Jimmy Carter lashes at Bush Admin

[Darth Wong]

First of all, my statement has nothing to do with George W. Bush. I believe that it is irresponsible for past presidents to openly criticize sitting presidents, period. My reservations about such behavior do not simply apply to Jimmy Carter, but also extend to all people who have sat or will sit in the Oval Office.

Now. Back to brass tacks. The entire problem of “backseat governing” boils down to the fact that presidents have seen and done things that the American public will never know about. There is an expectation that their decisions and opinions involve special considerations. And that is why it is particularly dangerous for former presidents to get into the business of criticizing the new man on the job.

Oh for fuck's sake, that's why it's even more important for past presidents to criticize sitting presidents. They are in a position to know that the "trust the president, he knows stuff that you don't" argument is bullshit.

Interesting that you, Mike Wong, or you, Marina, talk about the need for leadership by an elite, but refuse to accept the idea that people like Carter might be doing everybody a favor by biting their tongue because their statements might be misinterpreted or misevaluated by the American people.

Leadership by an educated class in no way eliminates the need for transparency. Thanks for yet another bullshit non sequitur.

Comments from people like Carter add nothing.

Does it hurt your balls, trying to straddle the fence between saying that his criticisms will change nothing and saying that they are incredibly destructive?

If he's so concerned, he should speak to Congress and try to initiate proceedings if something is obviously wrong with the way George Bush is dealing with things. If not, we have plenty of other people with less potential to create unintended consequences that can speak out in public.

What "unintended consequences?" Making the president look bad? If you think that's an unintended consequence of Carter's actions, you're being an idiot.

As for credibility, it’s important that a president has it. If he does not, however, it should be on his own lack of merit, not on the suggestion of Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan or whoever.

Credibility is not something you give to a president, moron. It is something he earns, through a record of integrity.

Carter’s own faults are particularly egregious. He gambled that he could somehow ignore history. Ignore the fact that the United States had previously taken sides. Nobody likes a fence sitter.

And the point about Iran isn’t that Reagan handled it better. It’s that he showed that Carter had options when he took limited military action. And Carter wins no points for “a rescue mission rather than a hostage exchange.” That was as ill-fated as the Bay of Pigs, and neither should ever have been pushed through.

And had limited risk because it was a small operation. Something Bush might have thought to consider before plunging America into a war with virtually limitless possible costs and consequences.

If you need an example of the bad things presidents can do when they leave, I pointed you to Eisenhower, who allows anger to get the best of him and basically browbeat Kennedy into initiating action against Cuba. Kennedy was wrong to submit, certainly, and deserved to be castigated on that fact alone. But the fact that Eisenhower did that alerts us to the dangers of backseat politicking.

No, it alerts us to the dangers of knee-jerk militarism. The fact that the argument came from a past president is immaterial compared to the kind of argument it was, and the segment of the American population it represented.

And as an aside, I'd like to know how in the world I qualify as a Right Winger when I'm pro-abortion, pro-gay rights (i.e., marriage, not civil unions), pro-gun control, and undecided about marijuana legalization.

You're a foreign-policy neo-con. Nobody cares about your domestic policies because you talk about them about as often as you post in the ARSE forum.

[Patrick Degan]

Now. Back to brass tacks. The entire problem of “backseat governing” boils down to the fact that presidents have seen and done things that the American public will never know about. There is an expectation that their decisions and opinions involve special considerations. And that is why it is particularly dangerous for former presidents to get into the business of criticizing the new man on the job.

Past presidents exist exactly to lend their experience not only to the sitting president but to the people at large. They do not surrender the basic right to criticise the current chief executive simply by virtue of having once occupied the office. And when a sitting president is so completely off the beam that his decisions do not cohere with reality, their duty is not to the man in the office at present but to the nation and the people. To quote Theodore Roosevelt on the matter: To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

As for credibility, it’s important that a president has it. If he does not, however, it should be on his own lack of merit, not on the suggestion of Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan or whoever.

Carter’s own faults are particularly egregious. He gambled that he could somehow ignore history. Ignore the fact that the United States had previously taken sides. Nobody likes a fence sitter.

The only mistake Carter made was to reverse his initial decision not to give the deposed shah asylum.

And the point about Iran isn’t that Reagan handled it better. It’s that he showed that Carter had options when he took limited military action. And Carter wins no points for “a rescue mission rather than a hostage exchange.” That was as ill-fated as the Bay of Pigs, and neither should ever have been pushed through.

What options? How would a general military attack have facilitated the release of the hostages? How would have it outweighed any possible risk to their lives or risk of jeopardising our overall policy objectives in the Middle East?

If you need an example of the bad things presidents can do when they leave, I pointed you to Eisenhower, who allows anger to get the best of him and basically browbeat Kennedy into initiating action against Cuba. Kennedy was wrong to submit, certainly, and deserved to be castigated on that fact alone. But the fact that Eisenhower did that alerts us to the dangers of backseat politicking.

Non-sequitur. That incident points more to Kennedy's inexperience at that point in his presidency and does not support your overall thesis that ex-presidents should not "risk" criticising the present occupant of the White House. It does not bear on whether or not an ex-president should speak out or not when the current president has his head so far up his ass that he's lost not only his sense of smell but hearing as well.

