Jimmy Carter Calls Snowden Leak Ultimately "Beneficial"

eldavojohn writes "According to RT, the 39th president of the United States made several statements worth noting at a meeting in Atlanta. Carter said that 'America has no functioning democracy at this moment' and 'the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far.' The second comment sounded like Carter predicted the future would look favorably upon Snowden's leaks — at least those concerning domestic spying in the United States — as he said: 'I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial.' It may be worth noting that, stemming from Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, Jimmy Carter signed the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 into law and that Snowden has received at least one nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize."

Comments

+5 Insightful for

[NickDanger3rdEye]

Jimmy Carter.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[GeekWithAKnife]

Mod parent up.

We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[RoknrolZombie]

Unfortunately, I suspect the only reason he's spoken up about it is that he doesn't have anything left to lose. He's no longer in the public eye, and I can't even think of the last time that Carter may have been politically relevant. HOPEFULLY his opinion means enough to other people to effect positive change...but I doubt it.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Show a little respect. That's President Carter, to you, Danger.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ackthpt]

Mod parent up.
We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Bear in mind, Carter was a one term president, widely despised by Republicans and effectively abandoned by his own party -- unable to get many of his programs through a congress controlled by the Democratic Party (which at the time still contained a lot of southern social conservatives.)

He has worn the mantle of elder statesman and sage well since his time in office. Quite possibly one of the best educated and most greatly concerned for the american people of US presidents of the past century.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Stormthirst]

He's a Democrat - of course the Republicans despise him.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fustakrakich]

You nailed it. We always hear these types of 'confessions' from retired people and never the ones in office who have the power to actually change things. This game is as old as the hills. Remember, it was Carter who put Bush in charge of the CIA. Eh, it's our own fault for voting for these crooks. Obviously the voters have learned nothing and really don't care.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even think of the last time that Carter may have been politically relevant.

HOLD EVERYTHING!!! RonknrolZombie might have missed something in the last 30 years. Quick, someone organize a committee to figure out how to educate this cretin.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus he fights crime with Louis Lane.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fustakrakich]

Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Yes he was, but everybody after him has proven to be far worse.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, it was Carter who put Bush in charge of the CIA.

And you're point is? Contrary to popular belief, President George H.W. Bush was not all that terrible of a President or political operator. He just wasn't all that popular. And he was actually a decent spookmaster.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ebno-10db]

As other have said, Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Yes, many others have said that. It doesn't mean it's true. Why do you think Carter "was a complete disaster for the US"?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[SirGarlon]

To be fair, I don't think anyone who was president from 1976-1980 could have been re-elected. Those were hard years for the US: high inflation, unemployment, the OPEC oil embargo, the bitter and recent memory of Vietnam, and the Iranian hostage crisis. That's just off the top of my head. No one could have solved all those problems at once, and it's easier to blame the President than to propose a solution.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Creepy]

Maybe he regrets setting up the FISC in 1978 by signing the FISA Act that that overstepped its bounds using the Patriot Act and now spies on Americans (but only 49% of the time).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[the eric conspiracy]

Carter had this little problem. He told the truth. He didn't secretly swap arms for hostages.

These sorts of things don't make you popular as President.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

As other have said, Carter has a fictitious legacy as a complete disaster for the US. So since it takes one to know one, I trust his opinion on Snowden.

There weren't really any policies that Carter set out that were bad. The oil crisis did, in fact, make life really terrible, but that was long-coming foreign policy chickens coming home to roost. Every criticism of carter seems to end up centering around how bad those 4 years were economically, which is a really hard thing to control over that time span, especially with a maliciously induced energy shortage.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Because Ronald Reagan created that myth when he ran for office, and perpetuating myths is absolutely an expertise of the American people.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[sl4shd0rk]

Carter for Preside-- aw crap.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[RoccamOccam]

Excepting his fawning over various dictators. There's an insightful saying about him: "Jimmy Carter never met a dictator that he didn't like."

Re:+5 Insightful for

[tacokill]

Easy. Look at his record, past policies, and their impact on America.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Geste]

Whatever his tribulations, Carter is the last US president that I had any respect for, and my esteem has increased with time..

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

He bought into the shortage gloom-and-doom of the 1970s. Unfortunately a lot of people did back then even though. it was famously disproven in repeated 10 year experiment bets.

He also listened to Nobel-winning economists who told him stagflation was fine for the working man, given nobody, Carter, Ford "WIN whip Inflation Now", nor Richard "Wage and Price Control" Nixon could seem to halt it. Then Reagan did.

And the hostage rescue failed miserably.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ebno-10db]

Originally FISC was created as a safeguard, because of the findings of the Church committee. The problem is that since then its powers have been expanded by the Patriot Act, etc. Furthermore, all courts are garbage if somebody has the judges in their pocket (ideologically and politically in this case, not financially).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fuzzybunny]

It should also be mentioned that most of those issues were caused by factors beyond the control of Carter and his administration (eg. the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis had their roots in the 1956 Iranian coup, stagflation was a global phenomenon which in the US was largely the result of the Nixon shock).

Then there's the whole October Surprise topic; even without going into wingnut conspiracy mode, there's some things in there to make anyone go "hmm".

Arguably, Carter ushered in a lot of improvements - Camp David, the departments of energy and education, a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviets despite massive cold war tensions.

And last but not least, I can't see anyone arguing about the fact that the guy has (and had) integrity - which is saying a lot in a President.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ebno-10db]

He could still serve a 2nd term. I'd take him in a heartbeat.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus he fights crime with Louis Lane.

If you think about it... yeah, kind of. He probably has done more good for the human race in any given week than most of us will do in our whole lives. President Carter is worthy of awe... and the comparison to Superman is, metaphorically of course, spot on.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

I did. Okay, your turn!

This debate with no information is really insightful.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[tnk1]

Don't. He makes a much better ex-President.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ackthpt]

He's a Democrat - of course the Republicans despise him.

Republicans seem to despise everyone, even themselves. Most dysfunctional political party I've seen since the death throes of the Perot Party.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cusco]

Raygun's staff changed the way that inflation was measured to something utterly irrelevant to reality. No much of an accomplishment.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

When millions of people were freakn-out of a nuke problem at Three Mile Island, Jimmy took charge. We learned that no-matter how bad the problem is, and doesn't matter three eyed fish and hippos with wings were spotted, just put on a pair of protective booties and the emergency is a non-event. I keep mine under the bed so when Japan's nuke plants were spilling shit I put them on. That's all it took, all is fine again! Thanks Jimmy !

Re:+5 Insightful for

[plover]

Are you a troll, or just completely unaware of what takes place on this planet?

Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Price for his efforts at various hot spots around the world, including Palestine, Cuba, Korea, Egypt, Ireland, Haiti, Venezuela, and the Sudan (and I'm sure I'm missing some others.) He's poured himself into Habitat for Humanity. He created the Carter Center, which works for human rights around the world, peace, and is even fighting preventable diseases.

While he may have not accomplished much of note while in office, Carter has far and away been the most active, most influential, and best ex-president this country's ever seen.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever his tribulations, Carter is the last US president that I had any respect for, and my esteem has increased with time..

Clinton might not have been able to keep his trousers shut, but as a president he was intelligent and confident enough that he was not a marionette in the hand of his advisers. But that's about it post-Carter. Actually, more or less post-Nixon, though I don't remember anything particularly embarrassing about Ford's interlude. But then he was not elected in the first place.

In other words: the U.S. political system seems rather broken, judging from the quality of its results. Which brings us back to what Carter said.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fustakrakich]

...President George H.W. Bush was not all that terrible of a President...

If I read only government archives and lap dog press reports, I suppose I could come to the same conclusion...

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

Horseshit. Carter was ineffective, bumbling idiot as a president, his economic policies where horible, inflation was rampant and interest rates were in the 20+ percentage area. He was weak in foreign policy and our adversaries took advantage of that. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and his response was to boycott the 80 Moscow games. His only shining foreign policy moment was getting Sadat and Begin to agree on peace of which I commend him. He and his cabinet failed to recognize the threat that Iran posed once the Shaw became ill and was thrown out of power. Other than that he was a waste of 4 years for this country.

He and Dubya will always probably be in the bottom 5, Obama will be there soon enough, just keep watching.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Because sky-rocketing interest rates during his administration put a lot of small businesses OUT of business, including my father's company. A company that had been in business for over 120 years prior to Mr Carter and had weathered the Great Depression and had a solid customer base. As a FORMER president Jimmy is an outstanding human being, but as a President of the United States, his term in office was not good. This from a man that thinks both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were 1000x better leaders when in office - they LEAD the country, Jimmy was just a good old boy in residence at the White House.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Darth Snowshoe]

Can I just say, that RT article provided no context whatsoever to this quote? Does Mr. Carter believe "America has no functioning democracy at this moment" because
a.) intrusive, pervasive domestic spying supresses minority views
b.) gerrymandering, incessant filibusters, etc have thwarted the evident will of the majority
c.) astroturfing, the Citizens United decision, opacity in finance of politics have warped the nature of small-d democracy in America?
d.) limiting access to the ballot, mandating ID at polling stations, etc have eroded the enfranchisement of voters?
e.) both major political parties are beholden to corporate and private money such that the outcome, whoever wins, is largely the same?
f.) the press, beset by false equivalencies, threatened constantly by acquisitions and downsizing, discouraged from publishing radical stances or asking difficult questions of the politicians on whose access its livelihood rests, has broken its compact with the public?
g.) all of the above?

Surely Mr. Carter is an expressive and thoughtful speaker, whether you agree or disagree with his views. I'm certain if you found the full content of what he said around his "no functioning democracy" statement, it would be far more illuminating than what was included in RT.

 

Re:+5 Insightful for

[TubeSteak]

The original article in German: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/nsa-affaere-jimmy-carter-kritisiert-usa-a-911589.html

Google Translate: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?u=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/nsa-affaere-jimmy-carter-kritisiert-usa-a-911589.html

As with most globally significant events, there's been a lot of foreign language reporting (on the Snowden mess), but very little of it filters back into the USA media-sphere

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Never forget that Carter also was an evil monster in his day.

I give him the benefit of doubt. Maybe he learned something and changed a bit. But you know what they say: People don't change (that much). So I'll keep an eye on him anyway.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[smooth wombat]

You missed the fact that Carter is the only President, next to Clinton, who didn't pay lip-service to peace in the Middle East. He is the only one to get Israel and a neighbor to sign a peace treaty and formal recognition which exists to this day without issue.

The Clinton issue was a failure by Arafat to pull the trigger and sign the deal for various reasons.

As an aside, Bush 1 did stick it to Israel by stopping the U.S. backing loan guarantees when Israel kept thumbing its nose at the U.S. by illegally confiscating Palestinian land and settling its own people there. He did eventually reinstate the U.S taxpayer being on the hook but only after Israel backed down (for a time. They're back it with a vengeance as we speak).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[mrex]

The original FISA was quite different than the modern FISA, as a result of the PATRIOT and the FISA Amendments Act passed in 2008 and re-authorized in 2012, as well as the morphing of the FISA court (FISC) from a body that simply said "yes" or "no" to warrant requests against spies and foreign operatives, into a Star Chamber-esque court where secret legal precedents are set in ex parte hearings that lack any element of adversarialism such as the presentation of opposing arguments.

Blaming Carter for this is a bit like blaming Mendeleev for the existence of nuclear weapons because he created the periodic table of elements.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[EMG at MU]

Bear in mind

Does your mind feel a little fuzzy?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Hatta]

There weren't really any policies that Carter set out that were bad.

