102 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
DKL,
Any worse than Bush tirelessly supporting Uzbekistan dictatorships? Or hey, even better, the inept, corrupt, military dictator Musharraf in Pakistan? Just tell me when your hero actually fights for freedom, because frankly I see no success to this point. On North Korea, just what exactly has Bush actually done?
You’re right, no one is in the same bottom rung league as Bush. He’s in a category of his own. |
You’re guilty of the exact same type of idiocy as Carter. For example, Carter destabilized the regimes of Samoza in Nicaragua and Pahlavi in Iran because they were “inept, corrupt, military dictator[s].” The result was communism all over Central America and Islamic extremism in the |
and just how, pray answer, are you NOT guilty of the same type of idiocy, DKL? Here you are berating a president of the United States. I do the same, also offering facts to back it up. There is no worse time in American history than today. |
Dan: There is no worse time in American history than today. ROTFLMAO. |
Wait a sec….
Islamic extremism in the United States? Where? What evidence do you have that it is tied to Carter? Or are you projecting? I mean certainly Reagan did nothing bad in the Middle East. He didn’t perchance support a nasty dictator, turn a blind eye when this dictator used chemical weapons on his enemies both externally and internally. Reagan certainly didn’t sell arms to an Islamic fundamentalist regime. Nah, not Reagan! So just what evidence do you have that it was Carter? |
There is also no better time in America’s history than today. On the one hand you have conservatives pretending to be conservatives but in actuality they are tyrants and authoritarians, thus the worst, and on the other liberals standing firm against them for the freedoms we hold dear. ;) |
“extremism in the US” is a typo. Now corrected. Dan: …actuality [conservatives] are tyrants and authoritarians, thus the worst, and on the other liberals standing firm against them for the freedoms we hold dear. LOL. Bush’s worst “infringements” against civil liberties are nothing compared to those presidents hailed as greatest; e.g., FDR or Lincoln. Truth is, there has never been more freedom during a time of major military deployment than there is now. The Patriot Act was first sponsored by Clinton, and now that there’s a Democrat-controlled congress, they’re not going to do anything to change it. I don’t believe that’s necessarily a good thing, but it’s the state of affairs. |
Personally, I think that Carter’s Presidency was a bit of a disaster. He was clearly not the right mindset for that type of job. However, post-President, I think he has done a great job as an Ambassador of sorts promoting many different things and, at least keeping some type of relationship with those the formal government cannot or will not. I personally like the guy and if I were to pick someone to be my Grandfather, he and Bush Sr. would be at the top of my list. The bottom of my list? W and Clinton. I love Clinton as President, just don’t make me touch him… |
Carter’s main foreign policy achievement would be the Camp David peace accord between Egypt and Israel. Without Egypt’s participation, the other Arab countries/governments are (as a group or individually) extremely reluctant to take on Israel. Still, it has been a very cold peace. In general, as a president, Jimmy Carter was a foreign policy disaster – for so many reasons. Many of those reasons are already listed above. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were worse presidents than the current president George Bush. |
Dan, I believe that G.W. Bush has never sent a letter of apology to any of our enemies, apologizing for unknown wrongs the US may or may not have committed against them, as Carter did to Khomeni during the hostage crisis. Moreover, he never sent a letter to Osama Bin Laden calling him “Esteemed Imam” as Carter did with Khomeni during the hostage crisis. Carter’s biggest blunder in the Middle East was allowing Khomeni to think that the US was weak militarily (which it really was under the Carter administration) by not using military force to show Iran what we thought of their hostage taking activities. Oh, and the horrendously bad, ill-conceived, failed rescue attempt doesn’t count as military force. Chalk another blunder up to Carter on that one. |
Guys, I’m not defending Carter’s term. I’m just saying that Carter is correct in stating that Bush is the worst president in America’s history. |
Over time I’ve come to see that a person who says “George Bush is the worst president in American history” is just looking for another way to say “I really really really oppose the Iraq war.” |
Dan, you come off sounding like you ARE defending Carter, if only to prove that G.W. Bush is worse than Carter. So, yes, you are defending Carter. Anyhow, G.W. Bush has nothing on Carter. Stick around and I’ll find my notes on the Carter administration (or wait for DKL to fire off another salvo) and show you just how bad Carter really was, and why this is the pot calling the kettle black. |
