Jimmy Carter

[Tom Araya]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_ ... ing_carter (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_re_us/mideast_fighting_carter)

[obiefan]

he is trying to oust the republican. bush foster the fighting in the middle east they have been fighting over there forever.. :roll:

just my humble opinion :D

[Tom Araya]

Except that Carter was actually successful in getting Arabs & Jews to broker a peace agreement, something that had never before been accomplished. Bush's policies seem to encourage more fighting.

[obiefan]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/07 ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/07/25/ireland.psalms.ap/index.html)

research this and then we can talk :-D

[Tom Araya]

:roll:

:lol:

That reminds me one time, I was walking down the street. I stepped on a banana peel and fell in the street; the chances that this particular event was mere coincidence are high. On that I think we'd all agree.

But if I fell in the street and a truck kills me, then - undoubtely - it was already written by god, and it was my "destiny." Right?

NO!

I say, blame the (bleep) that threw the banana peel there, and blame myself for not seeing it. Period. There's no "destiny;" it seems to me like an absurd word for describing unexpected things and then accepting them right-away since "it was supposed to happen one way or another."

I say there's no thing like "fate," everything that is not implicitly planned happens for mere coincidence. No matter how special or unique it seems, there's no such a thing as "divine signs."

(But, the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, and the Tooth Fairy are here right now tripping on some low-grade acid with me right now----it's why I'm posting on MW.COM right now----EB, SC, TF, & me are PARTYING!!!! WOO HOO!)

Now, back to reality. Does Jimmy Carter have a case or not? And remember, Jimmy Carter is probably the most religious president this nation has ever had.

[Tom Araya]

BTW, obie, you know you shouldn't believe everything written in the NY Times. It's just liberal garbage (the CNN link you provided was an AP story pulled from the wire but originally posted in the Times).

For the record, from NY Times July 29, 2006:

Psalm Corrections

The National Museum of Ireland, which this week announced the discovery of a 1,200-year-old Book of Psalms in a bog, has issued a clarification about just what the Psalter revealed. In its initial announcement on Wednesday, the museum said the 20-page manuscript was open to a page showing Psalm 83; news reports noted that in the 17th-century King James version, the psalm exhorts God to act against conspirator nations plotting to erase any memory of “the name of Israel.” But the museum’s director, Patrick F. Wallace, said in a statement yesterday that the announcement had “led to misconceptions about the revealed wording.” The text visible on the manuscript “does not refer to wiping out Israel,” Dr. Wallace said, “but to the ‘vale of tears’ ” in Psalm 83 of the Vulgate, the Latin version used in medieval times. The text about wiping out the name of Israel occurs in the Vulgate as Psalm 82, which is not visible in the Irish manuscript. ALAN COWELL

You were saying?

[oldtimer]

I party agree with you Tom.....Carter does have a good Post Presidency record with facilitating peace. However, the following are significant differences between this situation and the Camp David Peace Accord.

1) Fundamentally different Arabs. The successes were with the Sunni and they were somewhat friendly to the US, if not Allies. It is a whole different story when Iran & Syria are in the picture.

2) Iraq: Carter is the worst President we've have ever had when faced with a military situation. He has no clue about a war.

[T.D.C.Dad]

Iraq: Carter is the worst President we've have ever had when faced with a military situation. He has no clue about a war.

That's funny you could say the same for Bush he just at the other end of the spectrum. :lol:

[Tom Araya]

Iraq: Carter is the worst President we've have ever had when faced with a military situation. He has no clue about a war.

That's funny you could say the same for Bush he just at the other end of the spectrum. :lol:

I was thinking the same thing. A hostage crisis in Tehran that failed (and failed miserably, no doubt) is one thing. But a complete & utter lack of success in Iraq in quite another. Carter didn't lose over 2,500 American lives (and counting) needlessly. Carter didn't throw a whole region into complete disarray. Carter didn't embroil us in wars that will likely never end until one side or both are completely annihilated. Carter at least went after Iran; Bush doesn't even care about or think about Osama bin Laden anymore (his words). Carter served admirably in the Navy; Bush "served" in the country club atmosphere of the Texas Air National Guard & then rarely reported for duty. I could go on, but anyone who would refuse to replace the hugely incompetent Don Rumsfeld is obviously a buffoon at best & easily the worst commander-in-chief of the armed forces in our nation's history. No argument.

[oldtimer]

[quote]Iraq: Carter is the worst President we've have ever had when faced with a military situation. He has no clue about a war.

That's funny you could say the same for Bush he just at the other end of the spectrum. :lol:

I was thinking the same thing. A hostage crisis in Tehran that failed (and failed miserably, no doubt) is one thing. But a complete & utter lack of success in Iraq in quite another. Carter didn't lose over 2,500 American lives (and counting) needlessly. Carter didn't throw a whole region into complete disarray. Carter didn't embroil us in wars that will likely never end until one side or both are completely annihilated. Carter at least went after Iran; Bush doesn't even care about or think about Osama bin Laden anymore (his words). Carter served admirably in the Navy; Bush "served" in the country club atmosphere of the Texas Air National Guard & then rarely reported for duty. I could go on, but anyone who would refuse to replace the hugely incompetent Don Rumsfeld is obviously a buffoon at best & easily the worst commander-in-chief of the armed forces in our nation's history. No argument.[/quote:ebd60]

Boy Tom are you sure your off the JAVA. I hit a spark.

Carter didn't go after Iran. He sent two or three helicopters that weren't prepared for sand and killed most of the special operators and then left our civilians as hostiages for what 1 1/2 years.

I not trying to say Bush is a great commander-in-chief, but, no one can say he did act. Only time and historians (Tom, you going to have to be neutral) will tell what his actions or lack of has done.

But, what we do know from time and historians, is that Carter couldn't do the job and set in the White House hopeing the Irainains would give our people back.

[Tom Araya]

I had a cup of coffee this morning. I think the caffeine makes me crazy. I'm not used to it anymore!

But I don't think we have to wait to judge Shrub. The verdict is in----awful.

[oldtimer]

I had a cup of coffee this morning. I think the caffeine makes me crazy. I'm not used to it anymore!

But I don't think we have to wait to judge Shrub. The verdict is in----awful.

I think somewhere in the by laws of your profession it states that we can't judge this close in time!

:-D

[Tom Araya]

History By-Laws

Article III, Section 8, Paragraph 17:

"In the event of extraordinary eff-ups, pre-judgements are allowable."