Selling weapons to Indonesia while they were committing genocide in East Timor is bad.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[KGIII]

He has been an excellent ex-president. Far better than as a sitting president. That's an oddity. I kind of like the guy now, also home brewers should thank him.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[MightyMartian]

The economic problems predated Carter, and while he certainly was unable to fix them, he was, after all ultimately stymied by the energy crisis of the late 1970s. As to the Afghan invasion, what exactly could he have done? At no point during the Cold War did the US contemplate direct intervention against the Soviets, save as a final nightmare scenario like an all-out invasion of Western Europe. Neither Carter, nor any other President, would have directly involved the US in Afghanistan. As to Iran, yes, he misjudged the unpopularity of the Shah, but then again, so had several administrations before him, so I fail to see how you can put your focus solely on the Carter Administration's actions surrounding Iran, seeing as he was perpetuating a policy that his predecessors had maintained for well over two decades.

Carter was hardly a perfect president, but he is a classic example of how sometimes leaders get the job at the worst of all possible moments, and ultimately no matter what they do or don't do, the situation is far larger and chaotic than any leader, particularly of a democratic state, can hope to overcome.

Carter is a damned bright guy, a helluva brighter than his immediate successor, but he was as screwed as Herbert Hoover (another very bright guy)/

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wouldn't? America hit rock bottom during his presidency, but things just went downhill from there. Nowadays one can't even make sense of the phrase "land of the free and the brave" any more. Free in what respect? Brave in what respect?

Of course, he would be sabotaged left and right in his second term just like in his first. So where'd be the point?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear in mind, Carter was a one term president, widely despised by Republicans and effectively abandoned by his own party -- unable to get many of his programs through a congress controlled by the Democratic Party

Am I the only one who thinks that only shines a *positive* light on him, if anything?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cpotoso]

Indeed, mod parent up. I can see only one really bad thing Carter did: loosing to Reagan. That started the fast decline of US democracy, along with turning the US into a banana republic (where the top 1% get everything, pay for nothing and get the lower 40% to fight wars and die in the interest of the top 1%).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ubrgeek]

> most influential

I don't know about that. After all, if it wasn't for Nixon the press wouldn't be able to append "gate" to every perceived transgression.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Horseshit. Carter was ineffective, bumbling idiot as a president, his economic policies where horible, inflation was rampant and interest rates were in the 20+ percentage area.

This is always everyone's top billing, and always the one with the least specificity. That's because it has absolutely nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with correcting runaway inflation caused by an oil embargo.

He was weak in foreign policy and our adversaries took advantage of that.

I'm glad you're specific about this, and I'll address the specific things below, but using "weak" in an discussion of foreign policy makes you seem like a neanderthal, man. It's really emotional, and in no way reflects a sensible view of the world.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and his response was to boycott the 80 Moscow games.

His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.

His only shining foreign policy moment was getting Sadat and Begin to agree on peace of which I commend him. He and his cabinet failed to recognize the threat that Iran posed once the Shaw became ill and was thrown out of power.

Oh you mean how our direct support of the Shaw in his dictatorial games through the CIA prior to that in no way lead to the Islamic Republic Seizing power and creating the theocratic nightmare we face today, right?

Other than that he was a waste of 4 years for this country.

He and Dubya will always probably be in the bottom 5, Obama will be there soon enough, just keep watching.

Yeah, comparing Carter to the "let's invade a country for no reason" Bush is totally a false dilemma. For worse presidents than carter: Garfield(institutional corruption), Bush II(literally every criticism of Obama applies to him to a greater degree, and he killed hundreds of thousands for no reason), Reagan(you're going to disagree, but come on: savings and loan + Iran Contra + deficit explosion), Nixon(literally betrayed the country for first election, secretly spied on opponents with the CIA for re-election), Jackson(trail of tears), and Buchanan(essentially caused the civil war with all his moderately pro-slavery not-caring) all easily make the list.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Mabhatter]

He had to "restore faith" that the President was a good person after Nixon totally trashed the office. In THAT he succeeded. The situation with hostages was a sycophant military to Republicans that couldn't do their jobs. while at the same time Iranians were working with Reagan's people secretly and illegally to give him the election.

Knowing what we know now, both Nixon and Reagan committed Capital crimes before they were even sworn into office. Yet somehow Carter was a bad one?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cpotoso]

Excepting his fawning over various dictators. There's an insightful saying about him: "Jimmy Carter never met a dictator that he didn't like."

You are saying complete BS. For example, Carter was one of the few US presidents who put pressure on latin America's dictatorships to try to alleviate the human rights abuses. He put an arms embargo on Argentina's dictatorship (later rescinded by Reagan, a factor that eventually lead to the Argentina-UK war in 1982).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[benzapp]

Those economic policies were necessary as the nation transitioned away from being an industrial power under the bretton woods system to an Empire that extracts money from the global economy through wall street and down to the peasants via the "service economy". His failure, if there was one, involved not using our military enough to scare the world into using USD for international trade. Subsequent presidents, regardless of party affiliation, have not had this problem. In fact, Obama might be the best one yet.

Politicians in the 1970s were still by and large honest. Even Nixon pails in comparison with Obama. Carter's failure was not believing the true horror of America - that it has a very small productive economy and thrives exclusively on plunder.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[RabidReindeer]

Mod parent up.
We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Bear in mind, Carter was a one term president, widely despised by Republicans and effectively abandoned by his own party -- unable to get many of his programs through a congress controlled by the Democratic Party (which at the time still contained a lot of southern social conservatives.)

He has worn the mantle of elder statesman and sage well since his time in office. Quite possibly one of the best educated and most greatly concerned for the american people of US presidents of the past century.

Carter always was concerned. Not only for the American people, but for people everywhere. His "Sunday School" image wasn't just a posture.

That, in a way was his downfall. Both Carter and Ford were pretty decent guys. About the only election where I thought it was a choice between who to vote for rather than whom to vote against. But they were both pretty ineffective overall. Carter did his part in reducing tensions between Israel and the Arabs (especially Egypt), and both Carter and Ford quietly kept the Evil Empire of the USSR at bay as it slowly ground itself to powder before finally collapsing at Reagan's feet.

But evidently nice guys finish last. Reagan didn't give a shit about other countries feelings, and, ironically, they respected him more for it. Bush I wasn't the disaster I'd feared, although he didn't actually do much better than Carter or Ford. Clinton was a sleazebag, but presided over one of the most peaceful and prosperous eras in US history. Then there was Dubya, who had been muttering about attacking Iraq almost from the moment he took office. Iraq was going to get slapped down anyway, since while they might have lacked usable WMDs, they had been getting more and more obnoxious in their probes against the no-fly zones even before Clinton departed. If we'd just waited another year or so, we could have gone in with the world at our backs instead of the world backing off. Which brings us to Obama, who was supposed to undo the excesses of Bush II, but has been looking more and more like Bush II revarnished.

In the mean time, while presidents came and went, the security paranoia infrastructure did not. J. Edgar Hoover was a nasty piece of work, although his spiritual predecessors were no angels. Who exactly inherited his excesses isn't totally clear to me, although the name "William Casey" seems to ring some bells. And the faceless beetle-like men developed Echelon, Prism and other programs of lesser fame. The lines between internal investigations (FBI) and external ones (CIA) blurred. They don't use the name "Total Information Awareness" any more, but that is the obvious goal.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read anything at all, I'm certain your ignorance would decrease. Good luck with that.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Your last sentence completely ruined any point you may have been trying to make. It sounds more like you simply know enough about RECENT presidents than older ones. Carter possibly included, though at least you seem to know the talking points often used to sum him up as "ineffectual".

Carter's legacy as a president is nowhere near as important as his legacy as an ex-president. A lot of people feel the need to vilify him for 4 years of his life where he basically couldn't lift the USA out of it's funk, but conveniently use that to tar everything the man has done since. That's what I'd call horseshit.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Jackson(trail of tears)

But Jackson killed the bank!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ColdWetDog]

"Even Nixon pails (sic) in comparison with Obama."

Rose colored glasses much? Or maybe too many martinis at lunch. While I'm less and less enthralled with Obama, nobody holds a candle to Nixon / Kissinger in terms of malfeasance and outright illegality.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[bill_mcgonigle]

He's no longer in the public eye, and I can't even think of the last time that Carter may have been politically relevant.

As far as I can tell, he spends his resources doing mostly non-political stuff - building homes for poor people with Habitat for Humanity and such. That's a more mature stance than trying to do good with a political system that's based on violence.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[jeffmflanagan]

Not just the American people. Man is a story-telling animal, and most of those stories are fiction.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Jackson did do some admirable things, but the genocidal actions that were the very template for the holocaust is a hard legacy to shake.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Colonel Korn]

Nixon(literally betrayed the country for first election, secretly spied on opponents with the CIA for re-election).

Don't forget that Nixon jump-started the transition from American to Chinese economic dominance.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[bill_mcgonigle]

There weren't really any policies that Carter set out that were bad.

He screwed up the ability of the nuclear industry to move to safer, clean technologies, effectively trapping the US into 1950's light water reactors. We should be using all that 'waste' as fuel by now, in safe, meltdown-proof reactors, generating all the carbon-free power the world needs instead of arguing which mountain or aquifer we're going to create a 300,000 year problem in.

Though to be fair, Clinton/Kerry/Gore/O'Leary put the nails in that coffin and Obama is keeping his foot on it. GHWB did move that ball forward, but GWB did nothing at all.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Hatta]

Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Price

So was Obama. And Kissinger. And Yasser Arafat.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[KGIII]

One of the few times I've broken my "third party rule" is to vote for Clinton. He was an effective politician and genuinely seemed to have our best interests at heart. He's the only president I've ever voted for that won. I am not sure what that says except that I generally vote third party.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

the threat that Iran posed once the Shaw became ill and was thrown out of power.

the "Shaw".

Clearly you were neither alive for the overthrow nor have you read sufficient history to have a valid opinion. You've obviously never read the word "Shah" in print if you are resorting to phonetic spelling. Quit parroting what you overheard as a child and pick up a goddamn book.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[jeffmflanagan]

I'd say the greater problem with Reagan is how he courted religious extremists, that combined with the bigots brought in by Nixon's southern strategy, led to the devolution of the Republican party into the far-right-wing circus it is today. I'd like to get back to having 2 sane parties to choose from, but I don't think the Republicans can recover since they're unwilling to show the bigots and crazies the door, and modernize their views so they can appeal to reasonable people.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ak3ldama]

People should read "Double Deal" for an ironic insight into who did not like Carter.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama won the Nobel for getting elected president. Seems it really doesn't mean much.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[jeffmflanagan]

I think the death throes of any party look like that. You get a brain-drain when everyone sensible is driven out by the extremists, which is why such a high percentage of current Republicans constantly beclown themselves by acting like poorly-raised pre-teens. There are plenty of smart former-Republicans that would come back if the religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists, and hatemongers were gone, but I don't think there's anyone sane left with enough power in the party to force reform.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[phrostie]

I have always said that Carter was the best man we’ve had in the white house in my life time.
I’m more convinced than ever.
we would be lucky to have someone of his caliber today.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[catmistake]

He screwed up the ability of the nuclear industry to move to safer, clean technologies, effectively trapping the US into 1950's light water reactors.

Your facts are in error. You are aware that President Carter is a nuclear engineer? He knew what he was doing. In actuality, whether by greed, negligence, or incompetence, it was the nuclear/energy industry itself that shit its own bed. President Carter merely delivered them the news of this.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no reason they can't be *both* a complete disaster.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[sqrt(2)]

[America] has a very small productive economy and thrives exclusively on plunder.