And as an aside, I'd like to know how in the world I qualify as a Right Winger when I'm pro-abortion, pro-gay rights (i.e., marriage, not civil unions), pro-gun control, and undecided about marijuana legalization.

As has been observed, the only thing that counts here is your continual public fellating of this comic-opera dictator and his ill-begotten wars and your mastubatory endorsement of neocon foreign policy.

[SirNitram]

And as an aside, I'd like to know how in the world I qualify as a Right Winger when I'm pro-abortion, pro-gay rights (i.e., marriage, not civil unions), pro-gun control, and undecided about marijuana legalization.

Gee. All these positions you never, ever condemn the President for being against, suddenly popping up so you can pretend you aren't a Neoconservative monkey. Hell, why not just look at the GOP PResidential Debates? Whose the front runner? Pro-Gun Control, Pro-Gay Rights, Pro-Choice Guiliani, because he's the one most embracing the neoconservative/authoritarian narratives.

[Axis Kast]

Oh for fuck's sake, that's why it's even more important for past presidents to criticize sitting presidents. They are in a position to know that the "trust the president, he knows stuff that you don't" argument is bullshit.

Not without unintentionally becoming beneficiaries of that some ill logical themselves. Hence the problem.

Leadership by an educated class in no way eliminates the need for transparency. Thanks for yet another bullshit non sequitur.

Oh please. Desiring a specific group of people to absent themselves from public political discourage voluntarily – without prejudicing either their legal right to speak, or their access to the federal regulatory framework (i.e., Congress) – is no worse than advocating an elimination of the full public franchise and a resort to voter qualification, which is what I understand you to want.

Does it hurt your balls, trying to straddle the fence between saying that his criticisms will change nothing and saying that they are incredibly destructive?

I argued that his criticisms are not an absolutely necessary piece of input. Just like those of any other former president. If he has something that he believes is earth shattering, let him take it up with Congress. The potential dangers outweigh the benefits of his opening his mouth.

What "unintended consequences?" Making the president look bad? If you think that's an unintended consequence of Carter's actions, you're being an idiot

Forcing the president to potentially waste time defending himself against yet another critic – but one whose arguments always have the benefit of the “absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence” fallacy.

Credibility is not something you give to a president, moron. It is something he earns, through a record of integrity.

Okay. You can stop the bullshit now. Just like I didn’t say I ever wanted the president to blow hot air up anyone’s ass but everybody went ahead by talking about false optimism anyway in their dishonest efforts to make me look bad, I didn’t deign to say where I think criticism should come from. All I did was argue that comments from ex-presidents sap (or add) credibility unfairly.

And had limited risk because it was a small operation. Something Bush might have thought to consider before plunging America into a war with virtually limitless possible costs and consequences.

This has nothing to do with Bush, you dishonest fuck. Carter made a bad decision personally. Bush made a bad decision personally. One doesn’t make the other less bad.

No, it alerts us to the dangers of knee-jerk militarism. The fact that the argument came from a past president is immaterial compared to the kind of argument it was, and the segment of the American population it represented.

Eisenhower’s people essentially told Jack Kennedy: “Authorize the invasion of Cuba, or we’ll cut your political feet from under you.”

Jack Kennedy made a mistake in listening to them. But the whole thing wouldn’t have happened if Eisenhower had been more responsible himself.

You're a foreign-policy neo-con. Nobody cares about your domestic policies because you talk about them about as often as you post in the ARSE forum.

Actually, I’ve mentioned them several times.

[The Yosemite Bear]

maybe axis is guilianni, or a slightly senile McCain....

sorry, but I have lost faith with the man I once considered a viable alternative to Bush/Gore, he's sucking Georgie the Tyrant's cock too much....

[SirNitram]

Define the dangers of being criticized by someone who has sat in the chair before, immediately. Reconcile them with your 'I'm not saying it's anything bad, just not ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY' stance. Or shut the fuck up, trolling hatfucker.

[Axis Kast]

Define the dangers of being criticized by someone who has sat in the chair before, immediately.

I just did, you fucking moron.

Imagine Kenney rejects the Bay of Pigs invasion, and Eisenhower’s people “go public” with the following claim: “The Republican administration that you just voted out of office had a plan for dealing with Castro about which it couldn’t speak for purposes of operational security. Your new president entered office contending that he would never have ‘lost’ Cuba on his watch. We were silent. He did nothing.” Imagine Eisenhower then gives an interview in which he gives credence to the above story.

Kennedy would have lost tremendous political capital – the kind of capital that’s needed to make deals in Washington and co-opt the American public into backing his decisions. Not because of anything he did personally, but because of what Eisenhower’s people – and Eisenhower – said. Sure, Kennedy could fire back, “They came up with a stupid plan!” But the incident would cost him. And it would have been avoidable.

Reconcile them with your 'I'm not saying it's anything bad, just not ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY' stance.

It’s not necessary for Carter to speak out publicly because (1) he’s not the only person out there that can observe the Bush presidency and contribute to public discourse; (2) if there ever is a moment when the special experiences he has had do become essential material for proper public debate, he can always contact people who can act on that. Without putting himself in the middle of the issue.

[Enforcer Talen]

Do you have links for the Eisenhower lines? I havent heard of that before.

[SirNitram]

Define the dangers of being criticized by someone who has sat in the chair before, immediately.