[Gobbey]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[oldtimer]

History By-Laws

Article III, Section 8, Paragraph 17:

"In the event of extraordinary eff-ups, pre-judgements are allowable."

My bad.....I missed Paragraph 17.

I thought Article II, Section 19, Paragraph 22 applied.

"In the event of Prejudices or Biases exist among the Historians, exclude oneself from social commentary."

[Tom Araya]

I have the ability to write in a post-modern fashion. However, the horrid ways in which Shrub's administration acts forces me to ratchet up the vocalizing.

And how is it biased to point out the obvious? Shrub's methodology is failing. Who in their right mind would continue pursuing a strategy guaranteed to lose?

Let's make it connected to the purpose of this website. Let's say you've shot four doubles on your opponent, all of which were easily countered, causing your opponent to score four easy takedowns. Would you continue shooting doubles? Only if you were an idiot.

[fudge tunnel]

I think we all know W is an idiot.






Then again, so is Carter....

During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.

Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.

In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program


.........good job, Jimmy :smt023

[Tom Araya]

I don't know where you got that, but it's patently false. First, the agreement did allow for inspections. While Clinton was in office, inspections did occur and North Korea's nuclear capability was neutered.

The North Korean Foreign Ministry said that they re-started their nuclear weapons program "for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle" its government. Add to this the fact that Shrub called 'em out in his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech.

When Bill Clinton became president in 1993 he inherited a ton of unresolved messes from Poppy Bush. Somalia got most of the headlines, but North Korea was a mess, also. In 1992 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had conducted some inspections in North Korea, but chief inspector Hans Blix suspected the North Koreans were hiding some stuff and fibbing about other stuff.

Throughout 1993 North Korea and the IAEA inspectors engaged in major head butting. The IAEA said North Korea had more uranium and plutonium fuel than it was admitting to. Also, the U.S. announced that it had intelligence, some from satellite photos, that there was a lot of nuclear-waste-related activity going on in North Korea that had been concealed from the IAEA. Details here: http://web.archive.org/web/200302020554 ... iaea93.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20030202055442/cns.miis.edu/research/korea/nuc/iaea93.htm)

Although North Korea had both uranium and plutonium, it was the plutonium that really worried everyone. In the nuclear weapons biz there is a huge difference between plutonium and uranium that news stories don't always make clear. Very basically, you need vast amounts of uranium and years and years of processing in order to get enough nuclear stuff to make a bomb. But plutonium is nearly ready to use out of the box, so to speak.

The biggest point of ignorance on the part of the righties has to do with the distinction between plutonium and uranium. So, even though North Korea had both uranium and plutonium, it was the plutonium that concerned the rest of the world. The North Koreans were thought to be years away from doing much with the uranium. But by 1993 it was believed North Korea already had enough plutonium in the can for at least one nuclear weapon.

In 1994, western intelligence sources realized that a reprocessing complex being built at Yongbyon included a gas graphite reactor designed specifically for separating plutonium from nuclear waste. This scared the stuffing out of lots of people. The IAEA believed North Korea was hiding more plutonium somewhere. And then North Korea announced it was restricting IAEA inspections. Matters came to a head in June 1994, when North Korea relinquished its IAEA membership and all the inspectors cleared out of the country.

But then along came Jimmy. In June 1994, former President Carter went to North Korea to negotiate with Kim Il Sung, president of North Korea. These negotiations were a great success (and involved a lot more than Jimmy simply waving a piece of paper around when he got home :roll: ). North Korea committed to freezing its plutonium weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors and other aid. As President Carter explained:

"Responding to a standing invitation from North Korean President Kim Il Sung and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and helped to secure an agreement that North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit I.A.E.A. inspectors to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. In return, the United States and our allies subsequently assured the North Koreans that there would be no nuclear threat to them, that a supply of fuel oil would be provided to replace the power lost by terminating the Yongbyon nuclear program and that two modern nuclear plants would also be provided, with their fuel supplies to be monitored by international inspectors." [Carter, "Engaging North Korea," The New York Times, October 27, 2002]

And, in spite of what the righties will tell you, the North Koreans kept this agreement. The plutonium processing at Yongbyon and elsewhere stopped, and IAEA inspectors were allowed back into North Korea. The plutonium processors were sealed with IAEA seals.

This doesn't mean all was peaches and cream with North Korea. Kim Il Sung died in July 1994 and was replaced by his dumber and nuttier son, Kim Jong Il. Head butting and game playing between North Korea and the IAEA continued. In 1998 there were rumors the North Koreans had broken the IAEA seals on the plutonium processors, but inspectors confirmed the seals were still in place. Many western intelligence agencies believed North Korea had resumed processing uranium, however. Consensus was that this situation required watching but was not an immediate concern. Also in 1998, North Korea tested a long-range ballistic missiles.

On the other hand, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, elected in 1998, began a "Sunshine Policy" to lessen tensions and build reconciliation between North and South Korea. In June 2000 the North and South Korean leaders held a historic three-day summit in Pyongyang, the first such contact in 50 years. They signed a pact in which they agreed to work toward reunification. Kim Dae Jung was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000.

So here's where we stood when Bush II became President: Kim Jong Il was (and remains) a genuinely horrible leader whose people were starving, and western intelligence agencies at least suspected he was processing uranium. But relations with South Korea were improving, the IAEA was still inspecting, and the plutonium processors were still sealed.

But then there was Bush.

Kim Dae Jung came to Washington in March 2001 to pay respects to the new U.S. President Bush and ask for his support for the Sunshine Policy. And what happened?

Bush dissed him, that's what. The arrogant little twerp snubbed a Nobel Prize winner and friend to America. And when word of the snub reached North Korea, the "Sunshine Policy" died.

The late, great Mary McGrory wrote:

"We should perhaps remember that President Bush has never liked talking to Koreans. His first overseas visitor was the estimable Kim Dae Jung, whom Bush snubbed."

Bush, as he was eager to demonstrate, was not a fan. Kim's sin? He was instituting a sunshine policy with the North, ending a half-century of estrangement. Bush, who looked upon North Korea as the most potent argument for his obsession to build a national missile defense, saw Kim, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, as nothing but trouble. He sent him home humiliated and empty-handed. [McGrory, "Bush's Moonshine Policy," The Washington Post, December 29, 2002].