Gotta love Bush’s spokesman coming out and saying Carter’s becoming “increasingly irrelevant” LOL. I know you are, but what am I? “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a little trick up his sleeve that could spell an end to President Bush’s devilish recess appointments of controversial figures like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton.†U.S. News reports: We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summer hires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie “pro forma†session every 10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers and Republicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he’s the new sheriff in town. Increasingly irrelevant, indeed. |
DKL, In the bigger scheme of things, the Latin America problems were really small potatoes. The countries down there were, and are, all but irrelevant. Reagan mishandled Latin America just as badly as Carter did, and I don’t think the USA generally came off significantly worse the wear for their missteps. Iran is another matter. I will give you that. Carter utterly fudged up Iran with far reaching consequences. Yes, I would consider that a very serious blunder. Worse than 1812? Possibly. Worse than Vietnam? No. Worse than our current dilemma in Iraq. No. I think we can rebuild our national credibility, military, and treasure after Iraq. But it’s going to take a long time to do it. What you’re missing DKL is that while Carter may have ruined our position in the Middle East, Bush has ruined our entire global security scheme. Carter’s blunder was limited to a single region. Bush has undermined world security from the Middle East, to Africa, to Eastern Europe, to the Pacific Rim. The entire global security and trade regime that Bush’s forbears labored to build is on the verge of crashing down around our ears due to the incredibly foolish actions of our current president. Reagan, I disliked, but I won’t deny that he was a very successful president both domestically and globally. Bush Sr. was one of the most accomplished foreign policy presidents we’ve ever had. I was disappointed to see him lose to Clinton. Clinton was neither competent nor incompetent at foreign policy. It simply didn’t interest him, so he neglected it. The foreign policy presidents I most admire are Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and yes, Bush Sr. Bush Jr. got us where we are today by trampling underfoot the legacies of each of those men. I’ll agree that Carter doesn’t have a ton of room to mouth off to Bush right now. But there’s really not much comparison between the two. Bush has blundered on such a larger scale than Carter… We’ll still be cleaning up his mess 50 years from now. |
And incidentally DKL, it’s a bit disingenuous to compare Bush’s stance on civil liberties to FDR and Lincoln. Um… dude… you did notice that those guys were president quite some time ago right? So it’s hardly surprising that civil rights were more spotty back then due to the simple fact that those rights hadn’t had as much time to evolve yet. Are you seriously contending that Bush’s civil rights record is cool because we have more freedom than we did over a century ago? That’s a cartoonish position even for you brother. I also have on good authority that Bush’s civil rights record is measurably better than Peter the Great and Genghis Khan. FYI. Abraham Lincoln… my, my. Fortunate as Bush was to be the recipient of over three centuries of American advancement in human rights and dignity, I’m afraid history will judge him solely on what he added to the pile, and not how big the pile was when he landed on it. |
Overheard at the dedication of the Clinton library … Bush appeared distracted, and glanced repeatedly at his watch. When he stopped to gaze at the river, where Secret Service agents were stationed in boats, the guide said: “Usually, you might see some bass fishermen out there.” Bush replied: “A submarine could take this place out.” Just a heads up for the folks down in Atlanta at The Carter Center. Be afraid, be very afraid. |
… making American Democrats the largest electorate that remains unconvinced that Bush’s fight against terrorism is actually important. I’d like to see a single quote from any Democrat anywhere suggesting that fighting terrorism is unimportant. Replacing “important” with “effective” in your line from above might bring it closer to describing the world outside your head. Otherwise, what to make of this? Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda’s core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles. “Iraq is a big moneymaker for them,” said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official. |
Seth R, as usual, your characterization of my opinion is wildly inaccurate. There’s nothing disingenuous about my position, but it is hard for me to believe that you actually think that you’ve accurately characterized what I’ve said. And given that the past 3 major elections in the free world (Germany, Canada, and France) have swept in governments that are friendly to Bush’s foreign policy, your estimation that he’s “destroyed” our global security position is empty-verbiage. Live in the now, Seth. Democrats don’t hate Reagan as bad now, because it’s been decades, and besides, he’s dead. But Democrats hated Reagan as bad or worse than they hate Bush — there were even calls for Reagan’s impeachment. I heard Democrats at the time saying he was the worst president ever. There was his anti-Union stance when he fired the air-traffic controllers, and trickle-down economics, and the arms buildup, and Star Wars, and the Evil Empire, and “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” and Reagan’s refusal to include Star Wars as a term of negotiation at Reykjavik (the “failed” arms control negotiation) and his flouting of the