I just did, you fucking moron.

Imagine Kenney rejects the Bay of Pigs invasion, and Eisenhower’s people “go public” with the following claim: “The Republican administration that you just voted out of office had a plan for dealing with Castro about which it couldn’t speak for purposes of operational security. Your new president entered office contending that he would never have ‘lost’ Cuba on his watch. We were silent. He did nothing.” Imagine Eisenhower then gives an interview in which he gives credence to the above story.

Kennedy would have lost tremendous political capital – the kind of capital that’s needed to make deals in Washington and co-opt the American public into backing his decisions. Not because of anything he did personally, but because of what Eisenhower’s people – and Eisenhower – said. Sure, Kennedy could fire back, “They came up with a stupid plan!” But the incident would cost him. And it would have been avoidable.

Knee-jerk pro-militarism, not criticisms of a former President, are what's at fault there. But hey, you had this explained to you and you couldn't deal with it, so I'm not surprised you did exactly as Mike said:

Axis: A is true.
Nitram: Prove it.
Axis: [Rewords A slightly.]

Reconcile them with your 'I'm not saying it's anything bad, just not ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY' stance.

It’s not necessary for Carter to speak out publicly because (1) he’s not the only person out there that can observe the Bush presidency and contribute to public discourse; (2) if there ever is a moment when the special experiences he has had do become essential material for proper public debate, he can always contact people who can act on that. Without putting himself in the middle of the issue.

Define why he should not put himself in the middle of the issue. You keep stating these things as some kind of gospel truth but never give a fucking reason. You just contend, over and over, that the President's office is sacred, and he should have credibility auto-magic-ally, and that credibility should not be challenged by those who, gasp, are credible on the subject. You never give a good reason, save an example where the culprit is not legitimacy of the criticism from a former President, but a knee-jerk reaction of militarism.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Simple the Eisenhower folks planned th Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy executed it, and messed up. Simular to how Clinton planned the kidnapping of OBL but Bush just circular filed that idea....

[Axis Kast]

Do you have links for the Eisenhower lines? I havent heard of that before.

On Nov. 18, 1960, Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell (CIA Director for Plans) visited with president-elect Kennedy and shared with him the Eisenhower administration's plans for ousting Castro. He was also told that hesitation would lead to a "leak" assailing his credibility if he did not comport himself in a manner consistent with his campaign rhetoric now that he had viable options. Kennedy, who was admittedly over-enthusiastic, was then over-sold on the Bay of Pigs plan becuase of blatant misrepresentation (read: lies) by Bissell and Dulles. I'll dig up the books tommorrow at the university library.

Knee-jerk pro-militarism, not criticisms of a former President, are what's at fault there.

Are you saying that the threats passed on by Eisenhower's people should be ignored because Kennedy was optimistic about the invasion in the first place? Because it sounds like what you want to do is ignore Eisenhower's role here.

Define why he should not put himself in the middle of the issue. You keep stating these things as some kind of gospel truth but never give a fucking reason.

Carter's words have significant out of proportion to their inherent value. When Joe Schmoe says, "Bush is wrong for X, Y, and Z reasons," he is less credible than when Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush says, "Bush is wrong for X, Y, and Z reasons." Even though Carter and Bush may be acting from complete ignorance of the situation. The point of my position is to expose the fact that Carter and Bush would have automatic credibility that they are not necessarily deserving of. They inherently "dumb down" the level of discourse because people assume things about them that they wouldn't assume about Joe Schmoe.

You just contend, over and over, that the President's office is sacred, and he should have credibility auto-magic-ally, and that credibility should not be challenged by those who, gasp, are credible on the subject.

This is you being dishonest again. I claimed that the president's office was sacred because I wanted to emphasize the benefits that a guy like Carter enjoys vis-a-vis future leadership. Carter held an office that has huge emotional and pyschological pull on Americans. When he speaks, that "pull" comes into play - whether or not there is actually any special knowledge at work behind his statements.

I'm not defending Bush as beyond reproach. I'm pointing out that Carter and others shouldn't position themselves so as to be misconstrued as the prophet who comes down from the mountain.

You never give a good reason, save an example where the culprit is not legitimacy of the criticism from a former President, but a knee-jerk reaction of militarism.

Kennedy's militarism didn't allow him to fully back the Bay of Pigs invasion. Clearly, he was applying the breaks even though he was lied to and thus had reason to suspect success. (Although not enough that he should have authorized the plan in the first place.) While I agree that Eisenhower's people's threat was not the decisive factor in obliging Kennedy to act, it is stupid to ignore the fact that he was put in an awful situation -- and wrongly.

[SirNitram]

Knee-jerk pro-militarism, not criticisms of a former President, are what's at fault there.

Are you saying that the threats passed on by Eisenhower's people should be ignored because Kennedy was optimistic about the invasion in the first place? Because it sounds like what you want to do is ignore Eisenhower's role here.

I'm ignoring the idea that the blow would have been as big a deal as you try to conjure it into, mostly because I don't accept your unsupported assertion that it'd be devastating.

Define why he should not put himself in the middle of the issue. You keep stating these things as some kind of gospel truth but never give a fucking reason.