As a reaction to Bush's unexpected hard-line stance, North Korea cancelled scheduled reconciliation talks with South Korea.

[Tom Araya]

For what it's worth, the Clintonians never shipped the two reactors promised the North Koreans. This was on the watch of Cohen at the Dept. of Defense & Sec. of State Madeleine (sp?) Albright.

Regarding the reactors -- according to the Arms Control Association, an international consortium called the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) was formed in 1995 to implement the agreement, which included building the two light-water reactors. After several years of site preparation and negotiations over one piddling thing after another, actual construction began in August 2001, way behind schedule. KEDO poured the concrete for the first reactor in August 2002, but suspended the project on December 1, 2003.

So, technically, it's true that construction didn't begin until Bush's watch, but this wasn't because of anything Bush did or Clinton didn't do. The North Koreans caused most of the delays.

The heating oil was supplied to North Korea through the KEDO program, not directly from the U.S., but the U.S. was the chief contributor to KEDO. Through most of the Clinton Administration KEDO was supplying nearly half of North Korea's heating oil needs.

According to this congressional report (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/91-141.htm):

"In January 1995, the Clinton Administration arranged for the shipment of 50,000 metric tons of U.S. heavy oil to North Korea. This was followed by a shipment of 100,000 metric tons of oil in October 1995. Starting in October 1996, the United States is to facilitate shipments of 500,000 metric tons of heavy oil to North Korea annually until 2003 or until the first of the two light water reactors becomes operational. The total cost of the oil from 1995 to 2003 is estimated at up to $500 million. The Administration financed the initial shipment of 50,000 tons of oil with $4.5 million from appropriated Defense Department funds designated for "emergency expenses." Foreign aid legislation for FY1996 and FY1977 allocated $19 million and $25 million respectively for oil shipments in 1996 and 1997. Japan has been the other major financial contributor. The Administration is discussing membership of the European Union on KEDO's current three member (the United States, Japan, and South Korea) executive board, which reportedly would bring in $20 million annually from Western Europe to meet the costs of the oil shipments. It has had little success in securing financial support from Southeast Asian and Persian Gulf countries."

Republicans mostly hated this agreement and thought the Clintons were saps for paying millions of dollars to North Korea to not process plutonium. $500 million over seven or so years is a lot cheaper than war, however.

Rummy's old outfit ABB won a $200 million contract to design and supply key components for the two light-water reactors that were part of the 1994 agreement. The deal was announced in 1999 and made official in 2000. Rummy was sitting on the Board of Directors at this time.

This timeline from the Arms Control Association website provides more details of what happened in March 2001:

March 6, 2001: At a joint press briefing with the Swedish foreign minister, Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the administration “plan[s] to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton left off. Some promising elements were left on the table and we will be examining those elements.”

March 7, 2001: In a New York Times op-ed, Wendy Sherman, former special adviser to the president and secretary of state for North Korea policy, writes that a deal with North Korea to eliminate its medium- and long-range missiles and end its missile exports had been “tantalizingly close” at the end of the Clinton administration.

After a working meeting with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung at the White House, Shrub tells reporters that he “look[s] forward to, at some point in the future, having a dialogue with the North Koreans, but that any negotiation would require complete verification of the terms of a potential agreement.” According to Clinton administration officials, the issue of how to verify a missile deal remained one of the final stumbling blocks to a successful arrangement. Bush also questions whether Pyongyang is “keeping all terms of all agreements.”

Just prior to Bush’s comments, Powell amended his remarks from the previous day, noting that if “there was some suggestion that imminent negotiations are about to begin—that is not the case.”

March 13, 2001: North Korea, apparently reacting to Washington’s new tone, cancels ministerial-level talks with Seoul. The talks were intended to promote further political reconciliation.

March 15, 2001: Pyongyang threatens to “take thousand-fold revenge” on the United States “and its black-hearted intention to torpedo the dialogue between north and south [Korea].” The statement, issued by the Korean Central News Agency, called Washington’s new policies “hostile” and noted that Pyongyang remains “fully prepared for both dialogue and war.”

Bush's foreign policy was off to a brilliant start.

In April 2001, the Shrubster was put on notice he was playing in the big leagues when a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet in Chinese air space. The U.S. crew had to make an emergency landing and were taken into custody by the Chinese, who demanded an apology from Bush. The Bushies eventually realized there were limits to what they could achieve by blustering, although this lesson seems to have been quickly unlearned.

In June 2001, Shrub's people sent signals that they were prepared to engage in bilateral talks with the North Koreans. Some meetings were held to work out the details of these talks. Through the remainder of 2001 the North Koreans appeared to have settled down a bit, and in any event after September 11 the Shrubsters were focused elsewhere.

Still, Kim Jung Il let it be known that he wasn't going to make diplomacy easy. On January 1, 2002, he announced a military build-up to meet the threat of U.S. aggression.

Shrub responded to this by pouring fuel on the fire. On January 29, 2002, he made his famous "axis of evil" remark in the State of the Union, and also criticized North Korea for “arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.” Two days later, the North Koreans declared Bush's speech was "little short of a declaration of war."

Just a week later, on February 5, Colin Powell restated the Bush Administration's willingness to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea at "any time, any place, or anywhere without any preconditions."

A pattern is established -- Colin Powell at least puts on a good act of being diplomatic and smoothing things out, and then Shrub stomps into the room and throws his toys around and makes a mess.

Later in February 2002, Shrub paid a visit to South Korea. While hundreds of protesters marched against Shrub and burned home-made U.S. flags, and 20,000 riot police kept order on the streets, Shrub talked with Kim Dae Jung.

Worldwide controversy over Bush's speech labeling North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" has been strong in U.S. ally South Korea, where 70 percent of the public disapproved of the characterization.

In a news conference after his talks with President Kim, Bush stood by his tough words, saying North Korean leader Kim Jong-il had to earn his trust, but that the United States had no intention of attacking the North.

"I will not change my opinion on Kim Jong-il until he frees his people and accepts genuine proposals from countries such as South Korea to dialogue," Bush said.

"I am concerned about a country that is not transparent, that develops weapons of mass destruction," he said.

South Koreans fear Bush will, at best, destroy Kim's delicate "Sunshine Policy" of rapprochement with North Korea and, at worst, bring his war on terrorism to their doorstep. [Paul Eckert, "Tough Security, Protests as Bush Visits South Korea," Reuters, February 20, 2002]

Whoops! But George W. Bush was riding high and feeling very sure of himself, or full of himself, whichever.