deplorable and unconstitutional (and ultimately repealed) Boland Amendment (aka, Iran-Contra). And they hated Reagan for the same reason they hate Bush: He’s got the balls that they lack. They disagree with him, and it fills them with uncontrollable rage that he sticks to his guns rather than folding (like they do). The good news for you is that you’ll be let completely off the hook; history will forget that people like you hated him, and in just a few decades Bush will be portrayed as a kindly, if goofy, cowboy who made friends with everyone. That will leave you free to decry the Republican regime of that day as the worst ever. Chino, the Carter-is-irrelevant comment was right on the mark. Carter was irrelevant regarding foreign policy before his presidency ended. To the extant that he had any credibility left, he squandered it warning us how Reagan’s strategy for defeating the Soviet Union would fail. Then he spent the 90s traveling around the world to lend his name to prop up sham elections while criticizing those that take place here in the US. It’s mathematically impossible for Carter to have been wrong more often than he has been. Carter is a morally bankrupt man — he may not have banged his interns, but when it comes to assessing global dangers, he has the moral judgment of a psychotic retard. |
… when it comes to assessing global dangers, he has the moral judgment of a psychotic retard. Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda’s core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles. “Iraq is a big moneymaker for them,” said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official. |
What to make of this? Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda’s core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles. “Iraq is a big moneymaker for them,” said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official. It’s not that I remain “unconvinced that Bush’s fight against terrorism is actually important” … it’s that I’m convinced the manner in which he’s chosen to fight it is actually counterproductive. Talk about wildly inaccurate characterizations … I defy you to produce a single quote from a Democrat suggesting that our fight against terrorism is unimportant. |
you can’t really blame carter for what happened in iran. the cia under eisenhower along w/ the british set up the situation that eventually led to the discontent that brought about the revolution. and again the cia largely is to blame to what happened in central america in the 70′s and 80′s. you support corrupt and abusive governments that keep the people down and sooner or later things will blow up. we’ve never really cared about democracy in the third world, we’ve only cared about governments that would give a pass to u.s. business interests at the expense of their own people and environments. if i were nicaraguan i would have wanted somoza out too. and since we did little in those countries to foster real democracy it’s no surprise that they replaced one bad government with another. but you can’t lay that on a one term president. |
Setting aside for the moment the question of whether or not 43′s foreign policy is “the worst in history†… can we agree that it is, at least, the “most inscrutable” ? |
… making American Democrats the largest electorate that remains unconvinced that Bush’s fight against terrorism is actually important. Replace “important” with “effective” and then maybe you’d be on to something. Please help me out, I can’t seem to find any actual Democrats who’ve suggested that the fight against terrorism is unimportant. Until then, I remain unconvinced that they exist anywhere outside your head. Not sure if this senior counter-terrorism official is a Democrat or not, but sounds like “Bush’s fight” may be not only ineffective, but also counterproductive: Little more than a year ago, al-Qaida’s core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles. “Iraq is a big moneymaker for them,†a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said. |
… when it comes to assessing global dangers, he has the moral judgment of a psychotic retard. Scheherazade’s rule: When policy dooms you, start telling stories — stories so fabulous, so gripping, so spellbinding that the king (or, in this case, the American citizen who theoretically rules our country) forgets all about a lethal policy. Is Carter-as-psychotic-retard simply the latest in a long line of spellbinding tales of “Republican moral clarity versus Democratic moral confusion.” ? Oh well, so much irrelevance, so little time … Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths…I mean, it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? ~Barbara Bush |
We’ve seen in the past 3 years since Americans re-elected Bush a slew of elections (Germany, Canada, France) which show the European and the Global political tide finally shifting in favor of American foreign policy. I’ll stay out of the Carter/Bush discussion, Dave, but come now, this is simply not true. What you mean is that France and Germany have elected centre-right, free marketeers, who look at the Anglo-American economic model with admiration. That’s a long way from being an endorsement of our foreign policy though. There’s no hope Sarkozy or Merkel will join the NeoCon adventure anytime soon. Brown’s Britain may also be less inclined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Uncle Sam, even though Brown is certainly an Atlanticist in his economic thinking. |