Carter's words have significant out of proportion to their inherent value. When Joe Schmoe says, "Bush is wrong for X, Y, and Z reasons," he is less credible than when Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush says, "Bush is wrong for X, Y, and Z reasons." Even though Carter and Bush may be acting from complete ignorance of the situation. The point of my position is to expose the fact that Carter and Bush would have automatic credibility that they are not necessarily deserving of. They inherently "dumb down" the level of discourse because people assume things about them that they wouldn't assume about Joe Schmoe.

Carter has credibility because he has been POTUS, a rather noticable and objective leg-up on credibility over Joe Schmoe. You must substantiate the idea that this credibility he gains is out of proportion with that which he has, or you're just spewing out yet another bald, unsupported assumption.

You just contend, over and over, that the President's office is sacred, and he should have credibility auto-magic-ally, and that credibility should not be challenged by those who, gasp, are credible on the subject.

This is you being dishonest again. I claimed that the president's office was sacred because I wanted to emphasize the benefits that a guy like Carter enjoys vis-a-vis future leadership. Carter held an office that has huge emotional and pyschological pull on Americans. When he speaks, that "pull" comes into play - whether or not there is actually any special knowledge at work behind his statements.

The President of the United States is a sacred office that can in no way be compared to any other. First because of its cultural status, second because of the responsibility of the man who occupies the office, and third because of the information that passes under his gaze.

I would say that the information that Carter would have had, the responsibility on his shoulders, he's got the credibility he deserves. You must show it goes above and beyond what he has earned, because you keep asserting it does.

I'm not defending Bush as beyond reproach. I'm pointing out that Carter and others shouldn't position themselves so as to be misconstrued as the prophet who comes down from the mountain.

Oh, total bullshit.

they reduce the credibility of the chief executive;

Sound familiar? A reason you gave for why Carter shouldn't have spoken.

This rings especially hollow when you want a sitting President's credibility to be unchallenged, but we should never let a former President use any credibility they've built up.

You never give a good reason, save an example where the culprit is not legitimacy of the criticism from a former President, but a knee-jerk reaction of militarism.

Kennedy's militarism didn't allow him to fully back the Bay of Pigs invasion. Clearly, he was applying the breaks even though he was lied to and thus had reason to suspect success. (Although not enough that he should have authorized the plan in the first place.) While I agree that Eisenhower's people's threat was not the decisive factor in obliging Kennedy to act, it is stupid to ignore the fact that he was put in an awful situation -- and wrongly.

And your solution is to never let anyone of credibility challenge the President's rosy, irresponsible, unrealistic optimism, which you have already asserted 'hurts no one', despite massive evidence to the contrary.

Lying little shithead.

[Patrick Degan]

You just contend, over and over, that the President's office is sacred, and he should have credibility auto-magic-ally, and that credibility should not be challenged by those who, gasp, are credible on the subject.

This is you being dishonest again. I claimed that the president's office was sacred because I wanted to emphasize the benefits that a guy like Carter enjoys vis-a-vis future leadership. Carter held an office that has huge emotional and pyschological pull on Americans. When he speaks, that "pull" comes into play - whether or not there is actually any special knowledge at work behind his statements.

No, Axi, you said this:

The President of the United States is a sacred office that can in no way be compared to any other. First because of its cultural status, second because of the responsibility of the man who occupies the office, and third because of the information that passes under his gaze.

You made that formulation without any of the qualifications you are now attaching, and in the context of arguing that Carter should simply keep his mouth shut. Trying repeatedly to drag in the red herring about Eisenhower's former advisors doesn't lend your case against Carter any credibility either: Carter waited for six-plus years before saying anything about Georgie the Stupider and kept his tongue through Reagan and Bush I out of the respect for the office you hold so dear.

[Axis Kast]

I'm ignoring the idea that the blow would have been as big a deal as you try to conjure it into, mostly because I don't accept your unsupported assertion that it'd be devastating.

Eisenhower ought to have been responsible and kept his mouth shut. The United States did not gain when his people – and possibly he himself – tried to play power politics with plans to invade another country. Do you agree or disagree?

Carter has credibility because he has been POTUS, a rather noticable and objective leg-up on credibility over Joe Schmoe.

You don’t really mean that. Or else you’d have to acknowledge that George Bush has credibility simply because he is POTUS, a claim that I think you would disagree with passionately.

You must substantiate the idea that this credibility he gains is out of proportion with that which he has, or you're just spewing out yet another bald, unsupported assumption.

No, I mustn’t do any such thing. Because of the fact that, when he speaks, his words will inevitably count for more than they should – because we have people like Joe Schmoe – he should bite his tongue. Once again, if he has truly pressing concerns, he should take it up via private channels.

I would say that the information that Carter would have had, the responsibility on his shoulders, he's got the credibility he deserves. You must show it goes above and beyond what he has earned, because you keep asserting it does.

Once again, using the standards you just set out, I should consider George Bush a more credible authority than anybody else. You haven’t even added the qualifier, “Assuming he hasn’t already compromised himself.”

Sound familiar? A reason you gave for why Carter shouldn't have spoken.

The argument that the Chief Executive benefits from having credibility and that it shouldn’t allowed to be vulnerable in the face of hysterics from former presidents is quite distinct from the argument that Carter gains credibility of his own from having been in office.

This rings especially hollow when you want a sitting President's credibility to be unchallenged, but we should never let a former President use any credibility they've built up.

