Here we go again?

[moneymakers]

Must we forget lesson learned in Jimmy's day.

At least Jimmy had a great economy going for him.

remember those great interest rates and unemployment.

Not to mention the gas rationing. Woo hoo those were the days.

 

Jimmy Carter’s Trail of Disaster

Christopher Ruddy

Monday, May 13, 2002

Jimmy Carter is off this week to save Cuba.

 

With Carter on the loose, the American public needs to watch out.

 

It seems that almost wherever he goes and whatever positions he pushes, Jimmy Carter leaves a wake of devastation and disaster.

 

Carter, we should note, has been cozying up to North Korea for years. He helped the U.S. and the communist country come to agreement during the Clinton years to defuse a tense situation over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

 

Under the wacko deal Carter arranged, the U.S. would stop complaining about Korea's nuclear weapons program as long as the U.S. gave aid to North Korea and helped the communists build more modern nuclear reactors.

 

The U.S. was well on the path to doing this when the new Bush administration sounded the alarm and immediately stopped the cockamamy plan dead in its tracks.

 

North Korea was not cooperating with the U.S. to stop its weapons program, but we should continue helping them to build nuclear reactors. Make sense?

 

Of course not.

 

But that's Jimmy Carter for you.

 

It's also Jimmy Carter the hypocrite. Carter has always claimed to be the champion of human rights worldwide.

 

Yet North Korea is one of the most, if not the most, repressive regimes on the planet.

 

The Stalinist nation is headed by a young madman named Kim Jong-il. Kim likes to watch American movies like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and then act out his fantasies on his own citizenry. Millions of North Koreans are starving at any given time.

 

Does Carter have much to say about this?

 

Of course not. North Korea is an enemy of the U.S., so Carter goes easy on them. When he met Kim, Carter didn't criticize him – he kissed him!

 

But there is nothing new here.

 

The media would have us forget Jimmy Carter's presidential record.

 

But I won't.

 

Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

 

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

 

The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.

 

By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.

 

Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan's election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.

 

I believe Carter's decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. [Former President Bush's decision to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power is a close second.]

 

With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam's Iraq a great Middle Eastern power.

 

And decades after Carter's ignominious act, Iran is still bent on destroying America. President Bush named it one of the three nations in the "axis of evil." Iran is developing both nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver these weapons to its enemies.

 

We can thank Jimmy Carter for all of this.

 

Since Carter left the presidency, he has had little to say about the human rights abuses in Iran. Why should he? Iran opposes the U.S.

 

Instead, he has focused his attention on Israel, America's lone democratic ally in the Mideast. Recently, Carter suggested that the U.S. should cut off aid to Israel, so angry was he after Israel sought to defend itself in the wake of suicide bombings.

 

Fair enough. But what has Carter said about Arab or Muslim countries that have had long records of human rights abuse – Syria or Libya or Iran or Iraq?

 

Not much. One reason may be money. As NewsMax's Dave Eberhart reported recently, Carter and his Carter Center foundation are recipients of millions of dollars of Arab money. (See: Carter's Arab Funding May Color Israel Stance.)

 

So I give Carter his due. At least he is not a hypocrite in one sense. He is good to the dictators and butchers who give him money.

[bushwacked]

[Ursa Majoris]

blah blah blah

 

 

I wouldn't normally respond to a cretin like you but here goes:

 

No-one is advocating a position of weakness. No-one is saying we need to surrender. No-one is saying we need to sit around singing Kumbayah. What we are saying is that we need to really re-assess how we approach the world in 2008. There are no holy shibboleths, there is only reality.

 

Reality demands that we cannot continue to feed the military monster's every demand - we need to shape it to what we need.

Reality demands that we stop going further into debt to those who would be potential enemies in order for short term gain.

Reality demands that we take note of Lenin's dictum that the "capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them".

 

We also need to get out of this cloud of fear, hold our heads high and remember who the F we are.

 

The constant pandering to the base cowardice of the ignorant right disgusts me.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Ursa Majoris

[tonorator]

I wouldn't normally respond to a cretin like you but here goes:

 

No-one is advocating a position of weakness. No-one is saying we need to surrender. No-one is saying we need to sit around singing Kumbayah. What we are saying is that we need to really re-assess how we approach the world in 2008. There are no holy shibboleths, there is only reality.

 

Reality demands that we cannot continue to feed the military monster's every demand - we need to shape it to what we need.

Reality demands that we stop going further into debt to those who would be potential enemies in order for short term gain.

Reality demands that we take note of Lenin's dictum that the "capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them".

 

We also need to get out of this cloud of fear, hold our heads high and remember who the F we are.

 

The constant pandering to the base cowardice of the ignorant right disgusts me.

 

[Azazello1313]

When I heard people speak about McCain being another Bush, determined to spread democracy inn the middle east, I discounted it. Sure, he's a military man, but I never considered him the type to recklessly put our troops in harms way. When he says "He will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions" how can this mean anything but military action? I had hoped we were past all this.

 

he says he's not going to let iran get nukes, and this makes him a warmonger?

