Carter says Bush's presidency 'worst in history'

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

For some reason Azure you come unhinged everytime someone brings up the Americans losing in Viet Nam. I brought up four of the six major conflicts in the last 100 years to back my idea as well as a quote from the Bible, which should work for you. WWI, I'd put down as a war caused by the elite which the ordinary citizen paid for with their lives. Unjust on all sides. The Korean war is a standoff with no winner. You brought up a skirmish in Somalia which the Americans had no stomach for or they would have stayed, so it was unjustified.

Who became unhinged? Not my problem if you make up crap to try and prove your point.

Somalia from the outside looking in...before the US got involved, was a situation that needed our help. Meaning the UN's help...which is why they were there. 300,000 people dead, is not something we should ignore, ever.

And now you're saying that if the Americans would have stayed, the fight would have been justified, but since they left, it wasn't? WTF?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The term genocide gets thrown around too much IMO. In Somalia, the government collapsed and subsequently gangs and and warlords took over the country. As such, little aid was getting through to the people and it started to attract militant Islamic fundamentalists.

It was tragic and had horrible human consequences, but it wasn't a structured genocide by definition.

I disagree.

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Reason enough to call it a genocide. But, no need to argue....in the greater scheme of things, I could be wrong.

Still doesn't make it unjust to get involved.

[Azure]

Interesting Tranny, and thanks for posting.

Never knew Carter pulled an all-nighter to try and end everything.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group...

That does not describe the Somali conflict at all. There were no particular ethnic, religious, ethnic or national groups targeted.

If we are going to stretch the term to describe what happenned in Somalia as genocide, then we might as well use the same term to describe the war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That does not describe the Somali conflict at all. There were no particular ethnic, religious, ethnic or national groups targeted.

If we are going to stretch the term to describe what happenned in Somalia as genocide, then we might as well use the same term to describe the war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I was unaware of that, so thanks for pointing it out.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are you freakin kiddin me?

Not kidding at all. It's all FACT.

Lanny...you are suggesting that incoming elected Presidents have no status whatsoever in the White House until the inauguration takes place...that simply is false.

What I am suggesting is that the incoming president has no legal status to do anything on behalf of the country, at the very earliest until the electoral college confirms the result of the election. That is the law, based on the constitution. You do remember that document don't you? The one your BBFL Bush has pissed all over and made a mockery of?

There is a transition team dispatched into the WH once an election has been decided, in this case it was a freaking landslide for Reagan and no need for the rubber stamp of the electoral college to wait and see any possible recounts changing the outcome.

Transition team. That team is responsible for assisting in familiarizing the incoming president and cabinet as to what initiatives are under way, and the status. They don't just throw open the doors and say, here you go, you won the election, the country is yours.

In this case, and because it was front and center the issue of that particular election, there most assuredly was statesmen brought up to speed IMMEDIATELY upon Carter conceding defeat. You really trying to tell us all that when there is a major issue going on at election time, that the winner isnt made a part of the info and negotiations that have been on going?

That's what the transition team is to do. And Reagan was far from a statesman. Jesus, what other parts of history are you going to rewite? Ronald Reagan was the first man to walk on the moon, cured polio, and wrote the gospels himself. Reagan would have been brought up to speed as to what was going on, but he would not have been let near the negotiations, not until after his inauguration.

Carter was still trying to negotiate a deal right up until inaugaration day (as evidenced by apparently having a phone by his side until the ceremony) and still was unable to secure the release of the hostages....thats not re-writing history its a simple and indisputable fact.

Or is PBS re-writing history as well??

Who was that??? Carter??? Really? I thought it was Ronald Reagan on the sly. You mean Ronald Reagan wasn't the one communicating with the Iranians using his super secret decoder ring??? No, say it isn't so! And I was certain that Reagan, upon winning the election secretly took control of the White House, used his wealth of international connections and diplomatic skills, and convinced the Iranians to cough up the hostages mere hours after the inauguration. Wow, to think things didn't unfold like that. Whodathunk?

[transplant99]

So...a simple question for you Lanny.

Are the accounts presented by PBS, CBS, and a mittful of other media sources all wrong, or is your own "secret decoder ring" telling you that information was all planted by the government controlled media?

As for the rest of your i diatribe....you have obfuscated almost everything said in the thread. Transition teams are brought in to actually get involved with ongoing crisises so the incoming President isn't starting from behind, especially when American lives are at stake. The same thing that will happen when the next president is elected, no matter who it is or what party they represent.

Carter didn't negotiate the end of the crisis by all accounts, no matter how you try and deflect the facts.