And on a visit to South Korea, he visited the 38th Parallel demilitarized zone and in a deliberate echo of President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, he called on the North's leaders to "tear down this DMZ." So far, Kim Jong Il has not complied with his demand. [Martin Sieff, "Deadly Adversary Kim Jong II," UPI, December 27, 2002]

In March 2002, Bush refused to certify North Korea's compliance with the 1994 Agreed Framework, but said the U.S. would continue deliverying oil for energy to North Korea anyway.

The much-compromised Judith Miller (you remember her, don't you?) wrote (with David Sanger):

"For the first time since North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear activities in exchange for foreign aid, the United States will refuse to certify that the country is complying with its commitments under the accord, a senior administration official said today. But in what appeared to be an effort to forestall a diplomatic crisis with one of the countries that President Bush listed as part of the ''axis of evil,'' he will inform Congress that he has also decided to continue fulfilling America's obligations under the accord. The official said Mr. Bush would waive, in the interest of national security, the certification of North Korean compliance that Congress now requires. That would enable the United States to continue providing North Korea with fuel oil under the agreement. "

Shrub's decision strikes a delicate political balance.

On the one hand, it may satisfy conservative critics of the agreement, who contend that while North Korea may have halted activity at its main nuclear site, at Yongbyon, the country may be continuing to develop nuclear weapons at hidden underground sites.

On the other hand, it enables the administration to avoid a breach with Japan and South Korea, which strongly support the 1994 accord with North Korea. That accord was initiated by the United States after a dangerous confrontation with North Korea in Spring 1994 that Clinton administration officials now say came dangerously close to setting off a military conflict. [Judith Miller and David Sanger, "U.S. to Report North Korea Is Not Meeting A-Pact Terms," The New York Times, March 20, 2002]

In other words, Bush's two-faced policy was the result of trying to appease the hard-line troglodytes in the Republican Party while also trying to appease Kim Jong Il just enough so that he didn't nuke Japan. (Or Alaska. Or Sacramento.)

But what happened next is still inexplicable. It was either a monumental screwup or some lamebrain Shrub tactic that backfired, or both.

In September 2002, the North Koreans announced they would behave and extend their long-range missile moratorium. They also made some ambiguous noises about keeping their nuclear weapons commitments. This was the result of meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

But then the Shrubsters stepped in. Going back to the Arms Control Association timeline:

October 3-5, 2002: James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, visits North Korea. The highest-ranking administration official to visit Pyongyang, Kelly reiterates U.S. concerns about North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, export of missile components, conventional force posture, human rights violations, and humanitarian situation. Kelly informs North Korea that it could improve bilateral relations through a “comprehensive settlement” addressing these issues. No future meetings are announced.

Referring to Kelly’s approach as “high handed and arrogant,” North Korea argues that the U.S. policy “compels the DPRK to take all necessary countermeasures, pursuant to the army-based policy whose validity has been proven.”

October 16, 2002: The United States announces that North Korea admitted to having a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons after James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, confronted representatives from Pyongyang during an October 3-5 visit. Kelly later explained that the North Korean admission came the day after he informed them that the United States was aware of the program. North Korea has denied several times that it admitted to having this program.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher states that "North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program is a serious violation of North Korea's commitments under the Agreed Framework as well as under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." Boucher also says that the United States wants North Korea to comply with its nonproliferation commitments and seeks "a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Announcement of the "clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons" set the American punditocracy into overdrive. Rightie bobbleheads hit every radio and television talk show they could find, screaming that North Korea had been cheating on the 1994 agreements all along, and didn't that prove that Clinton's appeasement policies was a policy for suckers and wimps.

The part of the story that rarely bubbled to the surface is that the 1994 agreement primarily had been about plutonium, not uranium. North Korea's plutonium processors were still sealed in October 2002. The North Koreans were still in compliance with that part of the agreement. As I explained in Part 1, uranium is to plutonium what an auto parts junkyard is to NASA.

But there's more. In the November 2002 issue of Foreign Affairs, Selig Harrison writes,

"On October 4, 2002, the United States suddenly confronted North Korea with a damning accusation: that it was secretly developing a program to enrich uranium to weapons grade, in violation of the 1994 agreement that Pyongyang had signed with Washington to freeze its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Since North Korea had cheated, the Bush administration declared, the United States was no longer bound by its side of the deal. Accordingly, on November 14, 2002, the United States and its allies suspended the oil shipments they had been providing North Korea under the 1994 agreement. Pyongyang retaliated by expelling international inspectors and resuming the reprocessing of plutonium, which it had stopped under the 1994 accord (known as the Agreed Framework). The confrontation between North Korea and the United States once more reached a crisis level."

Much has been written about the North Korean nuclear danger, but one crucial issue has been ignored: just how much credible evidence is there to back up Washington's uranium accusation? Although it is now widely recognized that the Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence data it used to justify the invasion of Iraq, most observers have accepted at face value the assessments the administration has used to reverse the previously established U.S. policy toward North Korea.

But what if those assessments were exaggerated and blurred the important distinction between weapons-grade uranium enrichment (which would clearly violate the 1994 Agreed Framework) and lower levels of enrichment (which were technically forbidden by the 1994 accord but are permitted by the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] and do not produce uranium suitable for nuclear weapons)?

A review of the available evidence suggests that this is just what happened. Relying on sketchy data, the Bush administration presented a worst-case scenario as an incontrovertible truth and distorted its intelligence on North Korea (much as it did on Iraq), seriously exaggerating the danger that Pyongyang is secretly making uranium-based nuclear weapons. This failure to distinguish between civilian and military uranium-enrichment capabilities has greatly complicated what would, in any case, have been difficult negotiations to end all existing North Korean nuclear weapons programs and to prevent any future efforts through rigorous inspection. On June 24, 2004, the United States proposed a new, detailed denuclearization agreement with North Korea at six-party negotiations (including the United States, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and North Korea) in Beijing. Before discussions could even start, however, the Bush administration insisted that North Korea first admit to the existence of the alleged uranium-enrichment facilities and specify where they are located. Pyongyang has so far refused to confirm or deny whether it has such facilities; predictably, the U.S. precondition has precluded any new talks.

