaks about since attorney general Alberto Gonzales redefined torture in a narrow context. The Torture Convention defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person".
The Bush Administration declares torture by a different standard, namely that, to constitute torture, the pain caused "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death." Methods generally understood by the world as "torture" would be permitted by this newly and narrowly altered definition. According to the new 'definition' everything up to the point leading to death is not torture as defined by the Administrations new policy. The redefining of torture, allows the administration to deny criminal behavior while still allowing the implementation and committing of such atrocities. This also gave CIA and military interrogators the 'go-ahead' to try many drastic measures considered to tough in previous sessions prior to the 'war on terror.'
Bush wants the CIA to be exempt from prosecution under the war crimes act for cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees and is now hard at work propagandizing the American public and Congress to have the Geneva Conventions modified. He knows that his administration has committed war crimes against humanity, which he and many members of his administration are liable to be prosecuted under according to international law. If he can exempt the CIA from such prosecutions then not only can they continue this sinister program of kidnap and torture, CIA interrogators won't have to worry about future prosecution, or holding back from current methods of gleaning information.
Even with torture being narrowly redefined, Bush is outright lying when he claims that, "We do not torture detainees." According to figures compiled by the Associated Press news agency, at least 108 people have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. The AP based their claims on information obtained from the US 's own army, navy and senior administration officials. While many of the deaths were due to natural causes, as a result of insurgent attacks on US detention facilities or during violent prison uprisings in which lethal force was used by US personnel, at least 26 have been investigated as criminal homicide involving abusing prisoners to death. "Military investigators have looked into -- or are continuing to investigate -- 35 cases of alleged abuse or deaths of prisoners in detention facilities in the Central Command theater," said Army Secretary Les Brownlee.
A Pentagon report to Congressional oversight committee cited six prisoner deaths as of last September. Another report based on information from Pentagon and other official US sources, released by Human Rights First in October 2005 cites similar conclusions in that over 100 prisoners have died while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002. Out of 98 deaths, at least 34 were suspected or confirmed homicides "caused by intentional or reckless behavior". Human Rights First representative Deborah Pearlstein told Newsnight she was "extremely comfortable" that the information was reliable while UK MP Bob Marshall-Andrews told the Press Association that "If it is indeed systemic, then the responsibility for it must go right to the top, and that would apply to both British and American governments."
A spokesman for Amnesty International UK called for an investigation into how the deaths occurred while in US custody and said, "Deaths in custody during the war on terror are a real matter of concern to us and we want to see the US and its allies allowing a full independent and impartial investigation into these deaths, as well as mounting incidents of alleged torture and other mistreatment."
(http://www.populistamerica.com/the_torture_king_and_loss_of_habeas_corpus)
Let me respond to each in a separate reply.
See this story about Bin Laden's driver:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301946.html
So, habeas corpus has not been suspended and cannot be suspended for U.S. citizens. They cannot be renditioned. The same cannot be said for alien unlawful enemy combatants (a definition that foreign terrorists fall under, to be sure).
How is it when even many Republican leaders want Atty. General Gonzales removed from office for at least gross incompetence the President predictably thinks he is doing a swell job. Could it possibly be that once out of office an investigation of what has really been happening is likely to reveal sculduggery and over stepping the likes of which we have not seen since the Nixon years?
You bet you hit a nerve -
Funny, that doesn't seem like something that "cronies" would do? Don't cronies march in lockstep with the Big Boss?
Surely you're a lawyer. That was some fancy twisting you did in your answer to me. Hey, turning the total absence of WMD into a defense of the Pres . . . slick stuff.
If you actually believe that those guys were worried about an eminent threat from Iraq . . . well, never mind, you're to clever to believe that.
Thanks for the ride
It's might clever of you, in turn, to gloss over the substantive parts of the argument, ignore what I said, and deliver those backhanded compliments. I certainly don't believe there was an eminent threat...but maybe an imminent threat.
See you on the next thread...
"The Bush Administration declares torture by a different standard, namely that, to constitute torture, the pain caused "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death."
This language is from the so-called 2002 Bybee Memo. This "guidance" was declared inoperative in 2004, even prior to the Military Commissions Act. Like many articles at PopulistAmerica, fact-checking is not high on the list of goals. On the other hand, maybe your article was from 2002 or 2003, I didn't check that possibility.
See the MCA for the current law defining torture and what is illegal.