We are still the number one manufacturer in the world, representing a full 1/5 of all production output on the planet. It's just that the things we produce are not typical consumer goods, and so the picture you're average American gets is that we don't make anything. Your typical American doesn't use Caterpillar heavy construction equipment, Boeing or Lockheed aircraft (other than maybe flying in them), GE turbines, oil rigs, mining drills, spacecraft, or the bulk of the free world's military equipment.

Yeah, all our clothes and cheap plastic stuff is made in China, and our consumer electronics are made in Japan and Taiwan; but heavy industry, military hardware, construction equipment, resource extraction tools all over the world are stamped MADE IN USA.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[RoknrolZombie]

I don't disagree with you, but since the puppetmasters pulling the strings are political, I doubt President Carter's opinion means much. He'll get paid lip service, true enough, but his opinion is not enough to effect change in the Government.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Aerokii]

That's not what he... you know what, no. Nevermind. I like your version better.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[RoccamOccam]

I was referring to his behavior following his presidency. See http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/04/jimmy-carter-adopts-another-dysfunctional-dictator/

A quote from that article:

If countries were orphans and former presidents could adopt them, Jimmy Carter would have a foster home full of dysfunctional dictatorial states running amok under his care on a peach tree orchard in Georgia, all while he turns a blind eye to their terrifying antics.

The article provides plenty of examples of Carter visiting and promoting dictatorships in North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

He invited Ceausescu at the White House. Granted Ceausescu fooled many, the Queen of England among them ... nevertheless, he must have been a very naive person to put it mildly

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, that sounds like the first 2 years of Obama's term.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

Carter was not a disaster. Too many people speak too much about how little they know.

Carter was a Naval Academy grad who went on to serve in submarines, particuarly in the nuclear service under Rickover himself, and during his stint he was in charge of a special rescue crew that was responsible for cleaning up a failed experiemntal reactor, by actually climbing into the radioactive chamber, which they did, including himself. He went home and became a farmer, and later Governor of GA, and fairly successful and popular at that.

When he was President he didnt' just preach conservation during the energy crisis, but led by example (and when you know how rarely Prseident's do THAT!) and had solar heaters isntalled at the White House, and wore sweaters if the building were cold. You like beer? He deregulated the beer industry. Prior to that, it was illegal to run a home brewery. He also was behind the airline deregulation (which at the time was a reasonable thing...that fact that it's now swung to the opposite side of the too much/too little regulation spectrum not withstanding)

Overall, his presidency was rather uneventful. It is a tankless job that always results in at least one half the country calling you an idiot and playing armchair quarterback. on top of that, Carter was a transitionary president, the country having just gotten out of Vietnam, and the focus moving inward. Presidents in such situations especially tend to be negatively viewed, and lucky if they make it out alive with nothing major happening. Carter's only really big fumble was the botched rescue of the hostages, and that owed more to planning problems (oversights and mistakes, overly complex, too many moving parts, as well as mechanical and maintenance failuers, etc) than to the adminstration.

Carters biggest problem was a seeming lack of confidence in his own position. But since then he's continued to act as a diplomat and representive for our nation,a nd been highly successful at that as well.

He may not have been a shining star of the likes of Jefferson or Lincoln, but neither that does not make him a disaster. He was far from it, and political ideology aside, he continues to be a good example of a good American citizen who loves and serves his country.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Tharkkun]

The economic problems predated Carter, and while he certainly was unable to fix them, he was, after all ultimately stymied by the energy crisis of the late 1970s. As to the Afghan invasion, what exactly could he have done? At no point during the Cold War did the US contemplate direct intervention against the Soviets, save as a final nightmare scenario like an all-out invasion of Western Europe. Neither Carter, nor any other President, would have directly involved the US in Afghanistan. As to Iran, yes, he misjudged the unpopularity of the Shah, but then again, so had several administrations before him, so I fail to see how you can put your focus solely on the Carter Administration's actions surrounding Iran, seeing as he was perpetuating a policy that his predecessors had maintained for well over two decades.

Carter was hardly a perfect president, but he is a classic example of how sometimes leaders get the job at the worst of all possible moments, and ultimately no matter what they do or don't do, the situation is far larger and chaotic than any leader, particularly of a democratic state, can hope to overcome.

Carter is a damned bright guy, a helluva brighter than his immediate successor, but he was as screwed as Herbert Hoover (another very bright guy)/

So exactly like Obama.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[plover]

And what was wrong with the committee awarding Peace Prizes to Kissinger and Arafat? Kissinger negotiated the ceasefire in Vietnam, and pulled our troops out. Vietnam is a far more peaceful place now than it was before Kissinger signed the agreement. It maybe didn't work out so well for the "American interests" in the region, but when you look at those interests, we were only there because of the fear of the commies and the "domino effect". Those were really crappy reasons to enter someone else's civil war. Arafat had to do some serious wheeling and dealing within his own organizations and gave up a lot just to get permission to go to Oslo with Rabin, and the resultant accords were a huge step toward peace.

Maybe none of these efforts has ever created a permanent lasting land of happy peace-loving unicorns full of good will hugs, but the world isn't that kind of place. But we do know it was made better for many people due to their efforts.

However I completely agree with you that Obama was awarded it merely for being elected, kind of like a kid getting a trophy for attending baseball practice. I agree that giving it to him did nothing to hold up the reputation of the award. But it still shouldn't diminish Carter's accomplishments any.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

Ya, the "1%" rich people totally didnt exist and take advantage of political favors prior to Reagan being elected. It was like POOF! Like magic.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Wookact]

What a shitty response.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You really should. If you do not have the time or inclination to backup your views with at least something, then don't bother to participate in the conversation.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but post something besides "Durr go look it up"

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

So was Obama. And Kissinger. And Yasser Arafat.

In the words of James Hetfield... "So fucking what!?"

Regardless of the status of the Nobel Peace Prize based on several arguably poor choices in people, this does not preclude the fact that Carter has publicly worked harder on Humanitarian efforts than any other Politician of note. You can take out the NPP reference in the GP's post, rewrite the sentence to say that "Carter has put forth many valiant efforts at various..." and the overall meaning is still very much intact.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

as for losing to Reagan, while I admire both Presidents, the contest of the 1980 election was very much the shy smart kid vs the popular jock. Not that Carter was really that shy, but he got bogged down in details, and seemed afraid to use his position as The President at times but rather approached things "as a regular person". When you are President, and trying to get things done, that makes it rather harder to win any political conflicts.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

He didnt want to get us into Vietnem v2.0, ie, Afghanistan, so soon after leaving the original. Besides which, direct intervention in Afghanistion would have led to direct and open conflict with the Soviets, turning the Cold War into a Hot one, and then we really would have found out just what species could survive a nuclear war.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[jeffmflanagan]

You don't appear to understand what "rock bottom" means. Free in the sense that we can move from place to place and change jobs without checking in with the feds. We even hold our own passports and can leave the country unlike people in less-free countries. Derps who fall for wingnut media seem to have a delusion that we've lost our freedom recently, when we've always had strange restrictions like Jim Crow, and the totally bonkers drug war, and remain as free and as restricted as ever.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[plover]

> most influential

I don't know about that. After all, if it wasn't for Nixon the press wouldn't be able to append "gate" to every perceived transgression.

Nixon engineered "Watergate" while he was in office. I said Carter was the most influential ex- president.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

I agree with you mostly (other than assessment of Reagan whom I also admire alongside Carter), and you're right on most things, except this:

His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.

/quote>

Keyword being Taliban. The Taliban did not exist and come to power until the 90's. The people that we trained and supported were the Mujhadeen (spelling?), and the majoirty of them later also opposed the Taliban, though they were defeated.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[grantspassalan]

He was an intrinsically good person and the only Democrat for any public office I have ever voted for. Unfortunately, he was not very assertive and was not successful in persuading his fellow Democrats of much, so he was perceived as a do-nothing president. As far as integrity goes, he is orders of magnitude ahead of Obama.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

bloody stupid missing html tag. should read:
----
I agree with you mostly (other than assessment of Reagan whom I also admire alongside Carter), and you're right on most things, except this:

His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.

Keyword being Taliban. The Taliban did not exist and come to power until the 90's. The people that we trained and supported were the Mujhadeen (spelling?), and the majoirty of them later also opposed the Taliban, though they were defeated.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Oil prices relative to historic norm is a quite good predictor of both economic growth in the following year and people's assessment of presidential performance, much more so than the paritcular politics, policies, brain power, or charisma of the man in the White House. As single factor analysis goes, it is vastly better than one would expect. Strangely enough, most political analysts largely ignore it.

Carter was left holding the bag when oil prices hit historic highs. His policies were not fundamentally different from Nixon/Ford, who also suffered in the public's eyes.

Reagan was liked...after the oil prices came down. Perceptions of his competence were not particularly good before oil finally dropped below 50 a barrel.

HBush was actually rather well liked but oil trended upwards during his term, then trended down for Clinton's term.

WBush and Obama are presidents after the rise of China -- we are never going to see the kind of low oil prices we enjoyed in the 90s or 60s again. Never. Thus it would not be surprising if 2-3% growth is the new norm for the good years, into the foreseeable future; as a consequence, Obama and whoever takes office in 2016 are not likely to be greatly popular, even if they walk on water or raise the dead.

Things can change. If China's economy craters, oil price might drift downwards for a while. Whoever is in the White House in 2016 or 2020 might get a free bump there. Also fracking might put some significant downward pressure on energy prices. We shall see.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow the Reagan team acquired (read stole) Carter's talking points for their debate. It probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it wouldn't have made it such the landslide it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debategate

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and his response was to boycott the 80 Moscow games.

His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.

You are both off the mark. Carter quietly sent large amounts of weapons to Afghanistan. Reagan expanded an existing CIA program.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

and everything to do with correcting runaway inflation caused by an oil embargo.

You know nothing! Inflation was caused by the Federal Reserve, which should have started reducing monetary growth after 1964, when it was clear inflation was looming. They couldn't, though, because it would be politically damaging to Johnson (and later to Nixon, who famously claimed that no president is defeated for reelection because of inflation, only because of unemployment).

Nixon, of course, also eliminated the gold standard, turning the US Dollar into full fiat status. The oil embargo (OPEC) was a reaction to that, and the loss of confidence in the value of the dollar. Secret deals with Saudi Arabia solidified the petro-dollar, which OPEC was threatening to drop.

So the oil embargo was a result of the Fed and Nixon's monetary policies and the resultant run-away inflation, not the cause of it.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[faffod]

Unless you have a perfect distribution of wealth there will always be a top 1%. What has happened to the top 1% in the country since the '80's is what the parent was talking about. http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/25-graphics-showing-upward-redistribution-of-income-and-wealth-in-usa-since-1979/

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

And what was wrong with the committee awarding Peace Prizes to Kissinger and Arafat? Kissinger negotiated the ceasefire in Vietnam, and pulled our troops out.

After all, they were needed for bombing Cambodia.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Creepy]

So was Reagan - ditching the metric conversion completely ruined this country.

Seriously, though, I don't think Carter was as bad as some people make him out to be. He inherited a disaster as the economy was slipping into recession, had rampant unemployment and inflation, an oil crisis, etc. Bush 2 got a lot of the same and wasn't able to fix it, either. The main thing Carter is blamed at failing at is rescuing the Iranian hostages, but the Algiers Accord was done and ready for signing before Reagan even took office (signing it was one of his first acts). Yeah, it took way too long and he mismanaged the parts he was involved with (calling student revolutionaries terrorists and refusing to negotiate with them on those grounds didn't help). So IMO, he wasn't an effective president, but also not the pariah Republicans make of him.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't know that they "lack any element of adversarialism". ;-)

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

"Even Nixon pails (sic) in comparison with Obama."

