Jimmy Carter lashes at Bush Admin

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2007-05-19 06:44pm

Former President Carter Blasts Bush
AP
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (May 19) - Former President Carter says President Bush 's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat -Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "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."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.

Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone.

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."

Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, described Carter's comments as unprecedented.

"This is the most forceful denunciation President Carter has ever made about an American president," Brinkley said. "When you call somebody the worst president, that's volatile. Those are fighting words."

Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair . Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

The response is particularly amusing, I think. Note, these are not BASELESS accusations, just RECKLESS accusations. You'd think if Carter critized what Regan did for the Cold War, then his opinion as this being WORSE than what Regan did would lend creditbilty, especailly since, last time I checked, Bush has not won (or even improved) the war on terror.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2007-05-19 06:49pm

Damn, forgot source.

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a ... 0000000001

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2007-05-19 06:56pm

Well he may be stating the obvious, but props to him all the same. His opinion of Blair is spot on. What a simpering toady he turned out to be.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2007-05-19 07:12pm

At this point, with the predictions of Peak Oil on the way, I would really rather see that 2.15 billion dollars a year going into alternative fuel and power generation technologies. It would be money better spent.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-05-19 07:41pm

"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."

No mention of Clinton or himself, just the previous three Republican administrations.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-05-19 08:04pm

It's about time Jimmy Carter finally shot back. The Republitards have been dragging his name through the mud for 20 years. This makes up for about 0.00001% of the tarring that they've sent his way.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2007-05-19 08:08pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
"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."
No mention of Clinton or himself, just the previous three Republican administrations.

How are Clinton and Carter deserving of mention when it comes to a "overt reversal of America's basic values"?

There have been two other Republican administrations that weren't mentioned in the time since Nixon, also.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-05-19 08:30pm

Oh, shit. I misread that as "these previous administrations expressed America's basic values", not as "these previous administrations also expressed a reversal of America's basic values."

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2007-05-19 08:33pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Oh, shit. I misread that as "these previous administrations expressed America's basic values", not as "these previous administrations also expressed a reversal of America's basic values."

Indeed. He's saying that George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon are all >> shrubby when it comes to America's basic values.

Pax Britannia · Post by **Pax Britannia** » 2007-05-19 08:57pm

How come Jimmy Carter of all people come out with this shit, the mans a joke.

People in glass houses...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-05-19 09:40pm

Pax Britannia wrote:How come Jimmy Carter of all people come out with this shit, the mans a joke.

People in glass houses...

Care to substantiate that? Especially when compared to Bush's record?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2007-05-19 09:56pm

Care to substantiate that? Especially when compared to Bush's record?

Nobody needs Jimmy Carter's intervention to recognize fault with the Bush administration.

Furthermore, while Bush is deserving of criticism, it is improper for Carter to speak out. Having a "back seat president" isn't good for the nation. We have eight-year term limits for a reason.

Finally, Carter had plenty of slip-ups. While I would agree that Bush's are more egregious, the Georgian commited a number of stupid blunders:

1. He publicly discussed an American decline. In that sense, he was no better for American self-confidence and public presentation that George W. Bush.

2. He permitted Iran to commit an unanswered Act of War. And then presided over the rescue blunder. Like Nixon with Watergate or Johnson with Vietnam, he then proved unable to get past the conflict.

3. His support for the Linowitz Report was a disaster. There was too much history behind American invovlement with Nicaragua, South Africa, and other such pariah nations for Carter to gain anything from rolling back the clock. All he did was destabilize U.S. allies by discouraging them from taking hard lines. The Shah, for example.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-05-19 10:02pm

Axis Kast wrote:Furthermore, while Bush is deserving of criticism, it is improper for Carter to speak out. Having a "back seat president" isn't good for the nation. We have eight-year term limits for a reason.

A) Carter only served one term so he theoretically could be back in the White House for another four years.
B) Why should being a former president take away one's right to criticize the government?

thejester · Post by **thejester** » 2007-05-19 10:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Pax Britannia wrote:How come Jimmy Carter of all people come out with this shit, the mans a joke.

People in glass houses...
Care to substantiate that? Especially when compared to Bush's record?