Getting late, I'll see you all on the next thread.
Well, at least I got you to tip your hand on maturity and vocabulary. Eminent I said and eminent I meant, look it up, and only a child at heart would bother to point out an error easily attributable to a quick spell checker oversight.
And, yes, I enjoy being a "child at heart" despite the grey in my hair. ;)
Well in that case you just said you don't believe there was anything remarkable or important about the threat posed by Iraq, and we agree.
Now, what do YOU think the real reason was for the insistence on going to war?
From the information available to us, it is less than flattering. But recall, this was a difference in legal interpretation. When pressed multiple times in his testimony, Comey refused to characterize the situation as Bush "breaking the law". Which is exactly appropriate. (No, John Knight, I'm still not a lawyer...)
Still, Gonzales' behavior is baffling. Why he thought that Ashcroft's signature would carry any wait when he had recused himself from office for his gall bladder operation is beyond me.
I suppose that is one way to interpret my response. What I meant, however, was that I did not perceive Iraq as an eminent threat compared to Al Qaeda. But, that I did perceive an imminent threat due to Iraq's alleged WMD finding its way to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Does that help?
"I certainly don't believe there was an eminent threat"
Does that help?
And, I'm so glad we're having this grammatical review. It diverts us away from the fact that you didn't have any substantive rebuttals other than to try and label me as a "lawyer"... ;)
I'm off to bed...have fun with those dictionaries.
Ain't about dictionaries, it's about compulsive lying. You know what that is, don't ya?
Please be more careful and less "enthusiastic" in your dealings with folks. Or someone might think you were one of them CLs.
Sleep well, I hope we do better next time.
You've got me beat on "originality", that's for sure.
You cannot ask to rehash again the yellow cake/aluminum tubes/Nigeria/Al Queda-Iraqi connection, etc. These claims have been debunked by ad nausem by many sources. Waste of time.
There was no "mistake." Heard of PNAC? Clinton advocating regime change for Saddam is a far jump from invasion and occupation. Moot comparison. Vauge belief on possession of WMD is not the same as leading a nation to war on a pre-determined path using what ever hook or crook at hand. Surely this old, old news.
John Ashcroft? Sure he said "no" then left the Admin, sat back and said nothing in protest. I guess he felt his duty as a loyal citizen extended only to avoid getting his hands dirty.
You also must abandon the "far left" characterization. Over 70% of Americans believe this war is a disaster and they were misled by Bush. If 70% of America is now "far left" due to the guidence of the most ardently conservative Pres since Harding you conservatives should hang it up and move to Australia.
Carter tried to tell it like it is regarding the effects of our dependence on Middle East oil when he was President, but but few of us were willing to listen. He tried to tell us that if we wanted the United States to maintain a position of moral leadership we had to be true to our own ideals even if it mean giving up some material comforts and making other sacrifices, but we did not want to listen.
Our greatest failure as a nation has been the inability of the American people to deal with inconvenient truths and we have and are paying the consequences. Until we are ready to deal with inconvenient truths, the consequences of that refusal will continue to come back to haunt us, and may ultimately lead to the downfall of a once great nation that failed to live-up to its potential.
Bravo. Two very impressive posts.
(Damn, that truth stuff sounds good, even when it's a harsh reality)
My comments on the Iraq AUMF were to refute the point that the military operation in Iraq was "illegal". It was not an attempt to suggest that either Bush, his administration, or the Congress that passed the legislation where "free from responsibility". Our government is entirely accountable for the actions it takes, each branch for its own part.
I disagree that the Iraq AUMF was railroaded through "Republican control". Eighty-one of the 215 "ayes" in the House were from Democrats. Twenty-nine of the 77 Senators who voted in favor of it were Democrats, including Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Feinstein, Rockefeller, Biden, Bayh, and Cleland among others.
If your defense of the Dems voting on this legislation is that they had "little choice other than accept what was told them" then please explain the 126 Dem Representatives and 21 Dem Senators that voted against it? If you really believe that those Dems who voted for it were negligent in doing their job, where's the outrage? My view is that the major Dems were consistent with the Clinton Administration's position and their own long-held views that Saddam was a threat that should be eliminated.
As far as "cherry-picked" intelligence, I'll refer you to the bipartisan Congressional investigation that concluded that the pre-war intelligence assessment was highly inaccurate, but found no evidence that the Bush administration pressured the intelligence community to slant their findings.