Rose colored glasses much? Or maybe too many martinis at lunch. While I'm less and less enthralled with Obama, nobody holds a candle to Nixon / Kissinger in terms of malfeasance and outright illegality.

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell? How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS, the EPA, and other federal agencies, and have the NSA spy on them and on reporters?

Nixon never orchestrated a false flag kidnapping at a consulate, and then tried to cover it up when it went south. He never sold weapons to drug cartels. He didn't target children with drones, either. He ENDED the Vietnam war, and didn't start any others, or try to interfere with any other countries' civil unrest and internal politics.

As bad as Nixon may have been, when it comes to malfeasance and illegality, well, Obama refuses to resign, but 3 federal courts so far have already said Obama has broken the law.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[benzapp]

Actually, I study all of this in rather significant detail. Your 1/5 estimate, by any reasonable measure, is completely false.

I would encourage you to look at the GDP breakdown by industry sector, conveniently summarized in this wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

As you can see, the aggregate manufacturing output is 12% of the GDP, less than that attributed to real estate. The aggregate value of industrial production in the US is $1.7 trillion dollars. If you honestly believe the aggregate value of all manufacturing in the world is $8.5 trillion, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

The US does have some industry, but it is not relevant to the employment and purchasing power of the average citizen. Back in 1960, a substantial portion of the populace earned a solid living employed in these sectors.

The question becomes how do we have a country when so little of our economy involves the actual basics of economics - production of the necessities of life? How do we import so much crap from China and simply trade rice, wheat, and trash in return?

The answer is financialization, summarized in my previous post. I would recommend Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism: Origins and Fundamentals of US World Dominance to understand the exact mechanics of how this works.

PS: Your 1/5 number was probably true in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not going to lookup that data however.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes. Jimmy.

He shit on the banks, to kill the spiraling inflation that made the Ford years so wonderful... So the bastard got smeared by the "responsible journalism" which toadys to power.

Well, it is telling that the false "free press" of America is still at work. This laudatory statement by Carter is less significant than his paired quote: "The US has no functioning democracy at the moment".

But there's no US coverage. The story URL is from Russia Today.

CNN doesn't have a single article citing Carter on ANY this, but have four articles with Carter weighing in on Paula Dean... Go TEAM AMERICA!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ebno-10db]

[Carter] also listened to Nobel-winning economists who told him stagflation was fine for the working man, given nobody, Carter, Ford "WIN whip Inflation Now", nor Richard "Wage and Price Control" Nixon could seem to halt it. Then Reagan did.

Reagan did nothing to halt inflation. There were two factors in its decline - high interest rates from the Fed and dropping oil prices. The Fed did what it did because Carter appointed Volcker as chairman. The oil prices were not under the control of any president. If anything Reagan's budget deficits contributed to inflation (though I'm not claiming that was nearly as big of a factor as the others).

Re: +5 Insightful for

[cold fjord]

So in short, nothing done by a Democratic president is his fault. Everything bad that happens is a Republican plot, even when they aren't in power, so Republican Presidents should be executed (the implied result of committing a "capital crime"). After 35 years nothing has changed. The country is in the best of hands.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[slashmydots]

All his policies had the opposite of the desired effect because he had no idea what he was doing. He was the guy who did that gas stations close every other day type thing, right? All that did was drive down profits, drive prices higher, and piss people off. It was about as intelligent of a plan as half the crap North Korea does.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read anything at all, I'm certain your ignorance would decrease. Good luck with that.

It's nice to see an anonymous piece of shit like you taking a stand against
ignorance.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell?

Because that wasn't done by the government, much less Obama? That seems like a pretty tremendous degree of dissembling on your part.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

I didn't even accuse Reagan of being a disaster. The point was that the Carter "disaster" is a very vague idea dependent on not looking at the details.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Khashishi]

Bush is worse than Obama in many ways, but Obama outdoes him in the Big Brother department.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone said about a broken clock, "It's has the correct time twice a day."

As a former President OTUS, wouldn't he know that the USA is a representative Republic?

A half-truth, as the former POTUS has made, is a lie!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell?

Because that wasn't done by the government, much less Obama? That seems like a pretty tremendous degree of dissembling on your part.

And shows a stunning ignorance of history on your part. The Watergate break-in wasn't done by the government or Nixon, either.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Khashishi]

Clearly you were neither alive for the overthrow nor have you read sufficient history to have a valid opinion. You've obviously never read the word "Shah" in print if you are resorting to phonetic spelling. Quit parroting what you overheard as a child and pick up a goddamn book.

This is an ad graminum argument.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Khashishi]

But we've had a long history of selling weapons to pretty much anybody. Except Iran, DPRK, and Cuba, of course.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Jimmy Carter, an "elder statesman", "sage"?
Rather his is an embarrassment and a failure as a president and politician. The major news outlets regularly released stories of his incompetence (though I don't think that was their intent--it was a fact that was hard to hide).
He is equally despised figure--Democrats seem to hold him in higher disregard than Republicans.
He was educated but lacked "common sense" and was quite easily distracted (maybe he was our first ADD president)--he was a geek without any perception of the real world.

I met him once; he was with his family eating in a Thai restaurant with his family. He was quite gracious and southern. His kind hospitality to us did not change our view of him as an incompetent--we just knew from personal experience that he was a nice and transparent guy.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dkleinsc]

Some more presidents that were significantly worse than Jimmy Carter:
* Herbert Hoover (1929 made 2008 look like a picnic)
* Andrew Johnson (never won an election, basically tried to undo everything the Union had won in the Civil War, and was nearly removed from office by impeachment)
* James Madison (started an ill-advised war with the British that the US was in no position to fight, nearly destroying the country)
* Gerald Ford (also never elected, and his pardon of Nixon firmly established the precedent that the president was above the law)
* Warren Harding (probably the most corrupt president in the history of the US, also a notorious womanizer)
* Franklin Pierce (basically created Bleeding Kansas, which pushed the country towards civil war)

Re: +5 Insightful for

[MrEricSir]

*yawn*

If you're going to troll, put some effort into it, PLEASE. This is so pathetic that you're making other trolls look bad.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dkleinsc]

It is a tankless job

No it isn't: It's one of the few jobs that involves tanks in any way!

As far as his conservation efforts go, he had solar panels put up on the White House. Ronald Reagan took them down again, solely because he didn't want to look like a hippie.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[phantomfive]

Carter, Ford "WIN whip Inflation Now", nor Richard "Wage and Price Control" Nixon could seem to halt it. Then Reagan did.

It's worth mentioning that Reagan beat inflation by following Carter apointee Paul Volcker, in much the same way that Obama 'left' Iraq by following the plan of his predecessor. Although Reagan does deserve some credit for resisting the political pressure and re-appointing Volcker in 1903.......

Re:+5 Insightful for

[phantomfive]

.that fact that it's now swung to the opposite side of the too much/too little regulation spectrum not withstanding,

Really? What regulation do you wish the airline industry had that it doesn't now?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

All yet, Carter distracted himself from doing anything about real problem. He fretted about the schedule of the White House tennis courts to the point of total inactivity. He decided to wear a cardigan sweater for his "fireside" chat, to change the part in his hairstyle, to ignore the advice of his staff and political advisers and turn, instead, to the gentle genius of political philosophy that he slept with. He abandoned trying to fretting and acting (like he was trying). He was finally deemed a joke of a President by a large percentage of members of his own party and they abandoned him and the Democratic presidential candidates to years.

Jimmy Carter had integrity? He had the appearance of integrity. Look at his "integrity" in his religious life for examples of unnecessary divisiveness and betrayal. Look at his his statements about America becoming mediocre and second rate and then look at the booms and advances under Reagan and Clinton. (He was the president of "low expectations" and loserism.) Look at his depressing discouragement of the American citizenry. Look at his buffoon brother and the low quality "Billy Beer". (Admittedly, a brother is not the person but Roger Clinton was not nearly the embarrassment to Clinton as Billy was to Jimmy.)

Re:+5 Insightful for

[jedidiah]

> How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS

One can actually be attributed to the President and the other can't.

That said, Bush 2 is shameful when compared to Nixon on the environment. Nixon created an EPA that was effective and independent. Bush 2 did his best to tear it down.

You know it's bad when a president makes you nostalgiac for Nixon.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dkleinsc]

Bill Clinton also negotiated a peace settlement between Israel and Jordan in 1994 that has continued to hold up for almost 20 years now.

The primary reasons the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations fell apart were (1) Arafat wasn't willing to sign a deal without a right of return, and (2) Yitzak Rabin was killed by an Israeli Jew who believed that the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza should be part of Israel. Since then, peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine have been mostly a joke - Al Jazeera got their hands on some video of one of the sessions, where the Israelis walk in, demand a bunch of concessions, and Fatah gives them almost everything they ask for.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell?

Easy. One is confirmed, the other is still on going. Even if there's a 99.999999% he's guilty, our system is one where you are innocent until proven otherwise. It took about two years after the initial burglary before Nixon resigned.

How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS, the EPA, and other federal agencies, and have the NSA spy on them and on reporters?

Again another easy question. Nixon kept his list secret. Obama doesn't.

Obama refuses to resign, but 3 federal courts so far have already said Obama has broken the law.

Again, Nixon didn't resign until 2 years after the initial arrest of the dudes who broke in. The system being slow is a feature, not a bug. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Or do you want to take the law into your own hands? Don't answer that. The NSA (who won't like it if you do) are listening.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if people talked about the Nazi party in this way?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he's not promoting the dictatorship in the US.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Mike Frett]

Yeah Reagan was the turning point for all we see today. Fool even removed the Solar Panels Mr. Carter put on the White House, that should tell you where he stood. He was a good actor though, the sheep fell in line with him. Definitely Oscar worthy.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Politburo]

For the simple fact that the Nixon things actually happened, and the Obama ones are exaggerations or outright lies.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I was up in and around DC working for a major congress critter as a kid right out of college right when the build up to Iraq was happening. There were a few policy and military folks stressing not to go into Iraq until Afghanistan had been fully pacified, which they estimated was going to take the full effort of the US 3 - 5 years to do.

However, Europe and Russia not facing the best economies in the world were wanting to lift the sanctions against Iraq. They were chomping at the bit to recover the billions owed from the Iran-Iraq war, but to for their businesses to get in there and give a much needed shot in the arm to both economies. That didn't sit well with 43, especially after trying to arrange the killing of 41 back in the 1990's. Ultimately there were a lot of factors for going into Iraq. But I doubt very much that Iraq could have done much, outside of direct invasion of another country, that would have gotten the "world on our side". The rest of the "world" saw too much money there.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Roman Coder]

I'd like to get back to having 2 sane parties to choose from, but I don't think the Republicans can recover since they're unwilling to show the bigots and crazies the door, and modernize their views so they can appeal to reasonable people.

They can't show them to the door, they need their votes.

And they'll need them more and more as time goes on, as more new voters are registering as Democrats.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[microbox]

In office, Nixon used the power of government to suppress his rivals. Reagan committed treason by selling arms to the enemy (Iran).

I remember the Reagan era quite well. He was very popular, and in many ways a great guy. But "mistakes were made" (to use his words), and they were not minor peccadilloes. Could you imagine that hard-on that Rush Limbaugh would get if Obama was caught selling arms to Iran in order to fund a war that congress told him he couldn't have? And then imagine a dozen top Obama official being indicted, and being given a presidential pardon. Just because breaking the law isn't breaking th law if you're colluding with the president. That would cause Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, and everyone right-wingnut to blow their wad.