We’ve seen in the past 3 years since Americans re-elected Bush a slew of elections (Germany, Canada, France) which show the European and the Global political tide finally shifting in favor of American foreign policy. I’m not sure this “slew” really supports the assertion you’re making here. I’m thinking offhand of Spain, Italy, and David Cameron: Brown, if he becomes party leader, will face a difficult challenge from David Cameron, the popular young leader of a resurgent Conservative Party. Bush sidestepped a question about reports that Cameron does not want to be seen with him …” |
Sorry, Ronan, I should learn to “refresh” before posting. It’s bad enough I keep repeating myself. |
CB, |
Sarko and Chirac are both UMP. Sarko’s margin of victory (53% to Royal’s 47%) was almost identical to that of Chirac over Lionel Jospin in 1995. How does that work? Does Clinton get credit for the outcome of the ’95 ballot? |
Ronan, That’d be Thatcher’s party, wouldn’t it? Ouch. Oh well, maybe that old flaming liberal Edmund Burke was right after all … ‘To make men love their country,’ said Edmund Burke, ‘their country ought to be lovable.’ |
Yes, Maggie’s party. That said, once new PM’s take office there’s a sealed envelope waiting for them in No. 10 that says, “Dear PM, you will support the US or we will kill you. Love, MI6.” |
DKL,
You’re stretching once again, looking for even the slightest light out of the morass that you’ve found yourself in. The Germans somehow are supportive of our foreign policy? The Canadians? The French? Well, maybe the French (ironically—and I do find it the most ironic that suddenly the French are our friends), with their new foreign minister this dude that seems to have inspired some of the worst of the neocon’s biggest wet dreams. Heh, just more irony. Neo-cons have as one of their inspirations a French dude. I also note that you avoid mentioning the British. Yeah, Gordon Brown, not so friendly to George W. Bush’s foreign policy. Smart man, Mr. Brown. So DKL, George W. Bush is a bad president. Jimmy Carter was a bad president. Both did some bad things in foreign policy that stunk for our country for years to come. But, out of the two, which one was able to get two countries traditionally at war to no longer be at war and which one STARTED two wars and is considering a THIRD? If we are men of peace, then we should encourage men of peace in the world. Bush is not a man of peace. |
By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I’m shamelessly cribbing from Cameron’s “What I learnt from my stay with a Muslim family” I don’t know enough about Cameron to say much, except that it seems a pity that a candidate promoting his brand (or rebranding) of conservatism would stand no chance in a US Republican primary. |
Chino, No one stands a chance in today’s Republican party unless you are pro-torture, anti-France, pro-war with Iran, anti-liberal, and certainly not someone who speaks candidly about why things happen (see for example Ron Paul’s comments and reactions to them from the last Republican debate). The Republican party today really has been taken over by extremists who believe more in the labels than in the substance of reality. |
Dan, Do you see any chance of the Republican race becoming irrelevant? Say, e.g., by a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket or maybe some other independent or 3rd party ticket strong enough to make it a two-way race, with the Repub ticket reduced to a dark horse? |
It won’t become irrelevant because Republicans are still a powerful party. However, if they keep going down Bush’s path, their party will be destroyed. |
Oh, don’t kid yourself Dan. I don’t think Bush is going to be even half the general election liability for the Republican frontrunners that you think he will be. Democrats resting on imagined laurels and counting on Bush’s blunders to give them an unopposed shot at the White House are in for a rude awakening. I think they are going to find that Bush’s problems are mostly personal to him and not as widely attributed to the Conservative movement as a whole as they think they are. The Neoconservative movement is a farce. But it’s only a faction of the Republican movement that’s had a very spectacularly humiliating last six years. DKL, the recent elections prove nothing. You are trying to make the exact same point Dan is. You’re just trying to make it for different reasons. Bush is not sticking to worldwide conservativism the way you and Dan seem to think he is. France’s election was not a referendum on Bush and neither was Germany’s. Try to get funding aid for Iraq from any of these countries. Try to get diplomatic support on Iran or North Korea. The reality of how badly we’ve alienated our allies will quickly sink in. We need that support for more than just dealing with Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” I was never, for one moment much concerned with Iran, Iraq, or North Korea per se (until Bush’s missteps blew their importance out of proportion). I’m concerned with the real threats to global security, which always have been and still remain – traditional nations. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Israel, the EU, and yes, Saudi Arabia and Iran all remain bigger threats to our global security than international terrorism can ever dream of becoming. Yet, in the name of the “War on Terror” (which is no such thing), Bush has undermined our influence with each an every one of these nations. Our coercive power over Russia and China these days is almost nil. We’ve undermined our ability to keep Pakistan in check by prostituting our foreign policy over Al Quaeda. Just about every major power is acting more aggressively with more impunity today than they were in the 1990s. When the fault lines separating those major powers collapse, we really will be looking at World War III. International terrorism is a cheap sideshow attraction compared to the real threat out there. I’m far more worried about Vladimir Putin than I am about Osama bin Laden. Carter’s acts irrevocably changed the Middle East. Bush’s acts have irrevocably changed the balance of power across the entire globe. We’ll still be witnessing the impacts of Bush’s actions in every corner of the globe, 200 years from now. Carter cannot boast the same. |
Seth,
We’ll see. Last November’s elections showed otherwise. |
Bill Clinton was a better president than Jimmy Carter and George Bush is a better president than either of them. Jimmy Carter is likeable, but naive, clueless, lacking in a certain grit that one needs to govern. He is weak. He was a weak president. He was a stupid president. Clinton’s immorality and Bush’s Napoleon complex pale in comparison to Carter’s ineptitude based on foolish Christianity. I would compare it to my devout Mormon neighbor who can’t go to the bathroom without praying about how much toilet paper to use. |
Chino Blanco, your comment #17 had me laughing. That was hilarious … BTW, it looks like you are linking to a chinoblanco.com site that is “under construction” – can we hope for something interesting soon, a blog perhaps? |
People, let’s all take a deep breath. Jimmah has thought it over, and this morning on the Today show he said he was careless in his remarks and he was misinterpreted. At least he didn’t say he was misunderestimated. |
“misinterpreted” …. no, not at all. We understood him perfectly. He was speaking plain English. At least he’s finally being smart enough to back away from what he said. |
eh, he’s proving he’s just a coward. Where are the Democratic leaders who stand by what they say? |
Seriously, we take one step forward to getting back to normal, and the cowards who “lead” us take one step back. Damn fool, Carter! |
Danithew, sadly, that’s Sidney Blumenthal, not me, except for that bit at the end about The Carter Center. Just as sadly, I suppose, as far as I know, it’s an actual 43 quote. I’d not thought about setting up my own blog (who has the time? and, hey, hats off to those who do). Although, I will admit, I have wondered if I could just come up with a blog that posts 1-2 topics daily, chosen specifically to tick DKL off real bad, then find some way to reel him in. Voila, I’d have my boisterous blog whilst avoiding the ridiculous time commitment that must be required in order to have something to say about every thing every day. Of course, if that had any chance of happening, DKL would already be camped out at The Good Democrat. |
btw, where is DKL? I would’ve guessed that Ann Coulter already weighed in on this latest Carter brouhaha hours ago, so I’m not sure I understand the delay. |
Well, I think he has a job… Theoretically a lot of us have jobs… |
Dan, fwiw, the feeling among the Taiwan democrats (the folks who did jail time under Chiang Kai Shek’s martial law before forming the now ruling DPP – Democratic Progressive Party) is that Carter sold them out. Live and learn. It doesn’t make us cowards, just human. Superlatives like “best” and “worst” aren’t all that helpful at this point in the conversation, when understanding things like “Sunni” vs “Shia”, “loyalty” vs “competence” are probably more important. Carter is no longer a leader. We all know who our leaders are, and we are right to expect more. |
total aside: and no, this isn’t a slam towards you Dan. You’re a nice guy, and have many great qualities. I don’t have any feelings of hate against you. When we were friends, you were a good one. You know, whenever I read the title, the good democrat–the book titles, the ugly american,the quiet american, and the Good German come to mind and I chuckle quietly to myself. Chino, I absolutely agree with your #46. Dan, your debate here reminds me of lyrics by Randy Newman. A Few Words in Defense of Our Country I’d like to say a few words Let’s turn history’s pages, shall we? Take the Caesars for example I don’t even like to think about it Just a few words in defense of our country Hitler. Stalin. A president once said, The end of an empire is messy at best Personally, the more I read about LBJ, I think that he did more damage to this country than either Carter, or George Bush. |
I agree with Carter’s remarks before he qualified/stepped away from them. |
Seth R., … and I have a book on my shelf by Anthony Burgess, The Right to an Answer the content of which has little to do with the present conversation, but the title of which, there on its spine, is enough to annoy me each morning. “…he is shrewd … a good politician, and is eager to be accepted as legitimate and responsible by the international community and especially by the United States.†Yes, I know he is, but what does that have to do with Charles Taylor? |
Chino, I call Carter a coward for recanting his words about Bush being the worst president in American history. Then again, he never was a good president to begin with, nor too consistent in his views. |
I didn’t agree with Carter before or after he recanted his remarks. |