 

So would I but McCain saying Iraq is like Korea and we'll stay for 100 years is scary.

 

huh? is it "scary" to have troops stationed in germany or okinawa?

 

Nothing is ever as simple as a politician says it is. If a politician ever got up in front of the public and spelled out a comprehensive detailed plan for success...

a. His rivals would find one small point and try to hammer him on it out-of-context (The "Az" approach)

b. His rivals would steal the good parts and call them their own. (Bush did this to Kerry)

c. They would be seen as long-winded, boring, and not a guy you'd want to have a beer with.

 

I don't think you can ever believe anyone ever about anything. Is that cynical?

 

obillary do have an adequately detailed plan for "success" -- pulling everything out within 60 days. the lack of detail and nuance is not the problem here, but the willingness, correct that, eagerness to capitulate and surrender to the forces that oppose us in iraq.

 

oh wait, you say it is unfair fearmongering to call complete unconditional withdrawl "retreat and defeat", could you please tell me what you would like me to call it? tia.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Obama/Majoris 2008

[Ursa Majoris]

Obama/Majoris 2008

Gotta be better than Cheney. At least I can guarantee I won't help my buddies rape the national treasury.

[tonorator]

oh wait, you say it is unfair fearmongering to call complete unconditional withdrawl "retreat and defeat", could you please tell me what you would like me to call it? tia.

 

declaring victory and coming home?

 

 

the WMDs are gone, aren't they?

[TimC]

Obama/Majoris 2008

 

I can see Obama doing a few lines of cocaine off Ursa's chest.

[Azazello1313]

declaring victory and coming home?

 

 

the WMDs are gone, aren't they?

 

what would have happened if we just picked up and left europe after hitler was dead?

[bushwacked]

what would have happened if we just picked up and left europe after hitler was dead?

 

 

Oh good God.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

he says he's not going to let iran get nukes, and this makes him a warmonger?

huh? is it "scary" to have troops stationed in germany or okinawa?

obillary do have an adequately detailed plan for "success" -- pulling everything out within 60 days. the lack of detail and nuance is not the problem here, but the willingness, correct that, eagerness to capitulate and surrender to the forces that oppose us in iraq.

 

oh wait, you say it is unfair fearmongering to call complete unconditional withdrawl "retreat and defeat", could you please tell me what you would like me to call it? tia.

 

I think you fundamentally misunderstand our role in Iraq. Right now we are playing the role of a security force, propping up whatever faction we think can provide some stability in the country, be it rather they espouse the same values we do or not. And the surge? My best guess is any success we've seen is because we are paying off some of the elements and redirecting their fight to other various factions (against the tiny Al Qaeda presence for example). All of this sudden "peace" (not) in Iraq can change in a minutes notice

 

We are NOT at war in Iraq. The Iraqis are at war in Iraq with each other. And multiple factions seek power and revenge. Throw in Al Qaeda and a handful of foreign trouble makers and we are in the middle of freaking clusterfruck trying to keep peace that can only be solved by political solutions of the locals, not by throwing in more tanks and boots on the ground.

 

Mission accomplished (even if it was a flawed and disingenous mission to begin with). Saddam is dead and the imaginery threat is now gone. Nobody is advocating pulling out in 60 days. But we need to start slowly pulling out and let the Iraqis take care of themselves. Any threats of terrorists converging in training camps can be handled by tactical aerial strikes. You don't throw divisions of armies after small terrorist cells. It's time we started fighting smarter.

Edited February 8, 2008 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[untateve]

At least I can guarantee I won't help my buddies rape the national treasury.

 

[Azazello1313]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand our role in Iraq. Right now we are playing the role of a security force, propping up whatever faction we think can provide some stability in the country, be it rather they espouse the same values we do or not. And the surge? My best guess is any success we've seen is because we are paying off some of the elements and redirecting their fight to other various factions (against the tiny Al Qaeda presence for example). All of this sudden "peace" (not) in Iraq can change in a minutes notice

 

We are NOT at war in Iraq. The Iraqis are at war in Iraq with each other. And multiple factions seek power and revenge. Throw in Al Qaeda and a handful of foreign trouble makers and we are in the middle of freaking clusterfruck trying to keep peace that can only be solved by political solutions of the locals, not by throwing in more tanks and boots on the ground.

 

and you dont think our presence (or lack thereof) determines which factions come to power and by what means? your thumbnail synopsis of the situation is not unreasonable -- your assertion that it is in our interests to simply pull out and let them fend for themselves is.

 

You don't throw divisions of armies after small terrorist cells.

 

wait i thought that is exactly what we were supposed to do in afghanistan and only bush's diversionary war in iraq prevented us from doing so?

[billay]

he says he's not going to let iran get nukes, and this makes him a warmonger?

Did I call him a warmonger? What I said was how do you ensure that Iran does not get nukes without military action?

[whomper]

i don't get this whole "look" thing. i'm not picking on you whomp, but i hear this and it's frustrating. you mean to tell me that we are only putting our sons and daughters in harms way and spending billions of dollars to protect our image? what is that?