I don't think anyone had mentioned the Niger/yellowcake issue prior to your remark. Yes, that "intelligence" was disavowed. However, I'm sure, given our relative positions on these issues, that we'll disagree on who knew what and when. The Sixteen Words were factually accurate.
PNAC? As I mentioned in an earlier post, conspiracism is rampant in the Far Left and the Far Right. If you're basing your arguments on the "new Pearl Harbor" language, I suggest you read the whole PNAC report and understand that it is taken very much out of context. And, not by mistake.
Vague belief on possession of WMD? Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't Hans Blix over there looking because there was much, much more than a vague belief? Did you know that Saddam's generals thought they had WMD? Maybe all those inoculations for our soldiers was just for show? I guess all the other intelligence services and the Clinton Administration were just full of "vague beliefs", right?
The Far Left exists, as does the Far Right. To suggest otherwise is abandoning the truth. No where did I suggest that all those that disfavor Bush in the latest polls fall into the category of the Far Left. That's absurd and you knew that before you made your remark. As is the characterization that 70% believe they were "misled". I suggest you take a look at the actual questions in the poll results.
You mean, New Orleans?
Keep going, Masked Protester. You're a great and effective spokesman for your cause.
I refer you to several excellent recent books on Bush's war which paints a picture of his single minded drive to invade Iraq before and after his ascent to office. "One Percent Solution, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, State of Denial," among others. PNAC's main premise was to use post cold war American military power offensively to eleminate "potential threats," a radical departure from 230 years of American practice and violation of international treaties and precedent dating back hundreds of years. I have read their complete statements, (before they took it down) and the letter sent to Clinton. The signatories are a who's who of the Bush Admin.
It is really necessary to debate the known inaccuracy of the "16 words?" Time to move the debate past that dead horse. The distinction is intel and action, quite plainly.
Consider the logic of this premise: We have satellites that can read licence plates. We had Rangers scooting across the desert pre-war, we had access to all their military electronic traffic, we had chemical sniffing drones and they found nothing pre-war or post war. How could Bush send in troops without chem gear if his whole sales pitch was WMD? Bush did not proceed on certainty. They elected to proceed on a new policy of chance and ultimately for the basest of reasons: to corner Iraqi oil for Western exploitation. There was plenty of intel delivered to the White House that posed grave doubt on WMD but Bush chose to ignore or discount it. That is cherry picking and failure to accept knowlege that could save lives or keep this nation out of war is at least grossly incompetent and likely impeachable.
I will not parse poll numbers but it is abundently clear America is disgusted with Bush and voices of dissent are coming from all quarters, your fabled "far left" and "far right" and most importantly from millions of folks in the middle.
Sarcasm doesn't always translate well, but I'm assuming you're being sarcastic. Tell me if I'm wrong.
For the record, "Chocolate City" refers to Nagin's own comment about his vision for New Orleans. It was not coined by me. He apologized for his remark:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/17/nagin.city/
I didn't bring up the so-called "dead horse" issue of the Niger/yellowcake situation. If you want to see a non-partisan review of the Sixteen Words, you're welcome to read this from FactCheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Ah yes, the oil angle. Always comes up. Latent conspiracism. If the West really wanted access to Saddam's oil, they could have simply removed the embargo/restrictions and been buddies with him. The last time I looked at the % of oil supplied by Iraq to the U.S. and to the world, pre-war and post-war, it hadn't changed at all. What a good job we've done in our exploitation. (Note: Stop reading Oil Empire...)
PNAC's web site is still alive; nothing has been taken down. If you truly read the "new Pearl Harbor" statement, you'd recognize that when taken in context it meant that a new paradigm for building the military defenses of the future would not likely be galvanized in the next several decades without a radicalizing event. Such as a new Pearl Harbor, for example. It was not a blueprint for neo-con domination, LOL.
Sorry, sir, the Far Left and the Far Right are not fables, but serious truths. Their radical agendas directly propel the divisiveness so evident in our country the past two decades or more. If more of us in the middle (and yes, I self-identify as a right-of-center moderate) would stand up and show them that we mean business, things would be a lot better.
You kidding about the oil right? Have you reviewed the American written Iraqi oil law now ignored in the Iraq's parlament? Saddam nationalized his oil, a big no-no to Western oil conglomerates and faithful RNC members. The percentage of Iraqi oil to world market is irrelevent: the potential and control to emerging economies is the prize as you should know. Ask the aveage Iraqi on the street why we are there.
