Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Carter says Cheney is a disaster.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Carter says Cheney is a disaster.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:48 am Post subject:

jinju wrote:

If Jimmy was so insightful he wouldnt have been a failure as a president. Bush bad? Carter was far worse.

This deserves nothing more than:

Laughing

Tiger Beer

Joined: 07 Feb 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:30 am Post subject:

Carter had an uneventful administration. Bush/Cheney has been a disaster of an administration on nearly every level. I can't think of ONE good thing they've done the last 8 years. Not one. Carter however, after his presidency, he's been very successful of a presence on the world scene. He's become one of the most prominent peacekeepers and mediators in the world. Anyone who gets into the field of mediation or international relations/peacekeeping WILL study Carter within that field. Bush/Cheney's legacy is gonna be something completely different. My guess is both of them will go on to careers in either more military contractor type of positions or oil-related consulting positions of some kind.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:44 am Post subject:

Tiger Beer wrote:

Carter had an uneventful administration.

Bush/Cheney has been a disaster of an administration on nearly every level. I can't think of ONE good thing they've done the last 8 years. Not one.

Carter however, after his presidency, he's been very successful of a presence on the world scene. He's become one of the most prominent peacekeepers and mediators in the world. Anyone who gets into the field of mediation or international relations/peacekeeping WILL study Carter within that field.

Bush/Cheney's legacy is gonna be something completely different. My guess is both of them will go on to careers in either more military contractor type of positions or oil-related consulting positions of some kind.

Would the US be better off today if the US kidnapped him while he was in France and thrown him in a secret prison never to be heard from again?

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:52 am Post subject:

Quote:

Bush/Cheney's legacy is gonna be something completely different. My guess is both of them will go on to careers in either more military contractor type of positions or oil-related consulting positions of some kind.

Yep mega bucks for them here, even in their failed, miserable lives.

Similar to 'Ambassador' Blair, Englishee people hate this guy now. He's not welcome in the country so he's now doing the only thing he can. Screw up even more. Why do such hopeless losers stay in the higher echelons of society even though they messed up in their moment of power?

I don't watch much television but a three man, mass genocide, human rights trial for these three I would watch. Especially if there was hanging at the end. Mmmmmmm.

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:45 am Post subject:

Tiger Beer wrote:

I agree with you there. Carter's administration was unspectactular, but I don't really see that it was particularly a failure. It did not accomplish much. Jinju was saying that Carter was worse than Bush. I am not sure how many Americans would think that Carter was worse than Bush. I am not sure Americans can remember any president who was worse than Bush unless someone was alive when Calvin Coolidge was president and old enough to remember that presidency. I do think Bush has improved somewhat in comparison his first 6 years, but that is kind of very late in the game when he has lost much political capital. I suppose some might credit Bush with the North Korea deal, but it is basically what Clinton did essentially. Bush's style is now more mainstream, but as Carter said the administration was extremely militant before. He may view them as still being militant.

Is it inappropriate for Carter to criticize Bush? Well, former generals have done so. So many people who formerly served in the government including former American diplomats have done so, because the presidency has been so terrible for the country. It is hard to be silent in the face of an administration that some view has wronged America so badly by misleading the people about a war, scandals about firing investiganting lawers under Gonzalez, having a crony in FEMA who was so incompetent and knew about horses and not emergency situations etc...
The only thing Bush has been somewhat positive was with the No Child Left Behind. American students at a young age are making some strides. However, the mandate overtaxes tired teachers and there is no funding to really back it up.

I don't object to Carter's statements. After all, he served his country and cared for it. And he hates what this administration has done to the country. So do most people in the U.S. They can't wait to see Bush gone.

ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I am not sure Americans can remember any president who was worse than Bush unless someone was alive when Calvin Coolidge was president and old enough to remember that presidency.

Adventurer -- get thy to a diplomatic posting (to bastardize Shakespeare). You are ever so polite and diplomatic! Smile

merkurix

Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject:

Dome Vans wrote:

Quote:

Yep mega bucks for them here, even in their failed, miserable lives.

This is what it really matters in the end for some. It is not how people like you or perceive you or whether the populace is satisfied. It's whether these ventures were profitable in the long run.

jinju

Joined: 22 Jan 2006

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

jinju wrote:

If Jimmy was so insightful he wouldnt have been a failure as a president. Bush bad? Carter was far worse.

This deserves nothing more than:

Laughing

Wanna bet?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The Boston Globe
JEFF JACOBY
Look in the mirror, Jimmy Carter

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 23, 2007

GRACIOUS AS EVER, Jimmy Carter says that when it comes to international relations, the presidency of George W. Bush has set an all-time low. "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette last week, "this administration has been the worst in history."
Article Tools

Former presidents don't usually insult their successors quite so overtly, and Carter's slur, not surprisingly, drew international attention. Whereupon he claimed that his remarks had been "maybe careless or misinterpreted" and insisted: "I was certainly not talking personally about any president." No, of course not.

If "Pot Calling a Kettle Black" were a category in the Guinness Book of World Records, Carter would be a shoo-in for the upcoming edition. History's ultimate judgment on Bush may not be known for some time, but its verdict on Carter, who vacated the White House 26 years ago, seems clear enough. And that verdict is: Well, let's just say he would be well advised not to toss around phrases such as "worst in history" when the conversation turns to presidential performance.

Christopher Hitchens this week recalled arguing with Eugene McCarthy, a lifelong liberal who had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. McCarthy was unapologetic. Carter, he said, "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had."