Sherpa, you know, Truman got a letter from Ho Chi Minh asking for support in the struggle against the French. We chose sides and then spent 10 years at war and now 30+ years disagreeing with ourselves about why it didn’t go according to plan. We had our “domino theory” but we didn’t have much of an understanding about what was actually motivating our “enemy”. |
Yeah, I’m aware of the history of the american involvement with the Vietnam War. Its really, really, heartbreaking (for lack of a better word to use), and an event that in my opinion everyone should know the history about. Have you read the Quiet American, by chance? |
No, but my wife dated him before we hooked up. |
But as far as the original post goes…personally, I think a little less of Carter for pointing fingers and playing the blame game. There’s a lot more constructive ways to criticize the Administration than the way he did, and what he said. I do admire him for his apology, although the damage was done—he made it too easy for Republicans to use him as an easy target, and his words were nothing more than shore up the two sides of the republican/democrat pissy fight, and not the constructive debate that I personally wish this country would engage in. |
Ah, she dated Brendan Fraser? That’s pretty hot. |
Brendan Fraser’s hot? Ick. |
Sherpa, seriously, I think Seth R.’s on to something in the sense that there’s a realignment of sorts taking place that is “important” and “global” … Think Kubrick. Think 2001. Think Space Odyssey. Be very afraid that GWB thinks he is HAL in our journey towards the unknown. My only disappointment is that the one guy who’s actually been touched by the monolith, DKL, is not around to impart his higher knowledge and lead us forward. |
Carter had his share of screw ups. I don’t care what anyone says, Egypt/Israel peace would never, never, ever have happened under Bush, and I really can’t see that Carter could ever have made the world as dangerous for the US as Bush has. Given the choice between one is too hesitant to go in and muck around with military force to ensure US foreign policy goals and one who has no qualms with invading any sovereign nation he feels like it, I will take the hands off approach every time. It is more principled, if less effective. Righteousness will win in the end. I am just naive that way. |
… not the constructive debate that I personally wish this country would engage in. Is there a fourth branch of government that we somehow forgot to cede to these jokers? After six years, the best they can come up with is: Carter’s irrelevant. ? Duh. Eye on the ball. Carter is not the ball. |
Chino Blanco btw, where is DKL? Here I am. (It’s nice to know that I’m missed.) Dan: (on Carter’s retraction of his statement that Bush’s foreign policy is the worst ever) eh, he’s proving he’s just a coward. Where are the Democratic leaders who stand by what they say? Exactly! Not only is Carter shockingly wrong-headed, but he lacks the courage of conviction to even stand by his wrong-headedness. If he stuck to his guns, I could at least respect that. But he’s such a wuss! Seth R and Ronan, actually the tide is turning in Europe. While the world perceived the USA to be a unilateral super-power, it was quite easy to be antagonistic. Now that the USA is faltering while going it alone, it is beginning to sink in that it’s in their best interest to support us. Seth R, I don’t dispute that traditional countries like Russia, China, India, and Saudi Arabia pose substantial risks, I think that it is proper to place emphasis on Iran and North Korea. The traditional countries operate on much the same cost-benefit analysis as we do. As with the cold war, hostilities can be managed based on mutually beneficial concessions. When you have lunatics running nations, however, you can’t deal with them as though they were reasonable. Sherpa: But as far as the original post goes…personally, I think a little less of Carter for pointing fingers and playing the blame game. There’s a lot more constructive ways to criticize the Administration than the way he did, and what he said. Hear, hear. That’s the substance of my primary point in writing the post. |
DKL,
On that, I agree. |
On what does Europe support us? The War in Iraq? Please. War against Iran? Please. Just what American foreign policy does Europe support that is at the heart of the Bush machine? Anything? Buhler? |
Chino Blanco: Sherpa, you know, Truman got a letter from Ho Chi Minh asking for support in the struggle against the French\ It’s worse than that. We (the USA) actually saved his life by air-lifting him out of Vietnam during WWII in order to take him to Hawaii to cure him of Malaria. The real rub of the Vietnam War is this: We didn’t get stuck there because of the Domino Theory. The reason why Truman didn’t respond to Ho Chi Minh’s letter was because he was asking us to go against the interests of the French. We became official enemies of the Vietnamese when Eisenhower committed to take up the cause of the French armies after they were decisively defeated. The French have since learned to avoid defeat by not making military commitments at all. And the lesson to take away from that isn’t what makes people our enemies, but what makes them our friends. We either have substantial overlapping interests (as with England) or they operate out of fear (as with Libya). Thus the turnaround in Europe, which is largely fear-driven. |