It amazes me that smart people sometimes choose the GOP, because they really live by the maximum "tell a lie enough and it become the truth". And they don't know how to keep the budget under control either.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Carter was a shining example of a genuinely decent person among a string of sociopaths continuing to this day. Both D and R are represented in that list.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[microbox]

Strangely enough, most political analysts largely ignore it.

They learn about it, and ultimately discard it. Want to know why? Get educated in political science to find out. There is no quick road to knowledge, but there is a quick road to opinions. You just repeat what others say (if it sounds good), and assert it's true, 'cause you know you're a smart guy and all. Simple.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ubergeek65536]

Yes there will always be the top 1%. The real issue is the enormous economic disparity between the top and the bottom. High crime rates are a direct result of that disparity.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS

One can actually be attributed to the President and the other can't.

Actually, to be perfectly accurate neither can be attributed to the President, they were both created by campaign personnel and staffers. Nixon, however, didn't enlist an army of supporters to go after his enemies, like Obama did.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Carter's problem was that he was too honest. Go back and re-read the transcript for the "Crisis of Confidence" speech again. Literally everything he said there has proven true since then. But the truth wasn't what the American People wanted to hear, so they threw him out on his ass and elected a movie actor as President, instead.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[clong83]

Maybe you're right. I have thought for awhile now that the Republican party is regrettably in a civil war, and is becoming unviable. I was once a registered (R), but no longer. And with every major election cycle, the average Republican candidate seems to get worse. To be fair, there will always be loonies in both parties so long as loonies continue to exist. The thing is, I think an intellectually healthy party controls such members effectively. You don't see some hippy named Moonbeam that wants to entirely ban guns and force non-gluten diets on everyone win very many primaries within the democratic party. Especially for major office. But the cartoonish, knee-jerk, pseudo-anarchist that wants to privatize highways seem to be gaining traction on the right. They haven't totally gotten control of the party, but they are definitely on a major upswing, and it's destabilizing the whole party.

And yet, the party persists. They may very well have a majority in both chambers in 2015. They have a solid base that will continue to keep them competitive for the forseeable future. They seem to be defying gravity, and I'm at a loss to explain how.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Ok, so you just lied. Read the damn Wikipedia article, and admit you were wrong, please.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

I'd consider acquitting Hoover, just because we hadn't yet learned how stupid laizes faire was.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Really?

Things Obama did::Similar thing Bush did

Bombed suspected foreign terrorists::Bombed an entire foreign country, twice
Used tax cuts as an ineffective stimulus::The same, but oriented entirely to the right, twice
Used FISA courts to provide warrants to spy on Americans in excess of reason:: Intentionally bypassed FISA courts to spy on Americans without warrants
Failed to shut down Guantanamo bay where prisoners were being kept illegally::Started Guantanamo with the intent of bypassing the right to a fair trial, while torturing innocent people

I don't exactly approve of Obama, he should have completely reversed a lot of the completely immoral Bush actions instead of taking them down a step, but "worse than Bush" can only come out of the mind of a crazy person.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon didn't have to target children with drones because he could just carpet-bomb them. He made the decision to expand the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia!

As for Obama "targeting his enemies" through the IRS, have you even read into the matter or are you just repeating propaganda? The story is about political groups applying for tax-exempt status, something they are not legally allowed. IRS is absolutely in the right to deny them, and do the same for liberal groups as well. One of the many things they look at when determining if an applicant is a political entity is its name - I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other keywords besides "tea party" that will have the same effect, only not everybody can fake an outrage as well as the right-wing talking heads do.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

MConnell's office was not bugged. There was no IRS and EPA enemy list. The NSA has been spying on Americans before Obama became president.

Stop watching Fox News.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Nixon ended the Vietnam war in 1975, but he also derailed the '68 Paris Peace talks for domestic political gain

Re:+5 Insightful for

[pellik]

It is a tankless job

No it isn't: It's one of the few jobs that involves tanks in any way!

Dukakis would disagree.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Guru80]

Welp...there goes EVERY U.S. President in history then. Find me one that hasn't sold weapons to one group that were ultimately used to kill another group and I'll buy all your bridges and beach front property.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[jbmartin6]

Well I can't address the rest of your statement, but Carter was not a nuclear engineer.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

http://fair.org/media-beat-column/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-behind-the-media-myth/

Re:+5 Insightful for

[clarkn0va]

Carter was left holding the bag when oil prices hit historic highs.

Talk about coming out of left field! As an Albertan, I totally didn't see that comment coming after your opening assertion.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[triffid_98]

The US does have some industry, but it is not relevant to the employment and purchasing power of the average citizen. Back in 1960, a substantial portion of the populace earned a solid living employed in these sectors.

Spot on. If you look at a modern factory in the US today we have robots doing pretty much all of the work. You've got Jose running the forklift and Bill in accounting and that's pretty much it. If companies couldn't do that for their product they outsourced it...and now we're all working at Starbucks or selling wheat futures. Go team USA.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Comrade Ogilvy]

In fact, I have a pretty good guess. "My guy in the White House is doing well, but it is just good luck of the oil prices, no great choice on his part." "Their guy in the White House is doing badly, but it is just the bad luck of the oil prices, not really the particular policies I dislike." Not the kind of thing anyone would pay a pundit to say. That kind of honesty gets weeded out quickly, if they ever stumble upon the truth. It has lousy narrative value in both the worlds of infotainment and political brawling.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cffrost]

Here's another one, if you care to read it: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey [2013-07-16]

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you have a perfect distribution of wealth there will always be a top 1%.

Obviously, but in some countries the "top 1%" is not much different from, say, the top 25%.

It is good to have a mix of richer and poorer people - it means the poor can work to become richer. Which can't happen in a system where everybody is perfectly equal.

But we don't want a system with 1% tremendously rich and 99% poor. Too many of the poor will have too little to loose - and might turn to crime. Some rich people, a large middle class, and only a few poor is usually better.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[cold fjord]

I'm here to inform, not entertain. But I can see why people think your views are funny.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

He made the decision to expand the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia!

Actually, that already happened under Johnson, who authorized surveillance missions into the region. Nixon actually refused to go into Cambodia when the generals first suggested it, but changed his mind after the Mini-Tet offensive when Saigon was attacked. His overall policy, though, was moving toward an exit strategy and withdrawal.

The story is about political groups applying for tax-exempt status, something they are not legally allowed.

You mean like OFA? Oh, no, wait... they got their tax exempt status right away, while other groups still don't have an answer after three years. Yes, I'm sure it's nothing to do with politics.

The outrage isn't fake, it's stirred up (probably intentionally) by fucktards like you spouting the kind of bullshit that you just did.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[bkmoore]

Unfortunately, I suspect the only reason he's spoken up about it is that he doesn't have anything left to lose. He's no longer in the public eye.....

The biggest fear of any congressman or senator is losing the next election. Whenever funding for the NSA, Defense, CIA, DOHS, etc. comes up they all vote for it. To vote against it is to risk being portrayed as "soft" or "weak" against terrorists. If there is a terror attack, then in the next election, you would run the risk of being accused of being "responsible" for the attack of of being a closet "terrorist". That's probably what Ex-President Carter meant by saying that democracy is no longer functioning in the U.S.

According to a recent opinion article in Der Spiegel, 150 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9-11, almost all of them while outside of the U.S. To put this in perspective that's half as many Americans as have been killed by having a TV-set fall on their heads. But there's no Department of Homeland Television-Set Wall-Mount Security, but maybe there should be.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[faffod]

Did you look at the numbers that I provided a link for? In the 80's we we much closer to what you are advocating than we are today.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Kissinger was also a key figure in the 'secret wars' in Laos and Cambodia.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

Ok, so you just lied.

How so? There's a lot of speculation in the article you posted (there is a warning at the top about "Original research" violations), but it basically says G. Gordon Liddy was the principal orchestrator involved. Liddy was working for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, a fund-raising organization part of the political campaign. So that wasn't "the government", and it certainly wasn't Nixon that did it, even if you want to speculate about how much he may have known about it.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Nope, you didn't admit it. Done talking to you.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[sjames]

Actually, he's probably been one of our best ex-presidents. Rather than making commercials or getting back into under the table business deals, he has worked with Habitat for Humanity and has overseen democratic elections around the world. When he says we have no functioning democracy, he says it from a professional viewpoint.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Rakarra]

Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Price for his efforts at various hot spots around the world

So what? Are you under some allusion that the Nobel Peace Prize means anything anymore?
Hey, Carter might have actually deserved the honor, but the Nobel Peace Prize is no metric of success anymore.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Reagan was the turning point for all we see today. Fool even removed the Solar Panels Mr. Carter put on the White House, that should tell you where he stood. He was a good actor though, the sheep fell in line with him. Definitely Oscar worthy.

You hit the nail on the head. Rather - you are the nail.

The Bush administration has installed the first-ever solar electric system on the grounds of the White House. The National Park Service, which manages the White House complex, installed a nine kilowatt, rooftop solar electric or photovoltaic system, as well as two solar thermal systems that heat water used on the premises.

Source.

Rather than present Carter, Reagan, Obama et al as 'just guys of varying attributes', you instead made a big-ass statement by omitting key facts. The Carter panels were removed as part of a remodel (1986, so well into the 2nd term), not so much a political statement. The Carter panels cost about $30,000 which - had they bought gold - might be worth a quarter million today.

You're playing the "red-vs-blue" thing very well and I'm sure your masters are pleased.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

And then imagine a dozen top Obama official being indicted, and being given a presidential pardon. Just because breaking the law isn't breaking th law if you're colluding with the president.

Look forward to Rick Perry as president. He can't issue presidential pardons right now, but he sure as hell can line item veto funding for prosecutors who investigate his friends. He's coming, and he's got the R nod stamped all over him.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

>He also listened to Nobel-winning economists who told him stagflation was fine for the working man, given nobody, Carter, Ford "WIN whip Inflation Now", nor Richard "Wage and Price Control" Nixon could seem to halt it. Then Reagan did.

Wrong. Carter appoint Paul Volcker to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve and it was Volcker's monetary policies that arrested the inflation. Reagan just happened to be along for the ride. Also, Reagan ultimately appointed Alan Greenspan, a failed economist even then, to the Federal Reserve chair in 1987. We all know how badly the US economy has been hollowed out during Greenspan's co-stewardship (with Congress) of the economy. Should I also mention Greenspan, during the Reagan years, was the one who came up with the plan to raid the Social Security trust to fund current liabilities?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[mwehle]

Stating Kissinger pulled US troops out of Vietnam is inaccurate. You may want to read Hersh's Price of Power or one of any number of other volumes on Kissinger or Vietnam for a look at Kissinger's role.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[mwehle]

Reagan's team negotiating with Tehran to delay release of the hostages certainly contributed to Carter's loss also.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an ad graminum argument

Writing about "the Shaw of Iran" is like writing about "the Linux Colonel". It's not merely a typo; it's a neon sign that the author has zero fucking clue about the subject.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[kenaaker]

Well Rick Perry is certainly stupid enough to qualify for the GOP nomination. Now all he needs is the ventriloquist dummy surgery that W. had.