The worst of the 20th century, at any rate. During the Carter years, America's international standing went into freefall. The 39th president entered the White House as the tide in the Cold War was turning in the Soviet Union's favor. Vietnam and Cambodia had fallen to the communists, and Marxist governments had seized power in Mozambique, Angola, and Ethiopia as well. Yet the new president went out of his way to dismiss principled anticommunism as foolish paranoia: "We are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear," he said 30 years ago this week. Instead of acting forcefully to block any further expansion of communist power, Carter sought to appease it.

Before long, he was slashing billions of dollars from the defense budget, cancelling the B-1 bomber program, and ordering US missiles removed from South Korea. He welcomed the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua and provided the junta with $90 million in aid. He initiated diplomatic relations with Fidel Castro's dictatorship, unperturbed by the thousands of Cuban troops fighting with Marxist forces in Africa. As Moscow engaged in a vast military buildup and cultivated an international network of terrorists, the Carter administration sliced hundreds of intelligence positions at the CIA.

Not until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan did the scales finally fall from Carter's eyes. Moscow's naked aggression, he said, "made a more dramatic change in my opinion of what the Soviets' ultimate goals are than anything they've done in the previous time I've been in office."

Toward those who warned that American weakness was dangerously provocative, Carter was scornful -- "simplistic," he said of Reagan in October 1980, "jingoistic . . . shooting from the hip." Toward tyrants and goons, on the other hand, he was creepily unctuous. "A great and courageous leader" who "believes in human rights" was Carter's description of Yugoslav dictator Marshal Tito. To Romania's brutal Nicolae Ceausescu, the president fawned : "Our goals are the same . . . to let the people of the world share in growth, in peace, in personal freedom . . . in enhancing human rights." His sycophancy in the face of malevolence was memorably captured in photographs that showed him kissing Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev in 1979, a few months before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Worse yet was the administration's supine response to the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran later the same year. When Carter hinted that he might use military force to end the crisis and free the 52 US diplomats being held in captivity, he was mocked by the Ayatollah Khomeini. "He is beating on an empty drum," Khomeini sneered. "Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."

The fruits of Carter's spinelessness, says scholar Steven Hayward, have been bitter. The fall of Iran, he observes, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11." By doing nothing to prevent the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter invited an evil from which grew the jihadist violence that is such a menace today.

It took Americans only four years to realize what a disaster Carter had been; they booted him out in 1980 by a 44-state landslide. "The worst in history," he says of Bush. Look who's talking.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is [email protected].
� Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject:

How would have Reagan prevented the Iranian Revolution? Bombing Iran?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject:

Would the US be better off today if the US kidnapped him while he was in France and thrown him in a secret prison never to be heard from again?

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject:

From the Jacoby piece quoted above:

Quote:

The 39th president entered the White House as the tide in the Cold War was turning in the Soviet Union's favor. Vietnam and Cambodia had fallen to the communists, and Marxist governments had seized power in Mozambique, Angola, and Ethiopia as well.

So, after eight years of GOP administrations, the Cold War was turning in the Soviets' favor. And this is supposed to be an anti-Carter piece?

Quote:

To Romania's brutal Nicolae Ceausescu, the president fawned : "Our goals are the same . . . to let the people of the world share in growth, in peace, in personal freedom . . . in enhancing human rights."

If this quote is supposed to be so damning to Carter, what's with all the ellipses?

And anyway, here is an unellipsized quote from Richard Nixon, addressing the same "brutal dictator"...

Quote:

Despite our different systems of government, we have friendship and affection for the Romanian people, we have respect for the independence of your government, and we wish to work with you in the cause of peace for the world and progress for our peoples and all peoples.

I believe that our talks a year ago contributed to that great purpose of peace and progress for all peoples in the world and better understanding between our two nations. And I know that the talks we will have on this occasion will make a further contribution to that great goal.

We give you a very warm welcome from

So, even if Carter DID praise Ceausesca in the way implied by Jacoby, it would seem that he was just following the protocol that had already been set down by Nixon.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2761

Last edited by On the other hand on Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:43 am; edited 2 times in total

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Would the US be better off today if the US kidnapped him while he was in France and thrown him in a secret prison never to be heard from again?

Well, is it the case that, at the time, someone actually did a study showing that this plan would have been feasible and beneficial? And was this suggestion presented to Carter for consideration, and subsequently rejected by him?

Because personally, I find the idea that the US could have kidnapped a popular foreign leader and put him in jail forever without anyone finding out about it somewhat hard to swallow. And if people DID find out about it, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would do nothing but inflame anti-American sentiment in Iran even more.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject:

He was easy to get and getting him would have made a huge difference. the past 25 years with Iran have been pretty bad , I would take my chances with the US taking down Khomeni before he got in.

mehmeh

Joined: 23 May 2007
Location: South, South Korea

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:58 am Post subject:

jinju wrote:

If Jimmy was so insightful he wouldnt have been a failure as a president. Bush bad? Carter was far worse. Now, he's just a bitter old windbag trying to be remembered for something other than a total failure in the White House.

While I was too young to remember Carter's presidency, what I've read about it makes him seem like a victim of circumstance.
You keep saying he (personally) was a bad president, I've never heard that before. Even Allan Greenspan, in his new book, defended Carter as a good person and his presidency was well intentioned but ultimately, his hands were tied by a tight economy combined with an oil shock.

All this even after Greenspan was snubed by Cater.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe