Even Carter Knows That Bush is a Disaster

[Rohirrim]

Jimmy agrees. Bush the worst president in American history.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/19/carter.blair.ap/index.html

[Crushaholic]

LOL Carter's one to talk...ROFL!

[Barry Ramey]

Only liberals care what Carter thinks about anything, the true disaster of a president by the way. The whole Iran fiasco started because of that jackass.

[gunns]

LOL Carter's one to talk...ROFL!

Oh I think any President could rightfully comment on Bush's Presidency being the worst.

Only liberals care what Carter thinks about anything, the true disaster of a president by the way. The whole Iran fiasco started because of that jackass.

Right, like that is any comparison to what Bush has done.

[yavoon]

worst president of the 20th century gets all uppity at someone who will be in the runnin for worst of the 21st.

[gunns]

worst president of the 20th century gets all uppity at someone who will be in the runnin for worst of the 21st.

Warren G. Harding said something too?

[yavoon]

Warren G. Harding said something too?

what? a scandal during a relatively good time in american history compared to the walking disaster for millions of americans that was carter's idiocy? I mean I hate scandals, but carter wrecked the country and left is smoldering. hell reagan's legacy owes a ton to carter and all those democrats that jumped ship because of him.

interestingly if the president after bush is a democrat and not a complete ****up, he could go down real well just by virtue of all the ppl recoiling after bush.

[Bronco Bob]

LOL Carter's one to talk...ROFL!

Takes one to know one.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Jimmy agrees. Bush the worst president in American history.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/19/carter.blair.ap/index.html

Wow! That means alot coming from Carter! HAAAAAAA!

Bush has absolutely nothing on Carter. At least Bush has a spine.

[epicSocialism4tw]

what? a scandal during a relatively good time in american history compared to the walking disaster for millions of americans that was carter's idiocy? I mean I hate scandals, but carter wrecked the country and left is smoldering. hell reagan's legacy owes a ton to carter and all those democrats that jumped ship because of him.

interestingly if the president after bush is a democrat and not a complete ****up, he could go down real well just by virtue of all the ppl recoiling after bush.

It doesnt get any worse then Carter. One could be just as bad, maybe, but not worse.

It's like Dan McGwire saying that Jeff George was the biggest bust.

[W*GS]

Takes a ****ty President to know a ****ty President.

[Rohirrim]

Only liberals care what Carter thinks about anything, the true disaster of a president by the way. The whole Iran fiasco started because of that jackass.

Your complete ignorance of American history is refreshing. While Jimmy Carter was certainly not a good president by any stretch of the imagination (due in large part to the fact that he had no control over many of the events that happened to him - OPEC, and the student revolt taking the Tehran embassy), he came nowhere near descending to the level of Bush. If you want to know where the "Iran fiasco" started, google the name "Mossadeq."

[epicSocialism4tw]

Your complete ignorance of American history is refreshing. While Jimmy Carter was certainly not a good president by any stretch of the imagination (due in large part to the fact that he had no control over many of the events that happened to him - OPEC, and the student revolt taking the Tehran embassy), he came nowhere near descending to the level of Bush. If you want to know where the "Iran fiasco" started, google the name "Mossadeq."

Carter was an absolute disaster. It's funny that you are defending him. It's not as if it gives him any legitimacy to compare him to Bush. I think that even Bush compares favorably.

Two phrases that quantify Carter's presidency:
Unmitigated Disaster
Political Impotence

[SoCalBronco]

It doesnt get any worse then Carter. .

Eh....I think Jack Kennedy could give him a run for his money.

[Rohirrim]

Carter was an absolute disaster. It's funny that you are defending him. It's not as if it gives him any legitimacy to compare him to Bush. I think that even Bush compares favorably.

Two phrases that quantify Carter's presidency:
Unmitigated Disaster
Political Impotence

Defending him? Try reading comprehension. Like I said, Carter wasn't any good. But even he can look down on Bush's fiasco of a presidency.

[cutthemdown]

Carter trying to get off that worst president list is like when Broncos hoped Bills would lose more superbowls then we did. Had Carter not been so weak perhaps he wouldn't have let the Soviet Union take over Afghanistan in the first place. Oh that's right though he did boycott the Olympics, that really showed those pesky commies who was boss. And lets not forget his great handling of the Iranian Revolution that was just pure genius. They still use that attempted rescue in military school as an example of what not to do. Not to mention the crappy economy and astronomical taxes we had during his 4 years of hell. Carter is an Islamic ass kisser and a total fraud.

[Atlas]

Carter Smacks Bush around some more. There is nothing he says that basically isn't true, It's just refreshing hearing someone else say it besides us.

'Carter is irrelevant,' Bush administration shoots back

NEW: White House: Carter 'proving' himself to be unimportant

• Carter called Bush administration 'worst in history'
• Carter said British PM Tony Blair is 'subservient, blind, loyal' to Bush
• Carter made comments to Arkansas newspaper over the weekend
Adjust font size:
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.

In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the "worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as "increasingly irrelevant."

Carter was quoted Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." (Read full story)

The Georgia Democrat said Bush had overseen an "overt reversal of America's basic values" as expressed by previous administrations, including that of his own father, former President George H.W. Bush.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto shot back Sunday from Crawford, Texas, where Bush spent the weekend.

"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," said Fratto. "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."

Carter was in Arkansas promoting "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Georgia.

"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: Blair is 'blind, subservient'
Carter's comments, which were published Saturday, were confirmed by his spokeswoman Deanna Congileo to The Associated Press on Saturday. She declined to elaborate.

Carter also said Saturday that Britain's support for the war in Iraq was a "major tragedy" for the world, as he criticized Tony Blair's unwavering support for President Bush.

Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, Carter 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.

Blair was in Baghdad Saturday morning for what will be his last trip to Iraq as British prime minister. Last week, Blair announced that he would step down June 27, making way for treasury chief Gordon Brown.

The war in Iraq has been the defining foreign policy issue of Blair's premiership, and the decision to join the U.S.-led invasion was an unpopular one at home. So far, nearly 150 British service personnel have died in Iraq.

Carter told the BBC that Britain's support made it more difficult for critics of the war, and that things could have been different if Britain spoke out against the 2003 invasion.

"I can't say it would have made a definitive difference, but it would certainly have assuaged the problems that arose lately," said Carter, who was U.S. president from 1977 to 1981 and has been a critic of the war.

"One of the defenses of the Bush administration, in the American public and on a worldwide basis -- and it's not been successful in my opinion -- has been that, OK, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us.

"And so I think the combination of Bush and Blair giving their support to this tragedy in Iraq has strengthened the effort, and has made opposition less effective and has prolonged the war and increased the tragedy that has resulted."

Unprecedented criticism
It's not the first time Carter has criticized Britain. Last year, he said he was disappointed with "the apparent subservience" of the British government to Washington on issues such as Iraq and last summer's Israel-Hezbollah conflict.

The criticism of Bush 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.

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."

[epicSocialism4tw]

Carter was irrelevant as a president and he's even more irrelevant today.

[BroncoBuff]

I like what Carter said. Even though it was 99% true, it took guts to say it. Nobody has guts anymore, and I'm tired of it. Harry Reid says "the war is lost," and the whole world shrieks in horror. Hello? The war IS lost!


And yes, Carter was a bad president. But like Roh said, there were events that befell him that would've stymied any president. The Iran hostages were not his fault ... that was the fault of previous administrations that installed and then supported the repressive Shah of Iran. What could anybody have done about the hostages? He tried a military rescue, but the air filters on the helicopters were clogged with sand, and several soldiers died as they left the staging area in a rush. Is that Carter's fault too?

And what about Reagan? His campaign made a secret deal for Iran to hold on to the hostages until after the election. That was illegal, and it won him the 1980 election. Carter was ahead until late September - about six weeks before the election. (By the way, that is not a kooky theory. It is well documented.) It's gonna become more clear wth history ... Bush Sr. went to Iran before the election, made an illegal deal to EXTEND the hostages stay, to win the election. All true.

[Atlas]

Carter was irrelevant as a president and he's even more irrelevant today.


Would you say Jimmy Carter is the Dirk Nowitzky of the political landscape?

[Spider]

Just amazing how stupid some people can be .......... and to think Barrey taught school ...........anyone that ****ing stupid teaching Kids anything is a crime ..... Angry try rereading Roh's post ..................
Carter wasnt good , But he is along shot better then Bush jr ........

[Rohirrim]

I like what Carter said. Even though it was 99% true, it took guts to say it. Nobody has guts anymore, and I'm tired of it. Harry Reid says "the war is lost," and the whole world shrieks in horror. Hello? The war IS lost!


And yes, Carter was a bad president. But like Roh said, there were events that befell him that would've stymied any president. The Iran hostages were not his fault ... that was the fault of previous administrations that installed and then supported the repressive Shah of Iran. What could anybody have done about the hostages? He tried a military rescue, but the air filters on the helicopters were clogged with sand, and several soldiers died as they left the staging area in a rush. Is that Carter's fault too?

And what about Reagan? His campaign made a secret deal for Iran to hold on to the hostages until after the election. That was illegal, and it won him the 1980 election. Carter was ahead until late September - about six weeks before the election. (By the way, that is not a kooky theory. It is well documented.) It's gonna become more clear wth history ... Bush Sr. went to Iran before the election, made an illegal deal to EXTEND the hostages stay, to win the election. All true.

Pearls before swine, I'm afraid. People like cutmedown and angrydrama prefer their history in small doses, straight out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth. The last thing they want to hear is the truth.

[Rohirrim]

Carter was irrelevant as a president and he's even more irrelevant today.

Are you on Karl Rove's talking points email list, or do you just pick this crap up off of Faux Noise?

[Bronco Bob]

Carter was irrelevant as a president and he's even more irrelevant today.

None-the-less Carter is dead on about Bush being a disaster for the working
people of this country, the military, the environment, the Supreme Court,
fair elections, Medicare, taxes, national debt, and trade deficits.
Typical right-wing ad hominum attack, can't refute the message,
smear the messenger.

[bendog]

Carter was sort of a victim of history. He got handed the LBJNixonFord economic mess and the oil embargos. Blaming him for Iran/Iraq is beyond wierd. He was a fiscally conservative / socially moderate / southern governor. Perfect for 1992, but in 1976, his own party hated him.

Then there was Reagan, who redefined the dialogue between the Dims and Gop.

But in a way I think Carter must take some grim satisfaction. For years people have said "worst President ever," but those people are partisans who don't like history very much. Carter was more a transistional president, like Chester Arthur, who bridged one era into another, and who are doomed to be relative footnotes in history. And now, in his lifetime, he sees someone who is up there with Harding and Adamsthelesser and Buchanan who really have some claim to being the worst ever.

[yavoon]

Carter was sort of a victim of history. He got handed the LBJNixonFord economic mess and the oil embargos. Blaming him for Iran/Iraq is beyond wierd. He was a fiscally conservative / socially moderate / southern governor. Perfect for 1992, but in 1976, his own party hated him.

Then there was Reagan, who redefined the dialogue between the Dims and Gop.

But in a way I think Carter must take some grim satisfaction. For years people have said "worst President ever," but those people are partisans who don't like history very much. Carter was more a transistional president, like Chester Arthur, who bridged one era into another, and who are doomed to be relative footnotes in history. And now, in his lifetime, he sees someone who is up there with Harding and Adamsthelesser and Buchanan who really have some claim to being the worst ever.

this is exactly what the GOP wants, someone stupid enough to defend jimmy carter. if his presidency wasn't bad enough he then galavants around the world supporting all sorts of communists, or now I guess islamists. he's just a typical hard lefty, I can imagine while he was running for president all his aides saying, "remember jimmy u can't say **** like that in public."