Your weakly defended support puts you squarely on the right fringe of the right. Most of "right of center moderates" are leaving the sinking Bush ship of state in droves. Dishonesty is a slippery concept but most consider defense of Bush and his trail of failure, shall we say, less than truthful?
Yeah, right. Regan hadn't found the White House restroom in 24 hours and someone thinks he "freed the hostages!" Get real!
Carter was a brilliant man, a nuclear engineer, a man of true Christian faith who lived it and a great American. He may not have been the best president ever but he chose to remain in the White House rather than go out a campaign during the hostage crisis, thereby guaranteeing his defeat at the polls, because he thought it was the right thing for a president, under the circumstances, to do.
Can anyone name an unethical action of Carter's during his term? Like, maybe, selling arms to Iran or illegally funneling money to South America to support a war congress had voted against?
When Carter left office he put his money where his mouth was and worked with Habitat for Humanity. During his presidency he pushed actively for humanitarian causes around the world, drawing criticism for telling the USSR that they needed to clean up their humanitarian record while we were negotiating treaties with them. His administration promoted successfully the control of population in Mexico and South American countries. They forced the stoppage of people being abducted and disappearing in Argentina. He did what he could for good in this world. That cannot be said of the incumbent president!
As far as the Republicans not needing the moderates, that's OK to say but without moderates neither the Republicans or Democrats will ever get a majority! The overwhelming majority of people are reasonable and moderate, not lock step extremest nut jobs!
Masked,
You are in error on the "northing's been taken down" part about the PNAC. I've been monitoring the site for years and certain documents have been removed. Not that that is unreasonable, but the documents removed have definitely cleaned the site up somewhat! However, the site is tell tale enough as it is!
Your statement that those of us in the middle should stand up draws my agreement. I don't believe that matters of war are "right" or "left" but find myself on bot conservative and liberal sides of things otherwise. Extreme dogma is really not of value except as motivational shouting points, as it never holds up to rational and thoughtful analysis.
Well...yeah.
Carter began funding the Mujahadeen (secretly, of course) BEFORE the Russian
invasion, knowing that Russia would react strongly to this intervention. His rationale was simple: destabilizing the Afghan government would INCREASE the liklihood of a Soviet invasion. And it was widely accepted that Afghanistan would quickly become the USSR'S Viet Nam, gobbling up billions of dollars & gutting the Soviet war machine. Which of course, it did.
What it also became was bin Laden's training ground for what was to become al-Qaeda. Of course, the success of the Taliban (majahadeen fighters as well) could not have been possible without the chaos resulting from the 10 years of conflict.
So...
Carter deliberately destabilized a foreign government so that a US enemy would become trapped in a lengthy and costly war. That plan directly led to the creation of a de facto Terrorist state and the legend of Osama.
If it weren't for Carter's meddling, the Twin Towers would, most likely, be standing today.
I'll take your word for it, I haven't catalogued and monitored the site. My first point was that the site hadn't been taken down. I thought Sam C was saying that the website had been taken down. But I did also say "Nothing has been taken down" and I did mean that I didn't think that documents had been removed. So, I'll agree I am in error. :)
Appreciate your comments! My memory of the situation is that the Mujahadeen were very active before Carter had anything to do with it. It was making Afghanistan the Soviet Vietnam all right. And, I'll agree that we should have stayed out of it. However, to many of us at the time, assisting the Mujahadeen looked like the right thing to do both from a political and a humanitarian standpoint. You know about 20/20 hindsight!
If you wish to class that as unethical I'll accept that. However, to deduce from that the the twin towers would still be in place is reaching a country mile! We were still dealing in mutually assured destruction and two world powers opposing and every move we made was keyed to it's effect on the USSR, not Al Queda.
William,
Thanks for the informative commentary! You point out some true things about the various administrations that many would like to forget. I agree with you that Nixon was harassed from office, but would have been impeached had he not. Whether he would have been convicted is another matter! What got him was his feeling of invincibility. Had LBJ been in that situation, early on there would have been a bonfire on the White House lawn complete with tapes. Then, with a shocked tone in his voice he'd have said "I destroyed evidence? Gee, I'm sorry" and then rode out the controversial storm following!