Again, your dishonesty. I want the credibility of the sitting executive to be challenges by people who marshal facts and make cogent criticisms. I want it to be challenged independent of the “face value” of a former big-whig.

And your solution is to never let anyone of credibility challenge the President's rosy, irresponsible, unrealistic optimism, which you have already asserted 'hurts no one', despite massive evidence to the contrary.

This is you equating optimism with “lying.”

Lying little shithead.

That’s exactly what you are. Concession accepted.

You made that formulation without any of the qualifications you are now attaching, and in the context of arguing that Carter should simply keep his mouth shut.

Yes; because he held an office that imputes benefits to him that he doesn’t necessarily deserve. Benefits that his words may not merit.

The question then become: “Why let anyone who has seen classified information speak out against the president? Don’t we impart those people with special credibility, too?” The answer is simple: the President is the greatest and most powerful example.

Trying repeatedly to drag in the red herring about Eisenhower's former advisors doesn't lend your case against Carter any credibility either: Carter waited for six-plus years before saying anything about Georgie the Stupider and kept his tongue through Reagan and Bush I out of the respect for the office you hold so dear.

It lends credibility in the eyes of rational people who understand that Eisenhower’s people had no business playing politics when and where they did. It provides an excellent example of a situation in which somebody would have done well to shut up.

There.

Now, as for Carter, I think it is important that we distance “Carter, the example of a President” from “Carter, the person who did X, Y, and Z in the White House.” Carter had plenty of flaws that have nothing to do with the above argument. As I’ve said, it could be Carter or it could be Bush. No difference in terms of whether either one should speak.

As for Carter’s particular history? Once again, he had no business following the Linowitz Report. It represented the worst kind of idealism – that not tempered by a healthy dose of the facts. Carter acted as if he could turn back time, a decision that accelerated the demise (if not actually lost us) good allies. (And don’t pretend even for a minute that somebody like the Shah was really all that much worse than, say, Ho Chi Minh. There’re secret police, and then there’s social progressivism. If we can deal with Achmadinejad, why the hell couldn’t we deal with a guy who was no more brutal and far more visionary?) Furthermore, his failure to censure Brzezinski was really just inexcusable. The man single-handedly sabotaged one of Carter’s more inspired foreign policy openings by lying on multiple occasions – that with Cuba. Carter somehow forgave his National Security Adviser on multiple occasions, and, like Cyrus Vance, showed a remarkable penchant for avoiding the confrontations that mattered when people didn’t just step, but stomped, on his toes. Finally, Carter failed at presenting a strong public image. Once again, it’s not a matter of wanting somebody to lie to me so much as wanting somebody to articulate that, whatever the challenge, we will absolutely take steps to meet it with the intention of coming out on top. It’s one thing to say, “Ignore global warming.” It’s another to say, “We need some serious solutions, but in the end, we’re going to make sacrifices together and then come out better, stronger, healthier and wealthier than before.” Carter lacked charisma. And charisma is what would make me amenable to an Obama presidency even if I don’t like the guy’s stance on Iraq. At some point, the presidency just boils down to “public enthusiasm guy.” It's one of Bush's last good selling points.

[Lusankya]

The President of the United States is a sacred office that can in no way be compared to any other.

See, I compare the office of President of the United States to that of PM of Britain, PM of Australia, President of France, President of Indonesia... the list really goes on and on. Why is only the POTUS sacred?

First because of its cultural status,

Kinda like the Roman Catholic Church, and the Dalai Lama, and Muhammed. Gotcha.

second because of the responsibility of the man who occupies the office,

Oh, of course. We wouldn't want to distract him from his responsibility with anything as silly as peer review, now, would we? Perhaps we should get rid of those pesky elections as well, just in case they force the President to get up and take responsibility, and get held accountable for his actions...

and third because of the information that passes under his gaze.

This just makes him sound like Wikipedia. All hail the mighty Presipedia! Repository of all knowledge! Nay, SACRED repository of all knowledge! Let us not doubt him, lest he smite us down with wiretapping and accusations of Weapons of Mass Destruction!

[Lusankya]

Shit. How did I just not notice the second two pages of this thread. Carry on.

[SirNitram]

Carter has credibility because he has been POTUS, a rather noticable and objective leg-up on credibility over Joe Schmoe.

You don’t really mean that. Or else you’d have to acknowledge that George Bush has credibility simply because he is POTUS, a claim that I think you would disagree with passionately.

Carter did not engage in this many illegal and stupid actions in a serial manner, a notable difference between them. Try again, only this time, think before you try to act clever. Because with you, it's only an act.

You must substantiate the idea that this credibility he gains is out of proportion with that which he has, or you're just spewing out yet another bald, unsupported assumption.

No, I mustn’t do any such thing. Because of the fact that, when he speaks, his words will inevitably count for more than they should – because we have people like Joe Schmoe – he should bite his tongue. Once again, if he has truly pressing concerns, he should take it up via private channels.

Yes, you must. D. R. 6 of this board's rules.

I would say that the information that Carter would have had, the responsibility on his shoulders, he's got the credibility he deserves. You must show it goes above and beyond what he has earned, because you keep asserting it does.

Once again, using the standards you just set out, I should consider George Bush a more credible authority than anybody else. You haven’t even added the qualifier, “Assuming he hasn’t already compromised himself.”