The question is who's hand is going to be running Governor Goodhair's mouth. I don't think Cheney's up for it this time.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Darinbob]

Carter was in a bad place essentially, there was no way he could be effective. Essentially it was guaranteed that a democrat was going to get elected after the Nixon scandal, and yet the politics of the time were favoring republicans. So he goes into office with a congressional majoirty that doesn't want anything to do with him. Simultaneously there is huge inflation, there's the oil embargo going on, and the person in office always gets the blame for those sorts of things regardless of the cause.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Immerman]

Do you really think they'd vote Democrat instead? So the question really is whether their voting turnout would be significantly lower if they weren't catered to, and while it's anecdotal evidence most of the bigots and crazies I've dealt with tend to share a burning desire to "do something" about their pet causes - like getting out to vote for the least-bad candidate with a chance of winning. Okay, admittedly some might not care so much about the "chance of winning" part and vote third-party, which might cost the Rs some votes. I'm sure Limbaugh et. al. could keep most of them in line though.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I am not a fan of Carter as a president (actually it's long enough ago, that I was too young to have any real perspective on his presidency), but certainly what I know of his actions since he's left the office has been consistently admirable and charitable.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have offered support to the Soviets, instead of providing weapons and support for Afghan mijahedden. Would have saved a lot of lives of doctors, nurses and teachers that Soviet Union sent to help people of Afghanistan, and who were murdered by the "freedom fighters".That could possibly have prevented a need to hunt for Osama 22 years later.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Darinbob]

Hoover and Carter were also similar in that they seemed better suited as technocrats than as politicians, concerned about finding the solutions and understanding the complexities involved rather than aiming for popular decisions.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

But we've had a long history of selling weapons to pretty much anybody. Except Iran, DPRK, and Cuba, of course.

The US sold weapons to Iran while the Shah was in charge. There's a reason they have a whole bunch of F-14s.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[alexander_686]

Classic correlation does not equal causation. From what I have read, there were 2 major factors. Technology / Internet and Tax Policy / Increase of the Financial sector (and its assets) – f these 2 things have had huge effects on our economy and both really started in the 80s..

Now, how much credit do we want to give Reagan? He had help from Democrats every step of the way. Clinton also pushed through legislation that was the same order of magnitude (but maybe not the same level of effect).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, actually, by all definitions, President Carter is indeed a nuclear engineer.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Uberbah]

The Clinton issue was a failure by Arafat to pull the trigger and sign the deal for various reasons.

The "various reasons" being the constant moving of goalposts by the Israelis, who also wanted complete control over water rights. And that's even after the Palestinians agreed to let Israel keep large parts of land outside the Green Line, which Israel has no right to.

Israel doesn't want peace. It wants land and control, and peace gets in the way of that.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[faffod]

My comment was directed at the comment

Ya, the "1%" rich people totally didnt exist and take advantage of political favors prior to Reagan being elected. It was like POOF! Like magic.

The 1% did exist before Reagan, but they are a lot more oneprecenty today. Regardless of why.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Darinbob]

I'll give more credit to Buchanan tough. He tried to prevent civil war. That is, he preferred to respond to the South starting the war rather than having it be started by the North. He certainly made some mistakes of course, but it was impossible for any president in that spot to stave off the civil war. If he kept Kansas out of the union, or by some miracle prevented it from being a slave state, it would only have delayed the war. He was not liked by his own party, but his own party was deeply divided and close to splitting. A staunch anti-slavery president would have hastened the war. Certainly he wasn't a great president but there were a lot who were worse.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

So fucking the american people over which started the decline of our Industrial base was good for us? He was an idiot as a president although he's found a niche as a humanitarian and can laugh at subsequent administrations for their follies. Leadership means leading not sitting there like some pussy while every country on the planet was taking pot shots at us on every front. There was old Jimmy just playing the role of the country rube.

I will say this though, building houses seems to have done his physical health better than Herb Walker there who loves to golf. Lesson: For old age longevity build houses and don't golf.

Oh scary, scary thought, he served one term, he could run again!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Darinbob]

Hmm, mispoke. Congress was democratic during his term. However congress was not necessarily liberal at the time and there wasn't that big shift into democrat=left=liberal and republican=right=conservative that we have today. The big problem may be that Carter didn't play the game of horse trading and quid pro quo which alienated congress; however he was elected essentially to clean up the office rather than do business as usual.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Uberbah]

Could we get some winger trolls that are a little less willfully ignorant please?

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell?

1. Someone walking by and recording a conversation with a handheld device isn't "bugging", it's "eavesdropping". No device left in the room? Then it's not bugged.

2. Obama is responsible for the actions of every democrat in the country now? In that case, which republican is responsible for James O'Keefe's actual attempt to bug a senator's office?

How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS, the EPA

You do know that democratic groups were not just given equal scrutiny by the IRS, but that the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a democratic group? And this all happened under a Bush appointee to the IRS?

As for the EPA, you mean the agency where the Obama Administration had to be taken to court to actual enforce EPA regulations rather than giving industry a free pass? That EPA?

He ENDED the Vietnam war

You mean Ford ended the war.

He didn't target children with drones, either.

Finally you get to something that isn't from 'bagger la la land. It's not like Obama hasn't pulled enough real right-wing power grabs without having to make up stupid bullshit about the IRS or the EPA. It's like you guys will lose your winger merit badges if your attacks aren't 90% bullshit.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Uberbah]

So exactly like Obama.

Only if Carter would have made every effort to maintain Too Big To Fail, prosecuted fewer bankers than Reagan/Bush did for the far smaller S&L crisis, and decided the way to restore prosperity to the middle class was to cut their Social Security benefits.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

plover, completely agree with you on Carter. He is if nothing else a very exceptional humanitarian. With all due respect for what he as done I disagree with him on this.

Snowden felt he could be our Hero by revealing something that we all ready know. He thinks he's mentally superior, he wanted to help us letting us in on something we were all to dumb to realize. Nothing but a dropout and looser, Snowden deserves prison life.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fustakrakich]

On the face of it he did the right thing, but he didn't finish the job. He's holding out on us. *sigh* Yet another tiresome game of charades. It's beginning to sound like another honeypot, like Manning's, or a ploy by mass media for higher ratings and ad rates. I sure don't expect any change in future elections. All these scandals since Nixon, and republicans and democrats are still running the show for their corporate masters.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Hatta]

Why does that excuse complicity in genocide?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Hatta]

Welp...there goes EVERY U.S. President in history then.

Quite true. Not one president in living memory (I'm not historian enough to say "in history") has clean hands. Decent Americans should be ashamed.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

Oh please spare your bleeding heart bullshit. At a time when we needed a leader we got a dumbfuck who was inept at everything:

1) There was an Embargo in 1973 and in 1977. The difference between those two, we had better leadership in the WH in 1973 than in 1977. Great leaders work around problems, motivate their constituents and forge ahead. Carter layed there like a bowl of jello. He couldn't forge alliances and he didn't reach out to try and bridge the gaps. Yes there's hate in the Middle East, there was hate before so I can't blame him for that and instead of in 1977 he waited till 1979 to promote domestic production by deregulation of oil prices. Something the Industry had been clamoring for since 1973. At least he learned from his first mistake.

2) Interest rates were rampant, that's failed economic policies and the president sets the agenda. He had a willing congress who'd pass is legislative agenda, but he didn't lead. Inaction in this case led to the biggest drop in our standard of living

3) His foreign policy failings led to the invasion of Afghanistan because the Soviets saw an opportunity with the turmoil in Iran and the US helpless to stop them. The US couldn't build a coalition and the only response we had "boycott the olympics" Who didn't go? Oh yeah I think it was just us a handful of nations. Hell he even sent Mohammad Ali to convince African Nations to boycott the games. Even the British went to the games! That was his diplomacy; what a fucking joke.

4) The US had interests in Iran, we f*d up with the CIA and by helping the British but in for a penny in for a pound and we abandoned our allies at their time of need and got a radical regime instead. The Shaw was horrible and he did horrible things to his people but the way we just sat there and said "Meh" gave all of our other allies in the world a chance to think and say "They didn't step in to help? What happens if I'm in trouble?" Supporting Dictators and repressive regimes is bad but you also don't turn your back on friends. I can't blame him for what happened in Iran but I can blame every president since for not even trying to heal that wound.

5) Give him credit for the Camp David Accords, that was good work but he ignored everything else and tried to tell Americans out of work, with prices skyrocketing that he was good leader.

The country was poorer and still is because of his tenure in office. Even his "malaise" speech showed that he was a defeatist and not a leader.

He's done good work since then but you still can't paint over the fact that he was a bumbling idiot. History may paint a rosier picture of him but living with him as our president was a bad bad time. People were even longing for Gerald Ford, he was so bad. His end approval rating was in the low 34%. Put that into perspective: Even the people who voted for him thought he sucked, Democrats, Independents and Republicans after 4 years. He does share that with Dubya but more people in Dubya's case were against him vs. undecided. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/final_approval.php but it took 8 years to get that kind of coverage.. So, twice as bad as Dubya? Maybe...

Obama is on his way there now... just watch.

[quote]
The Presidential Leadership Index fell to 43.2 from 48.9 a month earlier. The 11.7% slide was the worst since Obama took office. For the fourth straight month, the reading stood below 50, signaling disapproval.
[/quote]

And he's not even done with his first year of his second term. Let's all give him a round of applause folks!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

"Only Nixon could go to China" - Spock

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

You're timeline is messed up.

in 1973 we had an oil embargo
in 1977 we had another oil embargo followed by an energy crisis in 1979. Let's see Carter was in office from the end of January 1977 till mid January 1980. He failed to listen to the oil industry and yes, we were very dependent on them at that point in time and we still are. Much like how Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex, Carter warned us about our dependency on foreign oil. Good on him but he failed to deal with the problems until the 1979 crisis when he finally deregulated oil and gas prices which promoted production. Unfortunately that was at the end of his presidency and merely putting solar panels on the White House does not a policy make. He did change the name of the AEC to the DOE but that's about it.

Afghanistan happened late in his presidency. A weak US, which we were both in terms of the problems in Iran and elsewhere encouraged Soviet aggression. The world watched as the Soviets invaded. Yeah sure that inept organization, the UN passed resolutions but the security council did nothing because the Soviets are permanent members. A nice FU to world diplomacy. Carter's response: Boycott the Olympics, send Ali to Africa that'll show 'em. You know what, I don't give a flying F about Afghanistan. Their main export is Opium and frankly, if it was now South Moscow I wouldn't have cared. Maybe we were stupid in arming the Taliban in the 80s but you know Old Ron Dog's Approval Ratings in office and after are still significantly higher than that retarded Peanut Farmer's. Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

He was the Jello President.. Possibly Lime Green...

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

Albertan? I thought that was like Northern Montana sheep land? Doesn't that make you a Canadian or are you from another planet? ;-)

Re:+5 Insightful for

[clarkn0va]

We should probably just rename the province to "Tarsand". Instant brand recognition!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

ROFLMAO Tarsand Alberta Canada!

I like it. We can have a new reality series on the History Channel: "Black Tar Sand Truckers Flipping Houses with Ghosts"

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Another paid for comment by the Carter Foundation.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Carter who?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Macchendra]

Contrary to popular belief, President George H.W. Bush was not all that terrible of a President or political operator.

Haldeman, knew that when Nixon told him to say “the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." he was talking about the Kennedy assassination. And Nixon told him to say that because the same players were involved. So why does the director of the FBI write this memo if Bush wasn't the "go to" guy in the CIA for the anti-Castro Cubans??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_Sr,_JFK_-_J_Edgar_Hoover_memo_2.jpg

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

CIC spook Kissinger started several wars and stopped one. That one he started also. An agent of NY financ

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran is America's enemy just like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In fact Iran is a nuisance to Israel and they fuck you brains, my dear Americans. When it is not fucked by the Wahabists of Saudi-Arabia who crash into your towers and detonate pressure cookers.