So, I don't know if I'd call Carter & Clinton idiots for brokering peace & getting N. Korea to stop processing. From all I've read & heard, N. Korea had zero weapons in 2001. Since Shrub has taken office, I've read & heard (but never been able to confirm) that Pyongyang has as many as 6 nuclear weapons. You admitted W. is an idiot----I think his handling of the N. Korea situation makes him out to be an even bigger idiot than anyone previously imagined. It is truly dangerous to let a bunch of hard-right ideologues have the keys to the kingdom.

[Tom Araya]

PS: A lot of this was taken from several articles written by Juan Cole, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Michigan. I hear him on the radio about once a week. He's one the least partisan voices I hear on Middle Eastern & Korean matters. All of the partisanship in these posts are my additions. I can't help myself. . .

[oldtimer]

Tom,

I don't agree with you much about Clinton, Carter and Bush.....But, I am proud that you got that eduction in Lexington.

How do you recall all that stuff?

I put some stuff up tomorrow, football is on. And I hot and tried.

P.S. Don't drink Java tomorrow, you just about hit your per word limit on single posts tonight.

:-D

[Tom Araya]

Good thing I have, for the most part, quit caffeine. But the wife had coffee on this morning when I woke up & I stayed up past 3 AM last night watching movies & needed a kick in the a$$ this morning.

[T.D.C.Dad]

Impressive Tom.

[fudge tunnel]

From all I've read & heard, N. Korea had zero weapons in 2001.

Comm'on Tom........do you really believe that?

You give people who support the W Administration grief over believing the Repub spin.

You're buying into the same type of spin from the Left (and believe me, there's a lot of it. I bought it for years). Don't get caught up in it.......you'll end up like TDCDad.


:P

[obiefan]

...thye have been fighting forever...... :roll:

[Tom Araya]

From all I've read & heard, N. Korea had zero weapons in 2001.

Comm'on Tom........do you really believe that?

You give people who support the W Administration grief over believing the Repub spin.

You're buying into the same type of spin from the Left (and believe me, there's a lot of it. I bought it for years). Don't get caught up in it.......you'll end up like TDCDad.


:P


Don't know about any spin, but I'm fairly certain of one thing----if the inspectors said the seals were not broken in 2002, I'll tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. It would appear that buying N. Korea heating oil is/was a lot more effective than calling them part of the "axis of evil." The whole point is this: Shrub is dangerous for national security. That's not spin----that's a fact.

Hey obie, what was that you were saying about Psalms?

[Tom Araya]

From all I've read & heard, N. Korea had zero weapons in 2001.

Comm'on Tom........do you really believe that?

:P

The inspectors never found any. Like I said, from all I've ready & heard, they had none. If you have some evidence lurking around, please show me & change my mind.

I do know that N. Korea came out last year & said they had weapons now, and they said the reason they developed them was in direct response to Shrub's categorization of them as part of the "axis of evil." Shrub's foreign policy planning team should rely less on their military-industrial complex team in setting national directives. Oh wait, the foreign policy planning team and the military-industrial complex are one-in-the-same. How convenient.

[Tom Araya]

You give people who support the W Administration grief over believing the Repub spin.

:P

Sometimes, contrary to what you say, it would appear that the right-wing "spin" hook is set deep in your gills.

[oldtimer]

Sounds like Schub is doing what many (including the rest of the world) have been asking for, partnering with our allies to broker piece.



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060807/D8JBCS5O0.html

[fudge tunnel]

[quote="fudge tunnel":8b67f]

You give people who support the W Administration grief over believing the Repub spin.

:P

Sometimes, contrary to what you say, it would appear that the right-wing "spin" hook is set deep in your gills.[/quote:8b67f]

Nope, not me. However, I'm not so deep-rooted with Bush hatred to see that the Dems bear a bit of responsibility with what's going on in the world. It's all about separating emotion from intellect.

[oldtimer]

This is what I found regarding the North Korean problem.

Democrats have begun a desperate-yet-predictable effort to blame North Korea's nuclear aspirations on President George W. Bush's strident rhetoric. Despite their leftist cant, they seem remarkably uninterested in the "root causes" of Pyongyang's current nuclear brinksmanship: Bill Clinton's eight years of appeasement and the gullible cordiality of the South Korean government.

Threats of a nuclear winter did not mix well with Clinton's sunny disposition. Clinton, who saw the domestic front thronged with "crises," refused to disturb his illusion of a post-Cold War world at complete peace under his watch. He had two private conversations with CIA Director James Woolsey in as many years, willfully laboring under delusions of supra-national serenity. He famously misled the public that "there's not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight" before asking China to re-orient its missiles away from U.S. population centers. When al Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center, two U.S. embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole, he bombed nothing, an empty tent, and nothing, respectively. This refusal to confront reality precipitated the present crisis in Korea, as well.

If Iraq's nuclear policy in the 1990s constituted a "decade of defiance," Bill Clinton's negotiations with North Korea represented a "decade of delusion." Evidence that North Korea was violating the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty surfaced within weeks of Clinton's first inauguration. After a year of inaction allowed Pyongyang to create at least one nuclear weapon, the emboldened Stalinists announced their formal withdrawal from the treaty. It seemed North Korean officials were angling for a payoff. They must have realized they struck the jackpot when Clinton named tough-as-nails Jimmy Carter as his principal negotiator.

Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.

All these measures failed to quell the North's atom-lust.

In August 1998, North Korea lobbed a Taepo Dong 1 missile over Japan. Four months later, officials refused U.S. inspectors access to a suspected underground nuclear reactor at Kumchang-ni. President Clinton then sweetened the deal by rewarding Kim Jong Il's half-year-long stall tactics with 1.1 million tons of food worth nearly $200 million. Not surprisingly, American inspectors found no signs of wrongdoing at the long-sanitized facility.

Even this seemingly humanitarian food aid turned into a weapon in North Korea's hands. Reports abound that rations have been re-directed to the DPRK's military, the fifth largest in the world. This is nothing new. Using food as a weapon dates back at least to Stalin. Communist Ethiopia similarly misused international aid in the 1980s. With this in mind, Rep. Benjamin Gilman, R-NY, warned in 1999, "(A)ny food aid we provide to North Korea . . . must be monitored to prevent diversion to the military and the party cadre. Unscheduled, unsupervised visits by American Korean-speaking monitors would assist us in this regard." It didn't happen.