Because honest people know that's implicit there. Carter did not violate so many laws so blatantly, nor done quite so many stupidly destructive things.

Sound familiar? A reason you gave for why Carter shouldn't have spoken.

The argument that the Chief Executive benefits from having credibility and that it shouldn’t allowed to be vulnerable in the face of hysterics from former presidents is quite distinct from the argument that Carter gains credibility of his own from having been in office.

Why should this president have credibility at this point in time? Yet another of your unsupported assertions, which, yes, you must substantiate under D. R. 6.

This rings especially hollow when you want a sitting President's credibility to be unchallenged, but we should never let a former President use any credibility they've built up.

Again, your dishonesty. I want the credibility of the sitting executive to be challenges by people who marshal facts and make cogent criticisms. I want it to be challenged independent of the “face value” of a former big-whig.

Well, people with facts and cogent criticisms have done it for years. You can whine to someone else that it's sooooo unfair that someone with some experience with Dubya's situation criticized him, but you've yet to give a reason that can be called a rebuttal.

And your solution is to never let anyone of credibility challenge the President's rosy, irresponsible, unrealistic optimism, which you have already asserted 'hurts no one', despite massive evidence to the contrary.

This is you equating optimism with “lying.”

No, that was you desperately trying to evade the earlier bullshit statements you made and failing.

Lying little shithead.

That’s exactly what you are. Concession accepted.

Jesus Christ, what are you, twelve?

[Darth Wong]

Imagine Kenney rejects the Bay of Pigs invasion, and Eisenhower’s people “go public” with the following claim: “The Republican administration that you just voted out of office had a plan for dealing with Castro about which it couldn’t speak for purposes of operational security. Your new president entered office contending that he would never have ‘lost’ Cuba on his watch. We were silent. He did nothing.” Imagine Eisenhower then gives an interview in which he gives credence to the above story.

Yeah, it's not as if people would have wanted to know what this brilliant operation was.

[Patrick Degan]

You made that formulation without any of the qualifications you are now attaching, and in the context of arguing that Carter should simply keep his mouth shut.

Yes; because he held an office that imputes benefits to him that he doesn’t necessarily deserve. Benefits that his words may not merit.

"Doesn't necessarily deserve"? He was elected and served his term and performed far more competently in the office than the arrogant little shitstain you've laboured so hard to defend for nearly five years now.

The question then become: “Why let anyone who has seen classified information speak out against the president? Don’t we impart those people with special credibility, too?” The answer is simple: the President is the greatest and most powerful example.

Oh, so Carter is nullified from speaking because he saw classified information? Even though nothing of what he is saying touches on classified information but bears rather on his wisdom and experience. Your arguments become as threadbare as always

Trying repeatedly to drag in the red herring about Eisenhower's former advisors doesn't lend your case against Carter any credibility either: Carter waited for six-plus years before saying anything about Georgie the Stupider and kept his tongue through Reagan and Bush I out of the respect for the office you hold so dear.

It lends credibility in the eyes of rational people who understand that Eisenhower’s people had no business playing politics when and where they did. It provides an excellent example of a situation in which somebody would have done well to shut up.

No, it doesn't actually, no matter how loudly the voices in your head tell you otherwise. The one example bears on what two of Eisenhower's former advisers tried to pull on a very inexperienced Kennedy at the very beginning of his term and doing so not necessarily with Ike's awareness or approval of their actions and has no relation to the example of a former president finally speaking out at a time when a demonstrable incompetent who has held the office for six years plus has made fuckup after fuckup after fuckup and shows absolutely no sign of changing that pattern.

But I suppose you will continue to drag this smelly Red Herring out for as long as you imagine you can get away with it.

[Darth Servo]

I believe that it is irresponsible for past presidents to openly criticize sitting presidents, period.

After several years of posting on this forum, you still don't grasp the fact that "I believe" arguments don't amount to shit around here?

Now. Back to brass tacks. The entire problem of “backseat governing” boils down to the fact that presidents have seen and done things that the American public will never know about.

All the MORE reason for past presidents to criticize current ones if the current one is fucking up.

There is an expectation that their decisions and opinions involve special considerations.

Again, which means MORE responsibility, not less.

And that is why it is particularly dangerous for former presidents to get into the business of criticizing the new man on the job.

Actually just the opposite. Its dangerous for the people who know whats going on to NOT criticize current fuckups.

Interesting that you, Mike Wong, or you, Marina, talk about the need for leadership by an elite, but refuse to accept the idea that people like Carter might be doing everybody a favor by biting their tongue because their statements might be misinterpreted or misevaluated by the American people.

Which has nothing to do with criticizing the current president as ANY statement can be "misinterpreted".

Comments from people like Carter add nothing. If he's so concerned, he should speak to Congress and try to initiate proceedings if something is obviously wrong with the way George Bush is dealing with things.

So past presidents CAN criticize the current one, so long as it goes directly to Congress. Are you getting dizzy from all your spinning in circles yet?

If not, we have plenty of other people with less potential to create unintended consequences that can speak out in public.

You are aware that "appealing to consequences" is a logical fallacy, right?

As for credibility, it’s important that a president has it. If he does not, however, it should be on his own lack of merit, not on the suggestion of Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan or whoever.