Get a fecking education, colonists.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I guess Iran kidnapped all those F14s (as in "Top Gun") they still operate. Again, get an education and stop believing in the NY class propaganda. You might look up what your country did to a certain Mossadeq and what his function was.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you could add Eisenhower to that list but he's probably before your time.

dfw

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

The ratio of statesman to politician is a lot higher in Carter than it is in Obama.

dfw

Re: +5 Insightful for

[MrEricSir]

If you're here to inform, maybe you should start by informing me why you're not putting much effort into your trolling? Is it so hard to actually, you know, try? Why are you so lazy?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[PrimeNumber]

Kissinger only negotiated after realizing the US would ultimately lose the war. Kissinger was the person that convinced Nixon the war could be won instead of a peace deal and withdrawal of troops as Nixon had promised during his campaign. Oddly enough at the end of the war, the deal agreed upon was essentially the same deal offered to the US years earlier, only Nixon and Kissinger had the hubris and lack of empathy to sacrifice thousands of Americans and nearly half a million innocent Vietnamese lives.

So when it is all said and done, fucking Kissinger doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace prize either.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

Could we get some winger trolls that are a little less willfully ignorant please?

Back at you, Obamabot.

1. Someone walking by and recording a conversation with a handheld device isn't "bugging", it's "eavesdropping". No device left in the room? Then it's not bugged.

Yet Curtis Morrison admitted bugging the McConnell office.

2. Obama is responsible for the actions of every democrat in the country now? In that case, which republican is responsible for James O'Keefe's actual attempt to bug a senator's office?

He's exactly as responsible as Nixon was for G. Gordon Libby's actions.

You do know that democratic groups were not just given equal scrutiny by the IRS, but that the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a democratic group?

That's pretty disingenuous to delay, repeat continually more and more probing questions over the course of up to 3 years in some cases, and then claim "but none were denied. Yea, technically true, I guess. I don't know what denial you're referring to (probably an Occupy group - anything populist is viewed a threat to the statists in charge), site if you have it. But I do know that OFA got their tax-exempt status quickly and without a hitch, in spite of being "politically inclined", which was exactly the excuse stated for targeting the Tea Party / Liberty groups.

And this all happened under a Bush appointee to the IRS?

I don't think W appointees are any more ethical than Obama appointees. At best, maybe some of them were savvy enough to hide it better.

As for the EPA, you mean the agency where the Obama Administration had to be taken to court to actual enforce EPA regulations rather than giving industry a free pass? That EPA?

There are plenty of favored industries under the Obama Administration, probably just as many as there were under Bush, but most were different companies (other than some banks and Wall Streeters). So that's not surprising. But we were talking about using agencies for targeting political enemies, not providing favors. Stuff like this.

You mean Ford ended the war.

As Vice President? You'll have to explain that, or admit you're wrong. The United States officially ended its military involvement in Vietnam on March 29, 1973, and Nixon didn't resign until August 9, 1974.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cffrost]

On the face of it he did the right thing, but he didn't finish the job. He's holding out on us.

You're referring to Snowden's unreleased documents and his cautiousness in regard to "harming US interests," versus supplying us with the facts we need to accurately identify other crimes and the full extent of those we've learned about? (Assuming I've gotten your meaning,) I agree to a certain extent; as long as the hypocrites in government — and the governed who buy their bullshit — are throwing around labels such as "traitor" and "criminal," perhaps he should go ahead with a complete disclosure of all documents.

On the other hand, a lot of Snowden supports (particularly, prominent public figures) would likely withdraw their support or turn against him for doing so, as the caution he's exercised is frequently brought up in his defense. I don't know how important that support is to Snowden, or how it might affect his ability to remain free/safe/alive. Also, I can't speculate on the gravity of the undisclosed information; that is, if the abuses are serious enough (in contrast to what we've learned so far) to turn the public's attention away from the messenger and back to the message. I have a hard time criticizing his methods, considering what he's already sacrificed (e.g., his home, personal relationships, etc.) and what he has at stake (i.e., his life).

One last thing I'd like to add regarding Snowden's (and Glen Greenwald's) methods: I think the way the leaks have been trickled have been superb, for two reasons: 1) They've helped keep these violations in the consciousness of a public with a very short attention span, and 2) they've given us some opportunities to catch government officials lying in regard to the extent of their abuses.

Yet another tiresome game of charades. It's beginning to sound like another honeypot, like Manning's, or a ploy by mass media for higher ratings and ad rates.

Could you please elaborate (particularly in regard to honeypot(s))? Are you suggesting that Manning's (and possibly Snowden's) leaks are part of a planned disinformation campaign? I'd like to discuss this further if you could please clarify (either here or your journal).

I sure don't expect any change in future elections. All these scandals since Nixon, and republicans and democrats are still running the show for their corporate masters.

I won't argue with you there, but I'll continue to do what I've been doing for most of my life: Voting third-party, donating to ACLU, talking to friends and family, and refuting government/corporate propaganda when and where I see it repeated. What else can I do? My resources are extremely limited, and while the fight I help give may be weak and destined to fail, I can't just roll over and do nothing — the least I can do is not help them, ya know?

Re: +5 Insightful for

[fustakrakich]

I'm here to inform, not entertain.

The result is precisely the opposite. Don't quit your day job...

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Kissinger orchestrated massive illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos killing roughly one million civilians. He also aided Pinochet's coup in Chile. A peace treaty in Vietnam was negotiated and on the verge of being signed before Nixon sabotaged it in order to help him win his first successful presidential bid.

Arafat encouraged his own people to carry own suicide terrorist attacks (to their own great detriment not to mention the Israeli targets). His engagement in the peace process was entirely cynical.

As for Obama, not only did he not deserve the prize when awarded, he went on to embrace a program of assassination by drones in the context of a borderless, never-ending, undeclared war.

The prize doesn't have the best track record. Maybe its committee could improve its image by retroactively stripping undeserving prior recipients of their prizes.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think they'd vote Democrat instead?

Historically, yes. Minorities of different types, and there are more and more of them (vs. non-minorities), as time goes on.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Zontar The Mindless]

Anybody got some popcorn?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Zontar The Mindless]

I like Jell-O. Especially the lime green.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

carter == gus grissom

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Zontar The Mindless]

How about, "Don't make friends with dictators"?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Zontar The Mindless]

Leadership means leading not sitting there like some pussy while every country on the planet was taking pot shots at us on every front.

I always thought "leadership" meant things like "making rational decisions for the benefit of society" and "providing a positive example for others to follow", not "living up to Virtucon's ideal of cowboy masculinity".

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Zontar The Mindless]

Writing about "the Shaw of Iran" is like writing about "the Linux Colonel". It's not merely a typo; it's a neon sign that the author has zero fucking clue about the subject.

A-fucking-Men. Wish I had some mod points this morning for ya.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Zontar The Mindless]

This is an ad graminum argument.

And that is nonsense.

In and of itself, this is not surprising, but it does point up very nicely the fact that you apparently have no qualms about just making shit up.

P.S. I believe the phrase you were looking for is ad grammaticam. Cheers.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even think Nixon knew about the Watergate break-in before it happened. Nixon's fault in the whole thing was trying to cover it up after the fact.

dfw

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

You've obviously never seen "Brokeback Mountain." LOL

You've never been in the Military or in a position of authority. You empower your people and you lead, you set the direction, you set the tone but you do the job. He exposed this nation to greater risks while all the time he made us weaker. You don't just get elected a sit there like jello.. And I already know you like lime green jello.. And I'll get more toll points yeah!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Zontar The Mindless]

I have SO been waiting for this to come up.

Thank you, AC!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[betterprimate]

True. And GDPs are misleading and not a representation of the economical health of a country. Take a look at Mexico, Brazil, or India for that matter. These countries among many are dependent economically and politically upon American industry and imperialism via governmental aid, corporate outsourcing, and sometimes even diplomatic strength. This has been the case in the Americas prior to Lincoln (I will not open that can of worms).

The U.S. is a weird beast and the world's perspective is skewed; many of the good foreign relations the U.S. has accomplished are overshadowed by it's horrific failures caused by executive overreach (e.g. by W and the neocons, Reagan and the neocons, and now Obama and the neoliberal imperialists.)

Here's an example close to home.... For all the shit that Obama receives from "selling guns to the drug cartels". Did you know under the Obama Administration, more Mexican cartel kingpins have been captured? Did you know Mexico has not once caught a drug lord or even the small fry? The drug cartels were curtailed by U.S. intelligence (something Calderon begged for and then took credit for politically even though barely funded a dime to his "drug war"). U.S. federal agents and intelligence led and oversaw *every* Mexican operation. I say "saw", as in past tense, because Nieto is now in power, bringing with him PRI's abuse of power, corruption, and cartel connections. Consequently, Nieto will not collaborate with the U.S. intelligence but wants to establish one corrupt agency, one filter for the U.S. to freely *and remotely* provide intelligence to (the U.S. demands vetting any correspondent prior to giving access to intelligence). Oh, yeah, did I mention who is to lead Nieto's agency? One who has a proven track record of corruption, criminal accusations, and notoriously tied to the drug cartels.

Another fun fact: In some areas in Mexico, since Nieto took power, homicides rates have risen over 200%, journalists are threatened or paid off (U.S. journalists included) to look the other way. Since the first month since Nieto took office phrases like "organized crime" in Mexican media fell by 75% while crime rates rose throughout Mexico by at least 75%.

You see, sometimes the U.S. does great and good deeds that anyone with half a brain and heart would applaud. These deeds are boring; only great terrific overreaches of power based upon political ideologies and imperial expansion make the news.

In short, we need to rein in executive powers, stick to the constitution, keep and reform agencies whose sole purpose is either state welfare and social justice. Everything else is not in interest nor representational to this Republic or its founding fathers. And don't give lip service towards the "spirit of law"; nothing has ever been accomplished or created with "spirit of law"; law has no spirit. We do. The American people do; and the most American patriotic thing to do is to distrust our government but love our brothers.

I'm done. ;) I know most of this isn't a direct response to your post; it's directed to the myriad of hysteric posts that are distrustful against and hostile towards their fellowman.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

No, good point but also don't sell sophisticated weaponry to an ally that's unstable...

[quote]
Carter entered office in 1977 with pledges to "moralize" U.S. arms
sales, saying that the U.S. should not be "the first supplier to
introduce into a region newly developed advanced weapon systems which
could create a new or significantly higher combat capability." At the
same time, Carter continued his predecessors' policies of approving
large weapons sales to Iran. In fact, the arms sales to Iran appear
to have accelerated under Carter. Total U.S. arms sales to Iran for
the Nixon/Ford term of 1972-76 were $10.4 billion. During the Carter
administration and "before the Shah fled the country on January 16,
1979 he had placed orders with US contractors for an additional $12.2
billion of military hardware, with deliveries to be spread over the
following three years.
[/quote]

http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/fanning_ch5.htm

[quote]
Like his predecessors, Carter was willing to overlook the shah's violations of human rights. To demonstrate American support, Carter visited Iran in late December 1977. He applauded Iran as "an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world" and praised the shah as a great leader who had won "the respect and the admiration and love" of his people.

The shah was indeed popular among wealthy Iranians, but in the slums of Teheran and in rural, poverty?stricken villages, there was little respect, admiration, or love for his regime. Led by a fundamentalist Islamic clergy and emboldened by want, the masses of Iranians turned against the shah and his westernization policies. In the early fall of 1978 the revolutionary surge in Iran gained force. The shah, who had once seemed so powerful and secure, was paralyzed by indecision, alternating between ruthless suppression and attempts to liberalize his regime. In Washington, Carter also vacillated, uncertain whether to stand firmly behind the shah or to cut his losses and prepare to deal with a new government in Iran.

In January 1979, the shah fled to Egypt. Exiled religious leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini returned to Iran, preaching the doctrine that the United States was the "Great Satan" behind the shah. Relations between the United States and the new Iranian government were terrible, but Iranian officials warned that they would become infinitely worse if the shah were granted asylum. Nevertheless, Carter permitted the shah to enter the United States for treatment of lymphoma. The reaction in Iran was severe.

