Carter says Bush's presidency 'worst in history'

[Vulcan]

You could say Bush didn't cause 9/11, thatn's not really the issue. The issue is he could have used it for good, instead he used it to start another unnecessary war. A huge setback for peace in my book but of course if you're a war monger or one who benefits from war, I may as well be talking to a door.

[transplant99]

The issue is he could have used it for good, instead he used it to start another unnecessary war.

No...the issue is (at least what I have commented on) is that former Presidents dont criticize sitting Heads of State. Period. They didnt do it to Carter when it could of happened, but he has done so now to Bush.

but of course if you're a war monger or one who benefits from war, I may as well be talking to a door

Well you have me there...I just LOVE war...absolutely thrills me to the bone to see people dying. Yup...I have been outed. Wish I could of benefitted from it actually, but alas I cant.

Seriously...WTF kind of a comment was that?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No...the issue is (at least what I have commented on) is that former Presidents dont criticize sitting Heads of State. Period. They didnt do it to Carter when it could of happened, but he has done so now to Bush.



Well you have me there...I just LOVE war...absolutely thrills me to the bone to see people dying. Yup...I have been outed. Wish I could of benefitted from it actually, but alas I cant.

Seriously...WTF kind of a comment was that?

Maybe there comes a time to break protocal. Just because someone is a head of state doesn't mean he is beyond criticism by a former head of state. Carter wouldn't have spoke up if he didn't consider Bush's actions a serious departure from American ethics.

My 'you' was more a general term for those who still support the Iraqi war but you seem to be defending Bush most every chance you can. I'm glad to see that you're not really defending Bush, in this case but criticising Carter for publicly criticising Bush. A fine line you draw.

[transplant99]

Maybe there comes a time to break protocal.

Ok im good with that....but its gotta be applicable to all past Presidents as well, so therefor now we examine Carters "legacy" too? Or not? I mean...he inherited a problem right (even though it happened while he was in office and all) so is that up for criticism, or is this just one more example of the rules being exclusive to the current administration only?

My 'you' was more a general term for those who still support the Iraqi war but you seem to be defending Bush most every chance you can. I'm glad to see that you're not really defending Bush, in this case but criticising Carter for publicly criticising Bush. A fine line you draw

.

Really...I defend Bush all the time do I??

Care to elaborate?

This should be good since I was openly hoping for a Kerry victory in 04.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Carter breaks "tradition", not protocol. Frankly, I don't blame Carter for being critical of Bush. The decisions and acts that the Bush administration is undertaking will hurt this country for decades. I think Carter has the right to speak out in this regard as he was the poor SOB who had to pick up the pieces after the Nixon and Ford debacle. Carter had to do so much after he was left holding the bag, and because of the situation he was thrust into, is called one of our worst Presidents. What's ironic is that the guy who followed (St. Reagan) gets all the credit for the groundwork that Carter laid during his tenure in office. Carter was a statesman, not a warrior, and it showed in his handling of the Iran situation (I wonder how he would have been judged if that chopper hadn't crashed and burned in the Iranian desert and the hostages been snatched and returned home safely). I wonder if we'll ever know who was truely responsible for what during that time. Seems all too good to be true that Reagan is inaugurated and the hostages are immediately freed, but I digress. I think Carter is looking to the future by peering into his own past, and he has the right to make the comments he did. Bush has certainly positioned the United States to be an untrusted entity for the forseeable future, and has certainly hurt the country with his handling of the economy and government. Carter likely sees what the "next" president has to face and understands better than anyone that the job left by this guy is certain to prevent the next guy from taking many steps forward.

[Vulcan]

The Iran situation was very volatile. The hostages could have been murdered and or a war could have broken out. Any intereference could have upset the applecart. Carter may have took a long time to solve the problem, but he did.
The Iraq situation is an ongoing war. There are no negotiations and no one to negotiate with, it just goes on and on costing more money and more lives with no end in sight with Bush's policies. There is nothing secret about it. Bush and his minions have been found to have mislead the world and criticism should be fair game.

Oh yeah, I said 'most' and this is just another example. I remember you not cheering for him last time, I can't remember why though?

[transplant99]

The Iran situation was very volatile. The hostages could have been murdered and or a war could have broken out. Any intereference could have upset the applecart. Carter may have took a long time to solve the problem, but he did

Carter solved the problem?......huh? They were in captivity for 444 freaking days under his watch. 12 hours under Reagan's watch.