Daniel…..It’s Bueller, not Buhler. Otherwise, I think you’re talking to me…or using the lamest pickup line that’s ever been pulled on me…and you’re married to Jaime, remember? ;) |
hey it’s been a while since i’ve seen the movie. |
What is your basis for this? What evidence do you have that Europeans are “out of fear” being driven to supposed Bush-like politicians? |
DKL, I’m a big fan of hegemonic stability theory. You cripple US dominance, you destabilize just about everyone else on the planet. For the record, I don’t think either North Korea or Iran are run by madmen. Ahmedinejhad talks funny, true. But I think he’s just showboating for political points like Hugo Chavez. You’ll note that a couple months back the mullahs in power saw fit to yank his chain a few times. He doesn’t have any more power than his predecessor did, and he can be just as easily removed if the mullahs think he’s being too antagonistic. And you gotta admit the guy is one snappy dresser. North Korea plays a bluffing game and acts crazy in order to scare us into paying them more humanitarian aid. Or at the very least, keep us from forgetting that they exist. Nukes are a part of that game plan. But those are rational actions with rational aims. No crazies here! As far as international terrorism goes. It’s just international crime with a sexy tagline. International law enforcement, not international invasions is the solution there. |
Ahmedinejhad is a madman. Before he was president, he never even left Iran. He was just mayor of Tehran. He was elected, because Iranians voted the moderates out of power to protest the slowness of their reforms. Ahmedinejhad is no more than the benefactor of a protest vote, and won’t last much longer, because most people in Iran find it utterly humiliating that he’s the voice of Iran. The sad thing is that Iran is a natural alley. North Korea is actually less of a threat than Iran, mostly because it’s even more in China’s interest than it is in ours to keep them nuclear free. Chavez has made a deal with the US government: As long as he keeps the oil flowing, he can say whatever he wants. |
Dan, oh no worries. I just wasn’t sure if you were talking to me or not. |
When you have lunatics running nations, however, you can’t deal with them as though they were reasonable. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that was part of Osama’s justification for taking out the WTC on 9/11/01, too. Seriously. And if I had to argue Bush’s sanity with Osama, I’d feel at a definite disadvantage from the get-go. |
Mark N, the trouble is that Osama Bin Laden wouldn’t argue with you. He’d just have you killed, you filthy infidel! |
DKL, |
Also, I believe that Castro made the same deal, only with cigars… |
Islamic radicals such as Osama bin Laden or Ahmedinejad aren’t really madmen. They’re quite logical, from the view of the Islamic texts or imams or whatever symbolic religious authorities they claim to follow. There are unpleasant words I would choose to describe them – but I have to remind myself that I am Mormon and that this is a Mormon blog. Maybe I can use words that Jesus chose for those who He despised. They are venomous snakes, vipers, foxes … that is their true character. |
I’d been following Iran with mild interest even before the whole war on terror business. I always thought “man! what a perfect ally for the US if we can just manage to heal the breach!” Then Bush made that dumb Axis of Evil speech and I just could have kicked him. You idiot! The ordinary Iranians on the street were really warming up to America. We had a moderate running the show. Things were looking really good! And you had to drop that stinkbomb. Personally, I think Bush single-handedly reinforced the positions of the hardliners in Iran and sabotaged the moderate movement with a single yeehaw! The guy wouldn’t know diplomacy if it rose up and kicked him in the face. |
We didn’t get stuck there because of the Domino Theory. Agreed. It was simply the cover story for the real reason for our involvement as you’ve described it. If the French have since learned to avoid defeat by not making military commitments at all, what have we learned? I know: “Commies!” went out with the Cold War, so now we just call ‘em … “Crazy!” … Yeah, the Vietnamese were just a bunch of commies, no struggle for national liberation going on there. And, this bunch today? Madmen, all of ‘em. Right. Am I supposed to believe that the Axis of Evil speech was plain ignorance? Isn’t that our new Domino Theory? If so, what are the real reasons behind the cover story this time around? |
Just to second #79, all the Iranians I’ve known have been wonderful people. Look at a map. If we were stuck with Iran’s geography, Pat Buchanan would be our leading internationalist. |
Before he was president, he never even left Iran. He was just mayor of Tehran. Tehran, with a population of around 14 million, is the biggest city in Iran and one of the largest cities in the Middle East, comparable in size with London and New York. With limited real executive power placed directly in the governor’s hands, those who occupy the governor’s mansion in Austin must find indirect and informal ways to build on their limited formal powers. … Using personality and image in public media to build and maintain the loyalty of both voters and powerful political elites is the key to exercising this influence. Let’s see, one guy ran a metropolis, while the other guy, well, he projected an image and kept the barons happy. most people in Iran find it utterly humiliating that he’s the voice of Iran. Some of us have a pretty good idea how that feels. Our sympathies. See, the decider can be a uniter after all. |