 

Before you break out the flute and powdery wig you need to understand that I agree with bringing the troops home if us being there is fruitless which it seems that it is. If you feel our goals were the WMDs which havent been mentioned in about 2 years then I guess you can lead the victory party . Our existing Govt feels that there is still work to be done there. Our democratic candidates are saying troops will be brought home. So Obama gets elected and we bring everyone home. (I will be very happy that we do not lose another soldier over there) Iran, Al Queda, extremists, and the like will no doubt see this as victory and that strengthens there cause. If you dont see that then we will agree to disagree. Us being there and getting drained , as you mentioned, isnt doing much for us anyway. Your notion that we will show the big stick if they threaten us again after we leave doesnt carry much water. They wont be afraid of a broken stick..

 

 

 

 

declaring victory and coming home?

 

 

the WMDs are gone, aren't they?

 

 

[tonorator]

Iran, Al Queda, extremists, and the like will no doubt see this as victory and that strengthens there cause. If you dont see that then we will agree to disagree. Us being there and getting drained , as you mentioned, isnt doing much for us anyway. Your notion that we will show the big stick if they threaten us again after we leave doesnt carry much water. They wont be afraid of a broken stick..

 

i clearly see that they may see this as strenghening their cause. i agree with you. but i don't care how they interpret it.

 

i disagree that our stick does not still carry much water and that it is in any way broken by bringing our troops home. if they perceive a victory by our leaving, then they would have to translate that perception into some sort of action. if that action involved a bunch of factions fighting it out in iraq with each other, then have at it. if some new form of a terrorist nation starts to emerge that threatens the security of free-loving people of the world, then all the free-loving people of the world will come forward together and put them down. this conflict, however, is not on the level of WWII, nowhere near, and drawing comparisons to that is waaaay off base, no matter how much those who want to scare us try to make it that. it's closer to korea or vietnam where too many of our soldiers were killed or maimed and in the end, nothing was accomplished.

[Azazello1313]

Did I call him a warmonger? What I said was how do you ensure that Iran does not get nukes without military action?

 

well you can't take that off the table, but there are lots of other ways to bring pressure on that regime and to make pursuing nuclear weapons disadvantageous. there are both carrots and sticks, and not all of the sticks involve military action.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

We need to be very careful in our interactions with Iran. The demographics of that country show alot of young people that will probably be much more open to having a relationship with the west in the not too distant future. What we can't do is show ourselves to be an agressor unless absolutely necessary. Doing so will completely undo any good will that may evolve naturally.

[billay]

well you can't take that off the table, but there are lots of other ways to bring pressure on that regime and to make pursuing nuclear weapons disadvantageous. there are both carrots and sticks, and not all of the sticks involve military action.

Exactly my point. But do you think that is how he presented it yesterday to the CPAC? And when you combine his words with those of Romney yesterday would you agree that the tone of their statemnts was somewhat more ...shall we say...beligerent then before?

 

If you want to tell me that they were just playing to the crowd, then fine, I can accept that. I am just curious to hear what "conservatives" here think as to whether or not, that is going to be the Republican strategy against either Hillary or Obama, that same old tired line that only the republicans want and can deliver a secure america. You asked about change. I think the change being offered is the opinion that all americans want peace and security, not just the ones in the GOP.

Edited February 8, 2008 by billay

[The Irish Doggy]

I really don't care for either side's rhetoric right now as far as Iraq goes. It no longer matters why we went there in the first place. The bottom line to me is that we f'd it up, we owe it the innocents in Iraq to try and make it right with them able to lead their own country with some stability. If this is not done, we're just making another Afghanistan-like territory of madmen that will come back to bite us in the ass 15 years from now. Anyone up for Gulf War 3 in 2023? The Republicans, even though the rhetoric is wrong, at least will stay there to keep some peace.

[Azazello1313]

Exactly my point. But do you think that is how he presented it yesterday to the CPAC?

 

umm, based what you quoted, yeah. he basically said we can't let iran get nukes, and he is 100% correct on that IMO. i don't see how you read that as some sort of call to war.

[tonorator]

If this is not done, we're just making another Afghanistan-like territory of madmen that will come back to bite us in the ass 15 years from now. Anyone up for Gulf War 3 in 2023?

 

if this is what happens, then yes, i'm up for it. here's the fear talking again. this fear of all hell breaking loose and then we have to do something later. if we take all the funds we are flushing down the toilet over the next 15 years by occupying iraq and invest them in smarter military might and energy alternatives, that entire part of the world becomes irrelevant anyway.

[billay]

umm, based what you quoted, yeah. he basically said we can't let iran get nukes, and he is 100% correct on that IMO. i don't see how you read that as some sort of call to war.

No, he said he would not permit it to happen. That's pretty unequivocable. The only way to guarantee that it does not happen is military action. I said nothing about it being a call to war. It just struck me as out of character for him. I would think "straigh talk" would mandate that he says "There's no way in hell we're going to war with Iran."

[Yukon Cornelius]

what would have happened if we just picked up and left europe after hitler was dead?

oh no u dient