It seems little wonder North Korea has made threats of nuclear conflagration its only functional export industry, besides the weapons themselves. Even as floods and famine emaciated its nearly 22 million citizens, regime leaders in this "worker's paradise" earmarked every available dollar for guns, not butter, in the hope that Uncle Sam would pay their price without demanding accountable disarmament. Their gamble paid off. Clinton's appeasement programs made North Korea the leading recipient of foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region.

Clinton's policy toward North Korea, a queer amalgamation of Clement Atlee and Alfred E. Newman, has proven disastrous. The most isolated nation in the world has possessed a nuclear weapon capable of striking the United States (the Taepo Dong 2 missile) since at least 1999. Its modern-day commissars have threatened to use these missiles against America a minimum of three times in 21 months. After kicking UN inspectors out of the Yongbyong facility, the short trip to full nuclear status has been quickly engaged.

With Marxist saber-rattling threatening an atomic showdown on the peninsula, South Korea should be in the lead denouncing the aggressive posture taken north of the 38th parallel. Instead, Seoul has saved its greatest ire for the United States while cozying up with Pyongyang. Polls show more than half of all South Korean youths hold a negative view of America. This generation has been loudest in its call to expel the 37,000 U.S. GIs stationed along the Demilitarized Zone to protect them from 1.1 million of their beloved uniformed northern neighbors. President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, who campaigned on an anti-American platform, has pledged to continue the "Sunshine policy" of benign exchange, assistance and interaction across the DMZ. Roh's predecessor, Kim Dae-jung, spoke openly of the policy's goal: reunification of the Korean Peninsula.

How this policy engulfed the longstanding military tension evident for 50 years makes an interesting story in useful idiocy. While the Korean Conflict has never formally ended, contemporary South Korea has little fear that the North will transgress the world's longest cease-fire and less appreciation for the tens of thousands of American soldiers who died the last time Stalinists made just such a gambit (including this writer's grandfather).

A successful Communist PR operation has swept past transgressions down the memory hole. In recent years, North Korea has allowed families bisected by its border to hold first-ever reunions. The sight of octogenarians visiting children for the first time in half a century tugs at the heart-strings. And the North has carefully orchestrated sympathetic coverage of these reunions.

The DPRK has stoked the fires of racial solidarity in its rapprochement with Seoul. A banner carefully placed behind a 100-year-old mother visiting her son read, "We have the same blood, the same nation and the same mind." The consanguinity of Koreans again took center stage during the 2000 Olympics, when the nations' athletes entered wearing common uniforms before the "unification flag." A North Korean Olympic official took the opportunity during general press conference grandstanding to hit his talking point, chirping, "We are the same blood." Under Dae-jung's leadership, the two Koreas have begun mutual projects, such as an unfinished railway across both nations and joint industrial ventures. With an ethnic unity further cemented by a warming public image, North Korea could say in its New Year's message that "there exists on the Korean Peninsula at present only confrontation between the Koreans in the North and the South and the United States."

In 1952-1953, near the time of Stalin's death, the Soviet Union discussed reunifying East and West Germany in a desperate attempt to avoid an arms buildup in West Germany. (Ironically, it was President Reagan's deployment of ICBM missiles in western Europe thirty years later that would prove a major element in the Soviet's collapse.) The East Germans made similar appeals to their separated brethren, appeals made more substantial by the recent hysterical focus on the "one blood" of the Aryan race. Today's pretenders have not missed a trick.

Diverting attention from the regime's bloodthirsty leadership to the common peasants trapped under its rule is a classic totalitarian tactic. Throughout the Cold War, Communist propagandists and their cadre of domestic sympathizers and dupes consistently chanted the mantra that Russians are "just people." And after all, aren't we all "just people"? Well-insulated Western visitors would invariably return home to note the warmth (and intense joy) of the Soviet people within the Marxists' iron grip. After one such trip Billy Joel would croon, "We never knew all the friends we had, in Leningrad."

South Koreans have not just friends but relatives - the "same blood" - across the DMZ. Any military solution risks killing their own kin. Contrary to the North Korean propaganda machine, though, the two Koreas do not share "the same mind." South Korean freedom and economic expansion has shown their starving northern counterparts the possibilities of liberalization, an overture the DPRK has steadfastly rejected. It has instead played the role of an atomic bully. Who, exactly, do South Koreans believe will be the North's first nuclear hostages? Apparently, the point is obscured from the pleasant glow of current North-South relations. The North will undoubtedly clarify the point when it suits their purposes.

The attempt to blame the current state of affairs on Bush's "axis of evil" speech is cowardly blame-shifting of the worst sort. It is holding the solution responsible for the problem. Clinton's coddling of dictators with a yearning for Weapons of Mass Destruction got us here. But North Korea is only one bloom from the seeds planted during his tenure as Commander-in-Chief, when he forged what one critic called an "astonishing reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations" and their refusal to negotiate with terrorists. It is a dangerous world, and one cannot imagine what future dictators will expect to negotiate for during future incidences of nuclear blackmail. Provided they are interested in negotiating at all.
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 3, 2003

[fudge tunnel]

Jimmy Carter has finally left the planet.......

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 93,00.html (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html)

I'm not surprised w/ the tone of his remarks, just how completely devoid of reality he is these days....

[oldtimer]

Jimmy Carter has finally left the planet.......

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 93,00.html (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html)

I'm not surprised w/ the tone of his remarks, just how completely devoid of reality he is these days....

It's not widely known. But, after his brother Billy died, Jimmy inherited 3 million cans of "Billy Beer" and he's hit the can pretty hard.

He also smokes peanut shells in a water pipe.

[Tom Araya]

[quote="Tom Araya":36baa][quote="fudge tunnel":36baa]

You give people who support the W Administration grief over believing the Repub spin.

:P

Sometimes, contrary to what you say, it would appear that the right-wing "spin" hook is set deep in your gills.[/quote:36baa]

Nope, not me. However, I'm not so deep-rooted with Bush hatred to see that the Dems bear a bit of responsibility with what's going on in the world. It's all about separating emotion from intellect.[/quote:36baa]

I can't say I hate anyone, but he's the one in charge right now (and his Congress) so I'm only picking apart their current direction. It seemed that Clinton's direction of sending heating oil to N. Korea kept nukes out of Kim Jong Il's hands. It would appear that Shrub's policy of calling them the axis of evil and no longer supporting talks between North & South has caused them to start up nuclear research with a frenzy. There's zero emotion in that statement; that's just pure observation & intellect.