[bendog]

Thanks, Man. Again you prove my point.

[BKK]

Can you imagine if carter was handed 911? As Bush was. Carter would have screwed the pooch totally. Carter has always been irrelevant.

[W*GS]

None-the-less Carter is dead on about Bush being a disaster for the working people of this country, the military, the environment, the Supreme Court, fair elections, Medicare, taxes, national debt, and trade deficits.

As if Bush is 100% responsible for all those things and is rightly given the entire blame. You're describing a totalitarian dictator, which, unless you're completely frothing at the mouth with hatred for Bush, doesn't accurately describe him.

[Garcia Bronco]

Carter was sort of a victim of history. He got handed the LBJNixonFord economic mess and the oil embargos. Blaming him for Iran/Iraq is beyond wierd. He was a fiscally conservative / socially moderate / southern governor. Perfect for 1992, but in 1976, his own party hated him.

Then there was Reagan, who redefined the dialogue between the Dims and Gop.

But in a way I think Carter must take some grim satisfaction. For years people have said "worst President ever," but those people are partisans who don't like history very much. Carter was more a transistional president, like Chester Arthur, who bridged one era into another, and who are doomed to be relative footnotes in history. And now, in his lifetime, he sees someone who is up there with Harding and Adamsthelesser and Buchanan who really have some claim to being the worst ever.


don't forget Hoover, Madison, Pierce, and US Grant

[Garcia Bronco]

As if Bush is 100% responsible for all those things and is rightly given the entire blame. You're describing a totalitarian dictator, which, unless you're completely frothing at the mouth with hatred for Bush, doesn't accurately describe him.

Many things can be laid at the feet of congress...and we changed addresses in novemeber and they're still lousy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Would you say Jimmy Carter is the Dirk Nowitzky of the political landscape?


LOL Hilarious! ROFL!

[bendog]

But oddly, Carter was the first to get a clue as to stopping stagflation, and after the invasion of afghan, he gave the funding boosts to stealth and the Abrams. I would agree though that in 1976, he was woefully unprepared for the job. But, again, he was a transition from the liberal dImoRats of 1930 through .... 1976. Ted Kennedy derailed his reelection not because Teddy loved Reagan, but because he hated Carter and all Carter stood for.

Grant was hopeless in the face of corruption, though not a crook himself. But, we did see economic expansion and the completion of the transcontinental railroad. Perhaps one could say, even Grant couldn't have ficked up the hand history dealt him.

I have mixed feelings on Madison. The bill of rights and his views on slavery are such positives, but yes, his admin was dismall, not to mention his falling into war.

Pierce, dismall.

I'm sort of sympathetic to Hoover as well. A victim of history. He ran the relief from WWI and the 1928 Flood, but he just lacked the grasp of how the world "shrank" economically and militarily, of course none of his contemporaires got the picture either.

But with bushii, I cannot think of a single issue that he attempted to address which he did not make worse. With Madison and Hoover, I can at least say, "but their pre-election lives showed such great promise for their administrations." Bushii? LOL One might say he increased our preparation for attack, but aside from home made stumble bums who probably couldn't sell cocaine competently, Katrina has been the closest to an actual test.