He's certainly not as bad as Bush...but as I understand it Carter based his foreign policy around human rights - and then openly supported the Shah! Talk about a way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2007-05-19 10:10pm

Carter only served one term so he theoretically could be back in the White House for another four years.

You'll forgive me if I think that Carter has no intention of returning to that office.

Why should being a former president take away one's right to criticize the government?

Because the sitting president should not have to defend his actions against somebody with that kind of hitting power unless it's obviously within the framework of an upcoming election. The fact that a former president will have left behind a power structure in Washington, as well as the weight his words carry with the American people, has too much potential to cause problems.

Imagine if a president who left office - especially after eight years - used his influence to insist that the new president was mishandling things in an inexcusable manner and ought to be impeached?

Eisenhower's people (CIA Director Dulles and Director for Plans Richard Bissell) told Kennedy in no unertain terms that they'd sink him if he didn't move on the Bay of Pigs.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2007-05-19 10:15pm

Axis Kast wrote: Nobody needs Jimmy Carter's intervention to recognize fault with the Bush administration.

Furthermore, while Bush is deserving of criticism, it is improper for Carter to speak out. Having a "back seat president" isn't good for the nation. We have eight-year term limits for a reason.

Funny, I thought we had free speech in this country. I don't see how it is improper for Carter to criticize politicians as it's one of the oldest and most sacred rights this country has.

Finally, Carter had plenty of slip-ups. While I would agree that Bush's are more egregious, the Georgian commited a number of stupid blunders:

1. He publicly discussed an American decline. In that sense, he was no better for American self-confidence and public presentation that George W. Bush.

I don't see the problem with a President being frank with the people in his country rather than constantly felating them about their own superiority. Sometimes people need a dose of reality.

2. He permitted Iran to commit an unanswered Act of War. And then presided over the rescue blunder. Like Nixon with Watergate or Johnson with Vietnam, he then proved unable to get past the conflict.

Given the situation at the time, I'm not exactly sure what Carter should have been expected to do. Bluster and froth at the mouth the way Georgie W would have done? Give them weapons in exchange for hostages like Reagan?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-05-19 10:18pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Carter only served one term so he theoretically could be back in the White House for another four years.
You'll forgive me if I think that Carter has no intention of returning to that office.

Nice way of evading the point, asshole, which is that the term limit rule does NOT apply to Carter.

Why should being a former president take away one's right to criticize the government?
Because the sitting president should not have to defend his actions against somebody with that kind of hitting power unless it's obviously within the framework of an upcoming election.

Why not?

The fact that a former president will have left behind a power structure in Washington, as well as the weight his words carry with the American people, has too much potential to cause problems.

Bullshit evasion.

Imagine if a president who left office - especially after eight years - used his influence to insist that the new president was mishandling things in an inexcusable manner and ought to be impeached?

Impeachment is up to Congress. And the power of a former president is no less a problem than any other significantly large and influential organization. Should we take away the right to criticize from every CEO or lobbyist?

Eisenhower's people (CIA Director Dulles and Director for Plans Richard Bissell) told Kennedy in no unertain terms that they'd sink him if he didn't move on the Bay of Pigs.

So what? Would this be ANY DIFFERENT if the pressure had come from a corporate military supplier?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-05-19 10:25pm

edit:

Why should being a former president take away one's right to criticize the government?
Because the sitting president should not have to defend his actions against somebody with that kind of hitting power unless it's obviously within the framework of an upcoming election.

Why not? The sitting president has to defend his actions to everyone else.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2007-05-19 10:32pm

Hell, Axis Kast, Presidents already have to deal with that kind of shit, and not from just former Presidential candidates. The opposing party also has an infrastructure with power in Washington that can cause trouble for the standing administration, and their words may carry with many people - yet we don't ban it, since we generally think it's a good thing that presidential administrations actually have to face criticism. Why shouldn't former Presidents do that?

As for the Iran hostage crisis, remember that Carter was trying to avoid getting the hostages put on public trial and strung up on national television, and was worried about the possibility of openly going to war with Iran leading to a greater conflict in the region. Not to mention that things weren't entirely hopeless for negotiation in the beginning, until a number of the secular folks who had been in league with Khomeini's folks in overthrowing the shah were tossed out of government. Add on to the fact that the rescue operation already had a high, high chance of failure when they planned it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2007-05-19 10:35pm

Axis Kast wrote:1. He publicly discussed an American decline. In that sense, he was no better for American self-confidence and public presentation that George W. Bush.

Awwwwww ... poor widduw American populace! Their precious self-confidence might be in danger when someone points out that the emperor has no clothes!

A president's job is to do things that make the country a better place, not to blow smoke up people's asses. That Bush has interpreted his job as such is a profound insult to the intelligence of the country, although given the effect it had for his campaign, it's not an undeserved insult.

Oh sorry, did I hurt the American people's feelings?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2007-05-19 10:36pm

Axis Kast wrote: Because the sitting president should not have to defend his actions against somebody with that kind of hitting power unless it's obviously within the framework of an upcoming election. The fact that a former president will have left behind a power structure in Washington, as well as the weight his words carry with the American people, has too much potential to cause problems.

I've noticed you're very good at presenting your own personal spins on reality as fact. Just because you like to dress up your unsupported statements with elegant prose doesn't make them any more true.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-05-19 10:39pm

'We mustn't let someone of power criticize the President!!!!'

Wow. We have officially hit bottom and begun to drill to the planetary core in the maturity of political discourse. This smacks of Oliver Fucking Cromwell, Lord Protector, trying to ban Barristers(Think proto-lawyers, before Lawsuits) from gathering, because they held power and could criticize him.

No, more accurately, it smacks of childish bullshit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-05-19 10:41pm

SKEPTIC: "Why is A true?"
KAST: "Because <slightly reworded version of A>".

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2007-05-19 10:57pm

Okay. I’ll bite.

Carter has the constitutional right to criticize the president. And the sky won’t absolutely fall if ex-presidents choose to exercise that prerogative now or in the future.

However, there is such a thing as good judgment. Carter and others ought to hold their tongues for the reasons I have pointed out: they don’t seem to add revelations that otherwise wouldn’t be had; they reduce the credibility of the chief executive; and they present a political concern that the President doesn’t need to worry about.

I don't see the problem with a President being frank with the people in his country rather than constantly felating them about their own superiority. Sometimes people need a dose of reality.

It’s not that a President shouldn’t tell the truth to the American public. It’s that it’s unnecessary for him to make them feel bad. Optimism hurts no one.

Given the situation at the time, I'm not exactly sure what Carter should have been expected to do. Bluster and froth at the mouth the way Georgie W would have done? Give them weapons in exchange for hostages like Reagan?

Reagan blasted Iran’s oil rigs and sank several of their naval assets in retaliation for attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf.

Impeachment is up to Congress. And the power of a former president is no less a problem than any other significantly large and influential organization. Should we take away the right to criticize from every CEO or lobbyist?

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.

Presidents should be, at the very least, judicious about the comments they make. Their word always counts for more because they are capable of marshalling facts most people don’t and will never know anything about. That’s always in the background when they speak. Even if we should expect them to justify themselves in everything, it is a power that they should be aware of.

So what? Would this be ANY DIFFERENT if the pressure had come from a corporate military supplier?

No corporate military supplier is going to be in a position to say, “We’ve drawn up these here plans about a secret intervention in a foreign country.”

Kennedy shouldn’t have caved to the pressure to enact a bad plan. Eisenhower should never have allowed Dulles and Bissell to do what they did.

I've noticed you're very good at presenting your own personal spins on reality as fact. Just because you like to dress up your unsupported statements with elegant prose doesn't make them any more true.

I’ve noticed you’re very good at blowing a lot of hot air through the hole in your face. Would you care to explain how anything I’ve said is somehow outside the realm of reality?

Former presidents have tremendous influence. They have held the highest office in the land. They have tremendous power even after they are no longer occupying the White House. Do you disagree?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-05-19 10:59pm

So, wait, what's the decision here? Who read Carter right, me or Frank Hipper?

Axis Kast wrote:1. He publicly discussed an American decline. In that sense, he was no better for American self-confidence and public presentation that George W. Bush.

If anything, Carter should be commended for having the balls to suggest that things aren't looking so great, that there might be tough times ahead, and that just maybe the American people need to reexamine their lives.

Carter made some blunders, but I personally think he's one of the most basically decent human beings to ever be President.