Why not? Whats wrong with Carter, Reagan, Ford, etc pointing out said lack of merit?

Carter’s own faults are particularly egregious. He gambled that he could somehow ignore history. Ignore the fact that the United States had previously taken sides. Nobody likes a fence sitter.

Ah, the "you aren't perfect so you can't criticize" bullshit we hear from everyone getting their ass kicked in a debate.

If you need an example of the bad things presidents can do when they leave, I pointed you to Eisenhower, who allows anger to get the best of him and basically browbeat Kennedy into initiating action against Cuba.

Kast still doesn't realize that Eisenhower, Dulles and Bissell are not the same person. I can't believe that Kast is trying to use an example of Presidential AIDS to support his claim that former Presidents themselves shouldn't criticize the sitting one.

Thus far, all Kast is primarily engaging in the broken record debating technique, restating his conclusion over and over as if it were self evident:

Kast: Former presidents shouldn't criticize the current one.
Everyone else: Why not?
Kast: because former presidents shouldn't criticize the current one.

[Durandal]

So ... the few people who have arguably the most ground to criticize a sitting president (since they are the ones who can most directly relate to his situations and understand the various pressures that come into play) should keep their mouths shut because it might hurt people's feelings.

I welcome this new school of thought with open arms. No longer will I have to put up with being criticized by other, more experienced programmers. No longer will scientists have to put up with that annoying "peer review" process. No longer will the CIA, DoD and Bush administration have to listen to what John McCain says about torture. Well, okay, that last one was a bad example.

[Darth Wong]

Oh my God. I was sitting on the toilet and all of a sudden, I had a flash of insight into Axis Kast's thinking. He views the President as a secular Pope.

I'm not just saying this because he used the word "sacred". Think about it: people listen to the Pope not because he makes logical arguments, but because he is the Pope. This gives him a special "credibility" which is based not on any demonstrable record of ability, but on the sheer mystique of his office. "Rank and file" Catholics may criticize the Pope or disagree with him, but bishops and cardinals must not, because part of their job is to maintain this mystique. Similarly, a sitting Pope would not say that previous Popes are full of shit, because that also damages the mystique of the office.

This completely dovetails into Kast's arguments. He believes that prior presidents should not criticize sitting presidents because it damages the "credibility" of the office. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that people should listen to the President simply because he's the President, and not based on whether he's making any sense. In other words, he believes that there should be a quasi-religious mystique about the office of the President which makes people accept what he says without critical thought, and that it is the duty of all high-level government officials to maintain this mystique.

That's why he found it so strange that an elitist like myself did not agree with him. In his way of thinking, an elitist is like a bishop or a cardinal; he is supposed to help maintain the mystique of the establishment. Since my particular brand of elitism is based more on science than religion, I don't see any need for mystique.

[Axis Kast]

Carter did not engage in this many illegal and stupid actions in a serial manner, a notable difference between them.

So, Carter speaks truth to power because he isn’t George W. Bush? Good to know.

Yes, you must. D. R. 6 of this board's rules.

I’ve already substantiated it, fucknut. Carter’s record doesn’t even have to come into play here. It’s not a question of whether he was a “good” or a “bad” president. It’s a question of whether his statement would be improperly received by a healthy number of people merely because he was president. The answer is yes. Therefore, he should try to exercise some fucking judgment.

Because honest people know that's implicit there. Carter did not violate so many laws so blatantly, nor done quite so many stupidly destructive things.

Once again, you accuse me of somehow imputing infallibility to George Bush while you stand here and insist that Jimmy Carter shits the Word of God because he’s less stupid than the current president.

Why should this president have credibility at this point in time? Yet another of your unsupported assertions, which, yes, you must substantiate under D. R. 6.

Because Presidents do more than say things like, “I think we ought to invade Iraq.” Imagine if, during the Cold War, a former president went around insisting that the new guy wasn’t committed to standing by Europe or upholding deterrence.

The “advantages” the president gains from not having to battle it out with a former commander-in-chief in public (which essentially consist of nothing, since the former president can use private channels if power is being improperly wielded) are outweighed by the negatives.

No, that was you desperately trying to evade the earlier bullshit statements you made and failing.

I said that Carter had erred in his duty as chief morale officer, so to speak. I did not say that he failed in a duty to lie to the American public about the nature of extant challenges. That was your bullshit - which was happily passed out among virtually everybody else here when they couldn’t actually get over the fact that I’m Axis Kast.

Yeah, it's not as if people would have wanted to know what this brilliant operation was.

Do you even read these threads before you jump in against me? Eisenhower’s people didn’t want to “out” Kennedy for the sake of informing the public that the Bay of Pigs invasion was a bad idea. They told Kennedy that he’d pay for making Eisenhower look bad if he didn’t go through with things.

"Doesn't necessarily deserve"? He was elected and served his term and performed far more competently in the office than the arrogant little shitstain you've laboured so hard to defend for nearly five years now.

Once again, you discredit yourself in rabid attempts to sling shit at George W. Bush. Why am I not surprised?

What part of, “A guy ought to have to do more than not be George W. Bush in order to convince people of the correctness of his logic” do you not understand?

Oh, so Carter is nullified from speaking because he saw classified information? Even though nothing of what he is saying touches on classified information but bears rather on his wisdom and experience. Your arguments become as threadbare as always

The statements of a former president have the potential to do more harm than good precisely because they occupy the quasi-sacred or sacred role that Mike Wong claims I impute to the American presidency.