[Rohirrim]

The criticism I always hear from Carter insiders was that he was almost physically incapable of delegating authority. He had to have his fingers in every pie, no matter how small it was. Everything had to be personally okayed by him. It made him a lousy executive. He did cut Brezinzki loose on the Soviets in Afghanistan who hatched the plan to support the mujahadeen in a proxy war vs. the Soviets. Reagan got all the credit for bringing down the USSR, of which their failed war in Afghanistan was a huge part, but Zbigniew hatched the plan. Of course, that plan also led to the creation of Bin Laden but, balanced against the fall of the USSR, still not too high a price to pay, IMO.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The criticism I always hear from Carter insiders was that he was almost physically incapable of delegating authority. He had to have his fingers in every pie, no matter how small it was. Everything had to be personally okayed by him. It made him a lousy executive. He did cut Brezinzki loose on the Soviets in Afghanistan who hatched the plan to support the mujahadeen in a proxy war vs. the Soviets. Reagan got all the credit for bringing down the USSR, of which their failed war in Afghanistan was a huge part, but Zbigniew hatched the plan. Of course, that plan also led to the creation of Bin Laden but, balanced against the fall of the USSR, still not too high a price to pay, IMO.

LOL

[Rohirrim]

LOL

Look, everybody. Angry Drama Queen learned how to use smilies. :wave:

[bendog]

I think the USSR falls regardless. Their GNP increases outstripped our own during the 1960s, but once the technological revolution was upon us, the system that most effectively switched capital to the most efficient return won. Carter first cut cap gains to free up capital, which was pretty prescient, in that he knew part of the problem of stagnation was nobody was selling once profitable investments that no longer produced, because of the tax hit. But he did did that even before the first PC went on sale. Then during the Reagan years, we had Kemp-Roth cutting the marginal rates, and it was signed the same day IBM put the first PC on sale.

But yeah, Carter was a lousy exec, and a lousy politician. Sometimes I think Gore might be similar. Really bright, and really nice guy one on one, but cold and distant to groups, and not really very happy to do biz and compromise with opponents. Hill's actually been surprisingly good at working the gop side of the senate. But, still Gore's had years of working within govt. I don't think he's running.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Look, everybody. Angry Drama Queen learned how to use smilies.

LOL

Ahhh.

Finally, Rohirrim's shameful shape of partisanship surfaces in the form of Jimmy Carter apology.

Nice.

[bendog]

Apology? We just admire your wallowing joyfully in an ignorance of your own country's history.

[Rohirrim]

LOL

Ahhh.

Finally, Rohirrim's shameful shape of partisanship surfaces in the form of Jimmy Carter apology.

Nice.

Just relating a little history. By all means, if you have conflicting information, feel free to share.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/brz.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Only liberals care what Carter thinks about anything, the true disaster of a president by the way. The whole Iran fiasco started because of that jackass.

:rofl:

I'm not sure which is more hilarious: your incorrigible ignorance or your predilection for advertising it on a public forum.

FYI, our real troubles with Iran (which finally came to a head in the late 70s with the hostage crisis) began in 1953 with a fateful intervention that took place on Eisenhower's watch.

In 1953, Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Sound familiar yet?

[yavoon]

Thanks, Man. Again you prove my point.

all I'm saying is ur falling for the trap. 20 years from now republicans are going to be doing the same thing. trying to defend bush's insanity w/ "reasoned understanding of things outside of his power." or whatever the hell else. and they will also be falling into the trap.

carter was a walking disaster for america, just let him be. and if the republicans are smart they'll let the bush disaster be too.

[TailgateNut]

all I'm saying is ur falling for the trap. 20 years from now republicans are going to be doing the same thing. trying to defend bush's insanity w/ "reasoned understanding of things outside of his power." or whatever the hell else. and they will also be falling into the trap.

carter was a walking disaster for america, just let him be. and if the republicans are smart they'll let the bush disaster be too.

Carter is history, Bush still resides on Pennsylvania Ave. Let him be? Hell NO!

[yavoon]

Carter is history, Bush still resides on Pennsylvania Ave. Let him be? Hell NO!

I'll talk slower. the republicans would be wise in 20 years to let bush be, just like the democrats would be wise to let carter be now.

throw that around a few times see what buttons get lit up.

[Spider]

Hilarious! when Carter considered one of the worst can point his finger at Bush and say ......man you suck .......