Yeah...go Jimmy on that one!!

The Iraq situation is an ongoing war. There are no negotiations and no one to negotiate with, it just goes on and on costing more money and more lives with no end in sight with Bush's policies. There is nothing secret about it. Bush and his minions have been found to have mislead the world and criticism should be fair game

Agreed....again though when its a former President doing the criticizing, it is most certainly fair game to go after his legacy as well....right?

Oh yeah, I said 'most' and this is just another example. I remember you not voting for him last time, I can't remember why though?

No you didn't say "most"...you said me....as for why I didnt vote for him..I am not allowed to vote in the USA for anyone, but had I cast one last election, it would most assuredly been for Kerry.

Bush is just way too polarizing on too many topics for my liking. The USA needs to come together. not drift further apart.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

you seem to be defending Bush most every chance you can.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Carter solved the problem?......huh? They were in captivity for 444 freaking days under his watch. 12 hours under Reagan's watch.

Yeah...go Jimmy on that one!!



Agreed....again though when its a former President doing the criticizing, it is most certainly fair game to go after his legacy as well....right?



No you didn't say "most"...you said me....as for why I didnt vote for him..I am not allowed to vote in the USA for anyone, but had I cast one last election, it would most assuredly been for Kerry.

Bush is just way too polarizing on too many topics for my liking. The USA needs to come together. not drift further apart.

Still holding on to the Reagan myth are you?

Reread my post and I see you edited your's in time so that the reason you didn't vote for Bush was because you can't vote, is no longer up there. So, at the time, why wouldn't you have voted for Bush?

[Azure]

Its not a Reagan myth, not exactly anyways.

There was a book released about the situation, where the hostage takers said that they released the hostages partly to make Carter look like a fool, and because they didn't want to deal with Reagan.

[transplant99]

Still holding on to the Reagan myth are you?

What myth is that?

I have zero idea what you are talking about.

Here is the PBS version of things ( a leftist broadcaster if there ever was one)

Finally, in September, Khomeini's government decided it was time to end the matter. There was little more advantage to be gained from further anti-American, anti-Shah propaganda, and the ongoing sanctions were making it harder to straighten out an already chaotic economy. Despite rumors that Carter might pull out an "October Surprise" and get the hostages home before the election, negotiations dragged on for months, even after Republican Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in November. Carter's all-night effort to bring the 52 hostages home before the end of his term, documented by an ABC television crew in the Oval Office, fell short; the Iranians released them minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/...e_hostage.html

Reread my post and I see you edited your's in time so that the reason you didn't vote for Bush was because you can't vote, is no longer up there. So, at the time, why wouldn't you have voted for Bush?

I edited it to ADD why I wouldnt vote for Bush last time......you are starting to really reach dude.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What myth is that?

I have zero idea what you are talking about.

Here is the PBS version of things ( a leftist broadcaster if there ever was one)



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/...e_hostage.html



I edited it to ADD why I wouldnt vote for Bush last time......you are starting to really reach dude.

I guess you didn't bother to read about Reagen's minions interference with Carter's negotiations, but in most arguements with you they just go in circles.

I just found you're Fruedian slip pretty funny and I did give you another chance by asking again why you didn't favor Bush. I find it troubling that you avoid mentioning the Iraq war as a reason for not likeing Bush and give some lame reason that he is too polarizing, so I take it that you are in favor of the war.

[transplant99]

I guess you didn't bother to read about Reagen's minions interference with Carter's negotiations, but in most arguements with you they just go in circles.

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?


You are losing this argument badly and just digging yourself a deeper hole.

I did give you another chance by asking again why you didn't favor Bush

.

Now you are just making stuff up...i explained quite clearly.

I find it troubling that you avoid mentioning the Iraq war as a reason for not likeing Bush and give some lame reason that he is too polarizing, so I take it that you are in favor of the war

You are troubled are you....oh well.

I dont like how the Iraq war has gone, but I sure was in favor of them doing something in the middle east at some point, you have me dead to rights on that point.....but then again I am a war monger, so what does it matter right?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Carter solved the problem?......huh? They were in captivity for 444 freaking days under his watch. 12 hours under Reagan's watch.

Yeah...go Jimmy on that one!!

Come on Tranny, you must be able to understand that Iranians were obviously holding out for Carter to leave office before releasing the hostages. You said it yourself, 444 days of captivity (and negotiation) and no release, but 12 hours after the inauguration they get magically released. Reagan is either the greatest negotiator in the history of mankind, or the Iranians got what they wanted during negotiations and were just trying to further embarass Carter. The later is the only thing that makes sense, no?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Come on Tranny, you must be able to understand that Iranians were obviously holding out for Carter to leave office before releasing the hostages. You said it yourself, 444 days of captivity (and negotiation) and no release, but 12 hours after the inauguration they get magically released. Reagan is either the greatest negotiator in the history of mankind, or the Iranians got what they wanted during negotiations and were just trying to further embarass Carter. The later is the only thing that makes sense, no?

Carter was negotiating LONG before the election was even held.

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.

Yes, Reagans guys were responsible for it happening, and no it didnt happen in 12 hours. I think that's obvious, yet here we have a poster claiming that it was all Carters doings that led to their release....that simply did not happen.


Re-writing history isn't that easy.

[Vulcan]

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?


You are losing this argument badly and just digging yourself a deeper hole.



.

Now you are just making stuff up...i explained quite clearly.



You are troubled are you....oh well.

I dont like how the Iraq war has gone, but I sure was in favor of them doing something in the middle east at some point, you have me dead to rights on that point.....but then again I am a war monger, so what does it matter right?

You were "in favor of them doing something" but you "don't like how the Iraq war has gone". Man, give you're head a shake, you were wrong then and you're wrong now.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You were "in favor of them doing something" but you "don't like how the Iraq war has gone". Man, give you're head a shake, you were wrong then and you're wrong now.

Give my head a shake...why cause you say so?

Sure.....(snicker)

Yes I am in favor of a presence in the middle east....so now I am going to say YOU are wrong. Fun game huh?

I dont like the way things have unfolded in Iraq, for a multitude of reasons actually.... Am I "wrong" for saying so?

Just asking.

Though I guess that goes against my "war-mongering" ways and my ability to profit from the loss of innocent lives. ....your claim.

How's that "Carter was responsible for the hostages release" explanation coming anyhow?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Give my head a shake...why cause you say so?

Sure.....(snicker)

Yes I am in favor of a presence in the middle east....so now I am going to say YOU are wrong. Fun game huh?

I dont like the way things have unfolded in Iraq, for a multitude of reasons actually.... Am I "wrong" for saying so?

Just asking.

Though I guess that goes against my "war-mongering" ways and my ability to profit from the loss of innocent lives. ....your claim.

How's that "Carter was responsible for the hostages release" explanation coming anyhow?

You "don't like how things have unfolded in Iraq" but I'd say that's what usually happens in an unjust war, things go wrong, just as happened in Viet Nam and what happened to the Axis powers in WWII and what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan.

As for your idea that Reagan solved the problem in Iran and than saved the free world, well it'd make a great comic book, maybe even a B movie.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Carter was negotiating LONG before the election was even held.

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.

Yes, Reagans guys were responsible for it happening, and no it didnt happen in 12 hours. I think that's obvious, yet here we have a poster claiming that it was all Carters doings that led to their release....that simply did not happen.


Re-writing history isn't that easy.

Maybe Carter wasn't willing to do business with an oppressive theocratic regime the way Reagan was?

The Iranians probably just wanted an autographed copy of Prisoner of War.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You "don't like how things have unfolded in Iraq" but I'd say that's what usually happens in an unjust war, things go wrong, just as happened in Viet Nam and what happened to the Axis powers in WWII and what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan.

As for your idea that Reagan solved the problem in Iran and than saved the free world, well it'd make a great comic book, maybe even a B movie.

You're really pulling strings today, aren't you?

It has nothing to do with 'unjust' war...get that? Every country that tried to create a presense in Vietnam, had men killed by the large amounts.

I will ask you one question though. Was Somolia unjust? Must have been, because the US failed miserably. According to your theory.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Maybe Carter wasn't willing to do business with an oppressive theocratic regime the way Reagan was?

The Iranians probably just wanted an autographed copy of Prisoner of War.

Or perhaps Reagan gave them a deadline, or else.

Or like one of the people involved in taking the hostages said, they wanted to make a fool out of Carter.