[Tom Araya]

The attempt to blame the current state of affairs on Bush's "axis of evil" speech is cowardly blame-shifting of the worst sort. It is holding the solution responsible for the problem. Clinton's coddling of dictators with a yearning for Weapons of Mass Destruction got us here. But North Korea is only one bloom from the seeds planted during his tenure as Commander-in-Chief, when he forged what one critic called an "astonishing reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations" and their refusal to negotiate with terrorists. It is a dangerous world, and one cannot imagine what future dictators will expect to negotiate for during future incidences of nuclear blackmail. Provided they are interested in negotiating at all.


Oldtimer, that's some SERIOUS spin. As I've already pointed out, the seals remained unbroken into 2002. As for negotiating with terrorists, from all appearances it seems that sending Kim heating oil caused him to stop nuclear production and we heard nary a peep out of them. If that's what happens when negotiating with terrorists, then they can have the meetings in my living room.

Then, Shrub runs into the room & kicks the toys all over the d a m n place----this seed that is now blooming was planted & watered by your man Shrub.

(As an aside, how is the "war on terror" ever going to end if there's not a negotiated peace? If the policy is to never negotiate with terrorists, then by definition there can never be peace. How Orwellian. One thing we've proven----we'll never fully eradicate the terrorists. I guess maybe we should sit down to the negotiating table.)

(A second aside: have you noticed how Shrub capitulated to Osama bin Forgotten's demands that the US close its base in Saudi Arabia? That was his only demand after 9/11. The US closed the base, and Osama hasn't been heard from since. Curious. It would seem that Shrub does negotiate with terrorists after all!)

[Tom Araya]

Jimmy Carter has finally left the planet.......

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 93,00.html (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html)

I'm not surprised w/ the tone of his remarks, just how completely devoid of reality he is these days....

What seemed off-base to you?

[oldtimer]

The attempt to blame the current state of affairs on Bush's "axis of evil" speech is cowardly blame-shifting of the worst sort. It is holding the solution responsible for the problem. Clinton's coddling of dictators with a yearning for Weapons of Mass Destruction got us here. But North Korea is only one bloom from the seeds planted during his tenure as Commander-in-Chief, when he forged what one critic called an "astonishing reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations" and their refusal to negotiate with terrorists. It is a dangerous world, and one cannot imagine what future dictators will expect to negotiate for during future incidences of nuclear blackmail. Provided they are interested in negotiating at all.


Oldtimer, that's some SERIOUS spin. As I've already pointed out, the seals remained unbroken into 2002. As for negotiating with terrorists, from all appearances it seems that sending Kim heating oil caused him to stop nuclear production and we heard nary a peep out of them. If that's what happens when negotiating with terrorists, then they can have the meetings in my living room.

Then, Shrub runs into the room & kicks the toys all over the d a m n place----this seed that is now blooming was planted & watered by your man Shrub.

(As an aside, how is the "war on terror" ever going to end if there's not a negotiated peace? If the policy is to never negotiate with terrorists, then by definition there can never be peace. How Orwellian. One thing we've proven----we'll never fully eradicate the terrorists. I guess maybe we should sit down to the negotiating table.)

(A second aside: have you noticed how Shrub capitulated to Osama bin Forgotten's demands that the US close its base in Saudi Arabia? That was his only demand after 9/11. The US closed the base, and Osama hasn't been heard from since. Curious. It would seem that Shrub does negotiate with terrorists after all!)

I just report what was on the web.......if Gore developed it.....it can't be wrong.

[Tom Araya]

if Gore developed it.....it can't be wrong.

:lol: :lol:

[fudge tunnel]

[quote="fudge tunnel":4240a]Jimmy Carter has finally left the planet.......

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 93,00.html (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html)

I'm not surprised w/ the tone of his remarks, just how completely devoid of reality he is these days....

What seemed off-base to you?[/quote:4240a]

Comm'on Tom,

Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened

Really? WWI, European Theatre of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, 1st Gulf War.......?

We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America

I'm not defending W's domestic economic policies.....but unemployment is at 4.7%, the US economy has grown 20% in the last 3 years (the sum of that is larger than China's entire economy), the Dow is consistently around the 11k range. I think it's funny when Carter gives advice and/or criticism on the economy. Remember the late 70's? 14% inflation, 20% interest rates, lines around the corner for gas.......

the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon

Israel attacked Hezbollah. Carter makes it sound like Israel was attacking the people and govt. of Lebanon. He knows the difference. He's just a piece of sh!t.

I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.

I wonder if Israel should have reacted the same way he did when Iran took the US embassy people hostage......?

What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners

Prisoners.......yes, those Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists are prisoners.....

when the militants in Lebanon

LOL.........he's calling Hezbollah terrorists "militants". He's lost it.......

Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza

Oh boy.....well, we've gone over this time and time again. Carter is officially completely senile

*Nice picture of he and Fidel Castro.

I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country

THIS is one of the main reasons I am no longer a Democrat....... :roll:

I had four years in the White House -- it was not a failure

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom Araya]

Good, you laid your cards out on the table.

First things first: I'm not gonna defend Jimmy Carter's record. It speaks for itself. I'm all about making the guy in charge accountable, and the proof is in the pudding.

But you have to answer a question for me: what do you think will be the end result of all of this debt Shrub has piled upon us?

Alright, here's the facts about our 20th Century wars.

WWI & the European theater of WWII: we had something called Allies & the menace from Germany (both times) was real & tangible. Iraq presented no menace whatsoever, no matter how badly folks here & elsewhere try to spin it.

Korea & Vietnam were based on the faulty "domino theory." Well-intended, but hindsight is 20/20, so they say.

The first Gulf War again came down to a matter of helping a strategic ally. Saddam was clearly the aggressor, Kuwait & the Saudis were our allies, blah, blah, blah.

Having said all of that, I also thought the first Gulf War was a mistake, though no where near as bad as this current fiasco. I can at least understand the reasons for the other wars, though I don't necessarily agree with all of the logic.

His statement regarding the tax reforms is dead-on. Wait for it to play itself out fully. You are right, however, that his economic policy stunk.

Regarding the attack on Lebanon, I can understand a limited attack meant to root out Hezbollah. But what Israel did was unprecedented. They flat-out levelled an entire nation. It's like burning down a house to rid it of roaches. Or, as they used to say in Vietnam, it's like destroying the village to save it. Indefensible.