Chino, I’d be interested to hear more about your views on Iranian geography and the role it plays. Iraq’s geography is the one that is problematic. Besides encompassing such religious-ethnic polarities, it needs better access to the Persian Gulf. |
Danithew, Thank you, you’re right, and I should’ve typed “neighborhood” rather than “geography” and done a better job of making my (admittedly tedious) point that Iran faces serious security challenges in its neighborhood. The map I had in mind at the time would’ve looked something like this. |
Before he was president, he never even left Iran. He was just mayor of Tehran. Tehran, with a population of around 14 million, is the biggest city in Iran and one of the largest cities in the Middle East, comparable in size with London and New York. Texas, pop. 23 million The mayor vs the media creation … people in glass houses and all that. most people in Iran find it utterly humiliating that he’s the voice of Iran. Some of us have a pretty good idea how that feels. Our sympathies. See, the decider can be a uniter after all. |
We’ve excoriated the critic and characterized the enemy, but did anyone actually bother to offer anything like a defense of the policy itself? |
Before he was president, he never even left Iran. He was just mayor of Tehran. Tehran, with a population of around 14 million, is the biggest city in Iran and one of the largest cities in the Middle East, comparable in size with London and New York. |
Texas, pop. 23 million |
Tehran, with a population of around 14 million, is the biggest city in Iran and one of the largest cities in the Middle East, comparable in size with London and New York. |
Before he was president, he never even left Iran. He was just mayor of Tehran. The mayor vs the media creation … people in glass houses and all that. most people in Iran find it utterly humiliating that he’s the voice of Iran. Some of us have a pretty good idea how that feels. Our sympathies. See, the decider can be a uniter after all. |
Chino Blanco, it sounds like you’re intimating an equivalence between Bush and Ahmedinejad, which is utterly preposterous, but altogether in keeping with the juvenile hysteria promoted by the left concerning Bush. Texas is very much like many other states in the way you describe, and arguable the US Government, in that respect. The chief executive is nothing like a monarch. |
Chino, From what I know about Iraq and Iran – it is Iraq that is in the vulnerable position. Iran is one of the few Middle Eastern countries that was not carved out by colonial powers and is geographically formidable. At least that’s been my understanding of the situation. Certainly Saddam was foolish to initiate a war with Iran during the 1980s. Even with the Iranian revolution (and the confusion in government and military forces that took place thereafter), Iran was sufficiently well-situated to deal with the Iraqi threat. Iranian’s also have a very well-placed sense of national identity. |
DKL, I operate from the assumption that the regime’s conservatives realize that a rapprochement with the US will inevitably mean a diminution, if not end, to their power. As far as I can tell, your approach does nothing to get us any closer to a rapprochement that I believe is in our own self-interest. If I’m wrong about seeking such a rapprochement, I’d be happy to be enlightened. On the other hand, if we happen to agree that rapprochement is a worthy objective, than please show me how I’m mistaken in finding nothing in our current foreign policy that gets us there from here. I’d humbly submit that you invited the comparison between Ahmedinejhad and Bush when you suggested that one of the madman’s defects included a weak resume. Tehran is a metropolis of 14 million. |
DKL,
And neither is the Iranian president like a monarch. Good try though, DKL. |
Danithew, I think that our policy toward Iran has to be informed by our awareness of that well-placed sense of Iranian national identity that you’ve correctly noted. I also think we have a clear enough understanding of Iran’s internal dynamics to allow us to engage productively with whatever regime may be in power. I also think we’ve tended to view setbacks as challenges to be resolved within the timeframe of the 4-year American political cycle. If we don’t get what we want within that timeframe, the various partisan noise machines rev into action. I also think you’re correct that Iraq and Iran could not be more different in terms of their histories and the very different challenges these present us with. |
Will there be a defense forthcoming of Bush’s foreign policy? Or is it juvenile and impertinent to ask? |
The point of this post was to attack Carter, not defend Bush. Defending Bush’s foreign policy isn’t something that interests me today. |
Oh come on DKL, It’s ALWAYS a good day for a Bush rant! |
OK, I guess I just figured it would’ve made for a stronger ending if an assertion like Bush may not be another Thatcher or another Reagan, but at least he’s not another Carter could’ve been supported by at least one example that might answer the obvious question: why not? |
Awww, poor DKL, doesn’t like to be on the defensive. |
Don’t be childish Dan. Or at least put one of those silly little =) behind the post. |
sorry, I did mean it to be light-hearted. |