[Mike F]

I'm having a bit of trouble keeping things straight, but Tranny are you saying that no one associated with Reagan could have negotiated with the terrorists before the election?

Originally Posted by transplant99

Dude...Carter tried to negotiate the release BEFORE the election, so how could "Reagans minions" have interfered with anything since he hadn't been elected yet?

Reagans guys got a crack at things AFTER the election in November, (some 60 days or so to get it done) so even then that left Carter and his administration over a year to solve the crisis.

And Lanny, are you saying that Reagan could only have negotiated the hostges' release after he was sworn in?

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Reagan's guys were negotiating before Reagan was sworn in and had a chance to appoint his cabinet? Care to point out how that happened? Reagan would have no legal say in ANYTHING until his inauguration. Heck, he was not even CONFIRMED president until the electoral college did their job in December, so it would be next to impossible for what you suggest to take place.

If I've got that right, what makes either of you think that there's some international law of hostage negotiations?

Terrorists can negotiate with whomever they want for whatever they want, be it the President of the United States, President Elect of the United States, or the alternate treasurer of the Sedin Sisters' Pony Grooming Society. I'm almost certain that Jesse Jackson has been involved in a number of negotiations on his own despite never having been elected U.S. President, and I'm even more sure that terrorists have released captives after negotiating ransoms with hostages loved ones.

I'm not saying it definately happened, but there would be nothing (other than personal ethics) preventing Reagan or his minions from contacting and negotiating with the terrorists well before the election, say promising that if Reagan were to be elected he'd fork over lots of cheap weapons.

[transplant99]

I'm having a bit of trouble keeping things straight, but Tranny are you saying that no one associated with Reagan could have negotiated with the terrorists before the election?

Before the election...no not without facing treason charges. After the election and before he took office(2 month window)? You bet he could, and did.

In fact William Casey who was appointed CIA director the day after Reagan took office was widely suspected of doing just that during the 2 months after the Reagan landslide. Somebody sure did something that Carter had tried for well over a year to do but had failed.

It may have been as simple as agreeing to lift the oil embargo and releasing the billions of frozen assets in American banks, or it could of been a threat of military response which Carter steadfastly refused to do, or it could of been a combination of all of those things....who knows for sure? One thing that is undeniable even though there are those that continue to do so, is that the deal was made after reagan won the Presidency and after he took office.

Maybe Carter was just helping his successor out?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Before the election...no not without facing treason charges. After the election and before he took office(2 month window)? You bet he could, and did.

Is this your opinion, or do you know this to be a fact? I don't think Reagan or his government cronies would have been charged with treason for trying to negotiate the release of American hostages.

There is no way the Republicans were just sitting idly by watching the Democrats deal with the major issue of the election.

[Vulcan]

What I remember is Reagan's people were negotiating and thus undermining and some say sabatoging Carter's efforts before Carter left office. This was called the October Surprise, supposedly engineered by George H W Bush, former head of the CIA and banker David Rockefeller. Dirty pool but that's politics. What I didn't know is that Reagan sold the Irani's cheap weapons for this deal. Probably inspired the Iran Contra Affair.
Here's some background.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/102506.html

[Mike F]

well, to answer my own post, it turns out that at least some of the negotiations were with the Iranian gov't, not simply terrorists, and thus the US Constitution did have something to say about those negotiations:

Though the Russian claims about Carter’s negotiations with Iran might cause embarrassment for Democrats, Carter, as President, possessed the constitutional authority to negotiate with a foreign power. The Republicans did not.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Tranny outlined why Reagan and his contacts would not have been allowed to have any contact with the Iranians. There were no normalized diplomatic relations, so unless Reagan was given permission to contact the Iranians, he would have been breaking American law. Good lord, look at what happens when an American goes to Cuba, or even speaks to Cuba without permission. Now imagine that ramped up. Do you think that just anyone would be allowed to speak to leadership of a foreign entity the American government was in conflict with? Not a chance. Unless you work for the State Department, or have the blessing of the State Department, you are persona non-grata. And that would include the new President-elect until he was completely up to speed on all issues and where the negotiations were at that given time.

Ah, your quote says exactly what I am getting at.

Quote:
Though the Russian claims about Carter’s negotiations with Iran might cause embarrassment for Democrats, Carter, as President, possessed the constitutional authority to negotiate with a foreign power. The Republicans did not.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Mike F

well, to answer my own post, it turns out that at least some of the negotiations were with the Iranian gov't, not simply terrorists, and thus the US Constitution did have something to say about those negotiations:

If there's anything the Reagan administration proved it's that Laws are only Laws if you fear the reprisal.