He’s got it backwards. I’m not trying to defend the office for its own sake. I’m trying to point out that the president has enough to worry about without having to fight a running rhetorical battle against his predecessor. Carter and other former presidents should absent themselves from criticizing present commanders-in-chief in deference to the fact that their arguments are likely to be heeded for reasons other than their actual value as remedies to the problems at hand.

The one example bears on what two of Eisenhower's former advisers tried to pull on a very inexperienced Kennedy at the very beginning of his term and doing so not necessarily with Ike's awareness or approval of their actions and has no relation to the example of a former president finally speaking out at a time when a demonstrable incompetent who has held the office for six years plus has made fuckup after fuckup after fuckup and shows absolutely no sign of changing that pattern.

It has relation when one considers what Eisenhower’s comments could have done. The potential for former presidents to wreck havoc is unparalleled because of the fact that so many Americans have faith in them. It’s the same reason people (including me) had trouble believing that George Bush was anything but honest when he referred to classified intelligence about Iraqi WMD. Or don’t you remember that?

After several years of posting on this forum, you still don't grasp the fact that "I believe" arguments don't amount to shit around here?

It’s stating my fucking argument.

Actually just the opposite. Its dangerous for the people who know whats going on to NOT criticize current fuckups.

Not if they can’t actually back up their logic with facts. A lot of what Carter and others gain when they speak is the assumption from many Americans that they do so with reference to “things they know, but can’t say.” Don’t believe me? Consider how Bush was able to keep Americans from questioning just what that “special intelligence” about WMD was in 2003.

Which has nothing to do with criticizing the current president as ANY statement can be "misinterpreted".

But none with such impact as from the former president.

You are aware that "appealing to consequences" is a logical fallacy, right?

I’m afraid you’ll have to explain what the fuck that means in this context.

Why not? Whats wrong with Carter, Reagan, Ford, etc pointing out said lack of merit?

It’s un-fucking-necessary. And it too often comes with qualifiers. Ex-presidents that speak regularly to criticize sitting executives would be a burden rather than a boon. Why? Because there’s no guarantee that they will offer good advice. As a concession to the fact that they wouldn’t want to have to watch with somebody like George Bush coming back after his eight years are up and basically pronouncing all subsequent government “bankrupt” or “failed,” they should set a precedent of silence.

Ah, the "you aren't perfect so you can't criticize" bullshit we hear from everyone getting their ass kicked in a debate.

No, you fucking idiot. I’m talking about Carter’s presidency independently of the general imperative for ex-presidents to mind their tongues. And I made that very clear.

So ... the few people who have arguably the most ground to criticize a sitting president (since they are the ones who can most directly relate to his situations and understand the various pressures that come into play) should keep their mouths shut because it might hurt people's feelings.

No, they should keep their mouths shut because there’s no guarantee that what they say won’t be taken not on its own merits, but because they have pseudo-popey powers. Carter and others should hold their tongue to encourage George W. Bush to do the same once he’s gone.

[Cao Cao]

Carter did not engage in this many illegal and stupid actions in a serial manner, a notable difference between them.

So, Carter speaks truth to power because he isn’t George W. Bush? Good to know.

Or, you know, Carter just has more credibility than Bush because he isn't a royal fuckup like Bush is.

I’ve already substantiated it, fucknut. Carter’s record doesn’t even have to come into play here. It’s not a question of whether he was a “good” or a “bad” president. It’s a question of whether his statement would be improperly received by a healthy number of people merely because he was president. The answer is yes. Therefore, he should try to exercise some fucking judgment.

Maybe he did. And maybe his judgment was to tell the truth about Bush.
Do you really think Jimmy Carter's name alone is enough to sway opinion? After his character has been assassinated multiple times?

Because Presidents do more than say things like, “I think we ought to invade Iraq.” Imagine if, during the Cold War, a former president went around insisting that the new guy wasn’t committed to standing by Europe or upholding deterrence.

You could feed the entire third world on fried fish with a red herring of this magnitude.

The “advantages” the president gains from not having to battle it out with a former commander-in-chief in public (which essentially consist of nothing, since the former president can use private channels if power is being improperly wielded) are outweighed by the negatives.

Because Bush used these "advantages" so well when he wasn't being criticised by former Presidents, right?

What part of, “A guy ought to have to do more than not be George W. Bush in order to convince people of the correctness of his logic” do you not understand?

Which part of "George W. Bush has already proven himself to be a magnitude 10 fucktard of the lowest order in every possible way" do YOU not understand?

Not if they can’t actually back up their logic with facts. A lot of what Carter and others gain when they speak is the assumption from many Americans that they do so with reference to “things they know, but can’t say.”

Yes, everybody has obviously concluded that Jimmy Carter is privy to deep, secret knowledge because he stated the fucking obvious.

[Keevan_Colton]

Not if they can’t actually back up their logic with facts. A lot of what Carter and others gain when they speak is the assumption from many Americans that they do so with reference to “things they know, but can’t say.” Don’t believe me? Consider how Bush was able to keep Americans from questioning just what that “special intelligence” about WMD was in 2003.

Excuse me, but is this the "Americans are fucking 'tards" defense?