I also fully agree that Israel lacks both the legal & moral justification for all of what they did. Had it been a limited attack, that I could support. But to just carpet-bomb the place seems a bit much.

Like it or not, Hezbollah is also a political party that holds a lot of sway. It also has a military arm & is organized. To just simply label them a terrorist group is oversimplification designed to satisfy the dullards of this nation. Again, I'm not defending Hezbollah one iota. But what I am doing is putting myself, very briefly, in their shoes to try & see their perspective. What they see is 10,000 of their soldiers imprisoned, and all of Lebanon gets strafed for 2 Israeli prisoners WHO MAY WELL HAVE BEEN ON LEBANESE SOIL WHEN CAPTURED!

Militants & terrorists are practically synonymous in my mind. It seems you're splitting fine hairs with this one.

Like it or not, Israel did attack civilian populations in Lebanon & Gaza. The Israeli civilian population was also targeted. Both cases are inexcusable. One really can't defend either action; both are equally deplorable.

You're right about the Castro pick; almost as bad as Shrub's macking on Lieberman.

I think Carter's point was that he represents the vast majority of Democrats on things that matter to most people: separation of church & state, solid moral foundations, desire for peace, active in your local church, giving of time & energy to humanitarian projects, etc. If Shrub represents the opposite view, we're in worse trouble than I even imagined.

Any way you slice it, Carter's administration was mostly (but not entirely) a failure. He did more to foster peace in the Middle East than any president before or since. But for all the things you've delineated, history will forever tag Carter's term as a down-time for America (plus, disco ruled the charts at that time!!!! Ughh!).

Having said all of that, what president has spent his post-presidency in more worthwhile endeavors than Carter? Say what you want about his presidency, but I believe his moral fiber is unimpeachable.

[oldtimer]

Having said all of that, what president has spent his post-presidency in more worthwhile endeavors than Carter? Say what you want about his presidency, but I believe his moral fiber is unimpeachable.

Ford......His has played more golf courses than any other.

Also, Ford is that last living or dead President was is a Mason!

What do you think of those Apples?

[ms carlos]

In light of recent events I thought I would pull this ball back out ,dust it off and toss it around for a little bit.

[mconn]

What he has done domestically has been without a doubt more than any other president.

That is not the issue.

It is what he did AS president and now what he has done internationally as an ex-president. Giving credibility to Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria is not exactly what I would call a good idea.

Jimmy is an idiot with a big heart.

[That_Guy]

Jimmy Carter - "Worst President Ever"

[oxman]

I think I am one of only 14 living Americans who voted for President Carter in his bid for re-election.
I think he is a very smart guy....I do not agree with most of his recent political positions.
I can tell you that the economy was much worse during his presidency than it is today.
I think people are so spoiled that they think the economy is bad no matter what.....
The average standard of living today blows away the average standard of living in the 70s and 80s.
Don't get me started.....I will end up telling you how we walked 5 miles to school, etc.... :)
8)

[RP-in-Nebraska]

Jimmy Carter - "Worst President Ever"

As ironic as it is, Missouri's own Harry S. Truman is officially the worst president the U.S. has ever had.......according to job approval opinion poll ratings. He had just a 22% approval rating in 1952. Contrast that with how people view him now. Most would say he is in the top 10 and many would say top 5 presidents of all time. I wonder, in 50 years, what will the nation think of Bush? There are many, many similarities in their situations.

[T.D.C.Dad]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Wishful thinking

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. “He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,” wrote another historian.

another historian who said, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.” :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seems to me that it's not going to take 50 years to see where he ends up ranked.

Many many more where this one came from .

[Thfzn]

Carter 17% - 18% interest rates, my dad was in construction...those were some bad years.

Reagan was the fist Republican my dad ever voted for, I believe the Teamsters and UAW endorsed Reagan that election.

[Thfzn]

RP-

Your wrong about Truman being the most unpopular president ever...That title would go to a man from Springfield, Ill. who led his country into the most unpopular war ever fought, of course after the fact the man became much more popular.

[Warren Haynes]

RP-

Your wrong about Truman being the most unpopular president ever...That title would go to a man from Springfield, Ill. who led his country into the most unpopular war ever fought, of course after the fact the man became much more popular.
Very true. And we can all see the similarities between a war to preserve the Union and this war. :roll:

[Thfzn]

Warren,

I never said that...but it's funny that you did. But now that you did the civil war was highly unpopular in the north, especially after the first few years of the war when the north was routinely defeated in battle. There is a good scene from the movie the "Gangs of New York" that depicts the actual roits that took place in New York City in opposition to the war and the draft.

I heard this once somewhere.

Watergate does not bother me...does your consceince bother you? Tell the truth.

[RP-in-Nebraska]

THFZN, you may be right with Lincoln. They didn't have approval ratings back then. Truman had the lowest approval ratings since the poll was started back in the 1930's.

TDC Dad, we'll have to wait 50 years to find out. MANY people though Truman was the worst president ever back in 1952. History has proven otherwise.

[oxman]

President Bush has moved WAY to the center since he was elected. Why Republicans do this is beyond me.

This is my theory:
If a Democratic President moves to the center after election, it will enhance his favorability ranking.
President Clinton was a very centrist moderate president, after he was elected.
Of course, this disappointed many liberals, but they would never vote Republican under any circumstance.
It did get many Reagan Democrats, moderate conservatives, and centrists to view him more favorably, however.

If a Republican President moves to the center after the election, it will HURT his favorability ranking.
President Bush has also been a very centrist moderate president, after he was elected.
Of course, this disappointed many conservatives, who view him therefore as a failure, and rank him very
low in favorability. He gains NOTHING from the liberals, by being a moderate conservative. They still view
him the same way they would view an ultra-conservative.

So, to summarize my theory(opinion):
A centrist Democratic President picks up support from centrists, WITHOUT losing support from ultra-liberals.
A centrist Republican President does NOT pick up support from centrists, while LOSING support from ultra-conservatives.
[I do not think this applies to primaries, just to elected Presidents]

Just thinkin'.....
8)

[swormer]

Watergate does not bother me...does your consceince bother you? Tell the truth.

Lynyrd Skynyrd - Nice quote!! :D :D :D

[mconn]

Wow What a relief for BO!

Former President Carter says he will endorse Obama

:roll:

[mconn]

GOOD NEWS FOR DEMOCRATS!!! :razz:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080604/sc_afp/switzerlandscienceanimal