Selling arms to a terrorist state while knowing they will be used in an offensive manner is also against the law. Didn't seem to matter.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Tranny outlined why Reagan and his contacts would not have been allowed to have any contact with the Iranians. There were no normalized diplomatic relations, so unless Reagan was given permission to contact the Iranians, he would have been breaking American law. Good lord, look at what happens when an American goes to Cuba, or even speaks to Cuba without permission. Now imagine that ramped up. Do you think that just anyone would be allowed to speak to leadership of a foreign entity the American government was in conflict with? Not a chance. Unless you work for the State Department, or have the blessing of the State Department, you are persona non-grata. And that would include the new President-elect until he was completely up to speed on all issues and where the negotiations were at that given time.

Ah, your quote says exactly what I am getting at.

Quote:
Though the Russian claims about Carter’s negotiations with Iran might cause embarrassment for Democrats, Carter, as President, possessed the constitutional authority to negotiate with a foreign power. The Republicans did not.

The Republicans did negotiate with the hostage takers though and well before the election allowing the Ayatollah to play off one against the other. The irani president threatened to blow the lid off the deal but was persuaded not to by Khomeini. Read the link I provided giving part 1 of the dirty details.

[transplant99]

I don't think Reagan or his government cronies would have been charged with treason for trying to negotiate the release of American hostages.

It's against US law to negotiate with another government whom the US does not have diplomatic relations with in an order to bring down the current administration ( in this case to make Carter look bad), that's why it would be treated as treason.

However, once the election had been decided and Reagan was President elect, he was no longer considered to be under mining the current administration. He was within the boundaries of the law to establish ties with whomever he liked....thats part of what transition teams do. They dont just sit around drinking coffee with the White House staff learning what keys open the doors to the Lincoln bedroom and which chef is best at creating pastrami sandwiches.

In the hostage crisis case, Reagan was likely given full authority to negotiate a release from the day after the election, the State Department would be operating under the premise that the incoming President is allowed to re-open diplomatic ties with whomeber he likes, as that is his call. Carter surely would not of prevented it, as he had made it his duty to see them secured alive and well.

There is no way the Republicans were just sitting idly by watching the Democrats deal with the major issue of the election.

That's the point actually. They weren't. In fact Carter tried to not engage this issue as a major part of the election but Reagan and more specifcally Casey drove it to the front every chance they got. It was what the voters decided the election on, and as such, Carter could not have been looking like he was interfering with Reagans people whom wanted to open the talks with Iran. The voters had spoken and they wanted the thing ended. Carter couldn't do it, and Reagan could was their response. They were correct.

Just to add...

yes it has been specualted that the Republicans did in fact negotiate with some Iranian folks on some level of gov't before the election, which would be illegal by anyones definition. That doesnt preclude however, in fact it reinforces, that it was Regans people and not Carter that got the thing settled, however nefarious it may have been. Others continue to argue otherwise however, which i find odd.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

It's against US law to negotiate with another government whom the US does not have diplomatic relations with in an order to bring down the current administration ( in this case to make Carter look bad), that's why it would be treated as treason.

Okay, I guess. But it has been fairly well established that these guys weren't all that concerned about following the rules, so the "it would have been illegal, so they wouldn't do it" excuse doesn't cut it.

Anyway, assuming you are right and it would have been illegal for them to meddle in the hostage crisis, do you think that would have stoppped them?

[transplant99]

Okay, I guess. But it has been fairly well established that these guys weren't all that concerned about following the rules, so the "it would have been illegal, so they wouldn't do it" excuse doesn't cut it.

I never said that...Lanny did in his claims they wouldnt be allowed to do so. Which would mean it was Carter that got it done.

Anyway, assuming you are right and it would have been illegal for them to meddle in the hostage crisis, do you think that would have stoppped them?

Nope. They probably did but serious negs would of occurred only after it was determined he won the election....which just reinforces my statement that it was Reagan who got the thing settled and not Carter....no matter how it went down. Thats been my only claim in this thing.

And FYI, I still believe that Reagan was one of the worst Presidents of all time.

[Azure]

How come you think Reagan was the worst Presidents of all time?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Azure

How come you think Reagan was the worst Presidents of all time?

Lots of reasons, but its late and I need some sleep.

One thing that I found particularly tasteless was when Congress passed sanctions against Apartheid Government in South Africa, he vetoed the bill.

Another was trying to normalize relations with Pinochet in Chile...a guy that they should of been overtly trying to oust much like Hussein.

His entire economic policy was a bit odd as well, though the results werent as bad as predicted.

I will say that he was strong in his beliefs and stayed the course no matter what, but his tactics and ability to live in his own world at times left a lot to be desired.