On November 4, 1979, Iranian supporters of Khomeini invaded the American embassy in Teheran and captured 66 Americans, 13 of whom were freed several weeks later. The rest were held hostage for 444 days and were the objects of intense political interest and media coverage.

Carter was helpless. Because Iran was not a stable country in any recognizable sense, its government was not susceptible to pressure. Iran's demands--the return of the shah to Iran and admission of U.S. guilt in supporting the shah--were unacceptable. Carter devoted far too much attention to the almost insoluble problem. The hostages stayed in the public spotlight in part because Carter kept them there.

[/quote]

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1079

We should have stopped supporting the Shaw a long time before he was finally kicked out. It's been the same story with every repressive regime we've ever had ties to. For whatever politically expedient object we were after, we've created deep rooted animosity. We're not alone and we followed the model other nations had done.
Our nation has had many leaders but not all of them have had a chance to distinguish themselves beyond life in public office. Lincoln won the Civil War and freed the slaves. Washington fought valiantly against the Brit

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dryeo]

Gerrymandering?

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation with hostages was a sycophant military to Republicans that couldn't do their jobs.

No idea what that's even supposed to mean.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dryeo]

Get caught pissing in some bushes and those rights are gone for the rest of your life and the reasons for removing those rights have been expanding as long as I can remember.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking Kissinger doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace prize either.

And for that very reason, neither Ann Fleischer nor Nancy Maginnes received the Nobel Peace prize.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

You do know that democratic groups were not just given equal scrutiny by the IRS, but that the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a democratic group? And this all happened under a Bush appointee to the IRS?

As it turns out, the commissioner was appointed during the Bush presidency, but was actually a Democratic technocrat from K Street, selected by Max Baucus. He's a Democrat and a active supporter of the Democratic party. At the time (2008), the senate was controlled by Democrats. The IRS Commissioner gets a 5-year appointment, and the Democrats would not confirm an appointee selected by Bush, suggesting he appoint an "acting" commissioner instead. But the law only allows an acting commissioner to serve a couple of months. So Bush made a deal with Baucus, who selected Shulman. His wife works for a far-left progressive organization and actively campaigned for Obama. So it seems that even though the commissioner was appointed during Bush's term, he is a Democrat and supporter of Obama. That's even more telling since Baucus was one of the senators that wrote a letter to the commissioner asking that they apply more scrutiny to applications of 501(c) groups.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

rofl. someone who thinks that was actually the case modded me troll. hilarious.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

that is bullshit

Re:+5 Insightful for

[X0563511]

Even if he was, that doesn't make him wrong.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Brave? I just has nothing left to lose (but his mind) at his age...

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Hitler, Satan and Charles Manson.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it took a serious Leader to give the 'Malaise' Speech. Truth telling is a sign of strength, not defeatism. Defeatism is Nixon waving his snarky, two-faced 'peace signs' at the door of his plane as his sorry ass was run out of town.

Carter was the last who demostrated what's actually missing today: Leadership. What you see as a Carter negative - because you live in a 'rainbows and unicorns' version of America - I actually see as the most ballsy thing ANY president has done since Eisenhower's parting 'Military Industrial Complex' warning speech.

Of all the things the President should do, is to actually tell us the straight dope, not sugarcoat things in any way. The POTUS is supposed to be 'The People's Champion', and Carter was the last one who ever dared to think himself as such.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Hognoxious]

Because sky-rocketing interest rates during his administration put a lot of small businesses OUT of business, including my father's company.

You yourself used the word during. Hate to rain on your parade, but there are forces in the global economy that the POTUS can't control or even influence.

A company that had been in business for over 120 years prior to Mr Carter and had weathered the Great Depression and had a solid customer base.

If the rest of your family are as bright as you, it's a miracle it lasted a week.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Presto Vivace]

New October Surprise Series

The latest evidence of a history-changing Republican dirty trick in 1980 and its precursor in 1968. (For earlier articles about the October Surprise mystery, go to “Archives” at the Home Page and click on ”October Surprise X-Files.”) Second Thoughts on October Surprise: New evidence has shaken the confidence of former Rep. Lee Hamilton in his two-decade-old judgment clearing Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign of going behind President Carter’s back to frustrate his efforts to free 52 U.S. hostages in Iran, the so-called October Surprise case, Robert Parry reports. What a Real Cover-up Looks Like: Republicans won’t let go of their conspiracy theory about some nefarious “cover-up” in “talking points” for Ambassador Susan Rice’s TV interviews on the Benghazi attack. But they should at least have better skills for detecting a real cover-up, since they’ve had direct experience, as Robert Parry documents.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Uberbah]

Back at you, Obamabot.

Like I said the first time: could we get some winger trolls that are a little less ignorant? Bush should be in the Hague for war crimes, with Obama in the docket right next to him. That's after he's impeached, of course, for violating both the Constitution and the War Powers Act for starting a war with Libya without Congressional authorization.

See, that's what's nice about not being a partisan hack. You can call bullshit on the birther crap and Obama's spying on Fox/AP reporters at the same time. Go on, give it a try, even if it puts that winger merit badge at risk.

Yet Curtis Morrison admitted bugging the McConnell office.

Curtis admitted to eavesdropping. You didn't bother to read the source link in the article you tried to cite, did you? And which republican is responsible for O'Keefe's actual attempt to actually place an actual bug in a senators office, not just eavesdrop by an office door?

He's exactly as responsible as Nixon was for G. Gordon Libby's actions.

Nice dodge. When did Obama cover up Morrison's actions and fire the prosecutors investigating them?

That's pretty disingenuous to delay

Dude. Both liberal and conservatives were scrutinized under a Bush appointee. Deal with it.

But we were talking about using agencies for targeting political enemies, not providing favors. Stuff like this.

Stuff like more winger bullshit? How is denying FOIA requests - which he's doing wholesale on the military-industrial-surveillance-war crimes complex - "punishing" "enemies", exactly? Obama loves right wing big agri/petrol business as much as his predecessor.

You'll have to explain that, or admit you're wrong. The United States officially ended its military involvement in Vietnam on March 29, 1973, and Nixon didn't resign until August 9, 1974.

Pretty please...don't you have a less ignorant Ayn reading brother in law you could call in here, or something? Offensives against North Vietnam were what was ended in 1973. The war itself and the occupation of South Vietnam weren't ended until 1975:

In December 1974, months after Ford took office, North Vietnamese forces invaded the province of Phuoc Long. General Trán VÄfn Trà sought to gauge any South Vietnamese or American response to the invasion, as well as to solve logistical issues before proceeding with the invasion.[111]

As North Vietnamese forces advanced, Ford requested aid for South Vietnam in a $522 million aid package. The funds had been promised by the Nixon administration, but Congress voted against the proposal by a wide margin.[99] Senator Jacob Javits offered "...large sums for evacuation, but not one nickel for military aid".[99] President Thieu resigned on April 21, 1975, publicly blaming the lack of support from the United States for the fall of his country.[112] Two days later, on April 23, Ford gave a speech at Tulane University. In that speech, he announced that the Vietnam War was over "...as far as America is concerned".[110] The announcement was met with thunderous applause.[110]

Nixon was still promising support for South Vietnam before he left office. Whoopsie doopsie.

Now, it's not like there aren't 501 real Obama scandals to be outraged about without having to resort to this stupid Glenn Beck crap. How about that Trans-Pacific partnership, which will overrule by treaty state and federal laws protecting American workers and consumers. How about giving the military the authority to step in an "emergency" domestic situation to "restore order". How about his repeated attempts to cut Social Security as a part of a debt deal when SS has nothing to do with the debt?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

See, that's what's nice about not being a partisan hack.

Something you obviously know nothing about, being a partisan hack. Anybody that "Oh, it's Fox and Glenn Beck you tea-bagger ignoramous" ... yea, tell us more about how you're not a partisan hack, you partisan hack.

Curtis admitted to eavesdropping. You didn't bother to read the source link in the article you tried to cite, did you? And which republican is responsible for O'Keefe's actual attempt to actually place an actual bug in a senators office, not just eavesdrop by an office door?

Well now I have (what a long-winded, whiny blowhard). The device used is irrelevant. He didn't plant a bug and leave, he held the bug in his hand and left with it. You can scream "it was eavesdropping not bugging" all you want - it's a distinction without a difference.

Dude. Both liberal and conservatives were scrutinized under a Bush appointee. Deal with it.

Not really. First, while the commissioner was appointed during the final months of Bush's presidency, he is a Democrat who materially supports the Democrat party, supported Obama, and was selected by Max Baucus because Bush could not get a Republican confirmed at that time in a Democratic congress. IRS Commissioners serve 5 years, so they would not confirm an appointment without having a say in it. The commissioner's wife famously works for a progressive organization and actively campaigned for Obama.

It was targeted at conservatives. There has been one IRS official that claimed certain other groups were also on the list, but none have seen the kind of 2-3 year delays and outrageous scrutiny that was applied to the conservatives groups, so the claim is not even credible.

Stuff like more winger bullshit? How is denying FOIA requests - which he's doing wholesale on the military-industrial-surveillance-war crimes complex - "punishing" "enemies", exactly? Obama loves right wing big agri/petrol business as much as his predecessor.

Denial, diversion, distraction etc. What the EPA loves is Taxpayer-supported NGOs that promote the globalist environmental agenda, and they prove it over and over by not only funding those organizations, but actively discriminating against others, in violation of the law.

Pretty please...don't you have a less ignorant Ayn reading brother in law you could call in here, or something?

You love these unfounded associative ad-hominems, don't you?

Offensives against North Vietnam were what was ended in 1973. The war itself and the occupation of South Vietnam weren't ended until 1975: [wikipedia.org]

And, apparently, using Wikipedia as a source. Forty years ago, on March 29, 1973, the United States ended its military involvement in Vietnam. Although the war would continue another two years, the South Vietnamese would no longer receive American assistance. Whoopsie doopsie indeed.

How about that Trans-Pacific partnership, which will overrule by treaty state and federal laws protecting American workers and consumers. How about giving the military the authority to step in an "emergency" domestic situation to "restore order".

I rail against that crap, too, but the worst things are all the stuff he (rightly) blasted Bush for doing during the campaign, then proceeded to embrace when he took office.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fustakrakich]

...however he was elected essentially to clean up the office rather than do business as usual.

Yeah, it was 'hope and change' back then too.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[CHIT2ME]

We do have someone of that caliber today. His name is Barak Obama. In spite of the horrible economy he was handed by Bush, we are now in a recovery. Even with the "vote against anything Obama wants repub congress" things are looking up. Wall Street, the darling of the repubs, is in record territory. The deficit is shrinking. And still, the repubs won't do anything except pass bills trying to stop the affordable care act and to stop the constitutionally affirmed right of women to make decisions about their own health. Frankly, I can't see why anyone would vote for the repubs anymore. They are as morally deficit as the KKK, yet, you still get old Joe six pack, driving around in his 1985 broke down pickup voting for them. I believe this is because of the cut-backs in education that the repubs sponsor, which attempts to keep the electorate ignorant and, the oft stated refrain; "If you tell a lie often enough, it sounds like the truth". George Orwell and his "Newspeak" is the Lord and Savior of the repub party. Fortunately, time, education, and the changing demographic of America will be the ultimate downfall of the repubs. Even the jerrymandering of the states voting precincts will ultimately fail as more and more blacks, latinos, and others infiltrate their "safe white precincts". It may not happen for the 2014 election, but, in 2016 and beyond, LOOK OUT repubs!!!

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ThurstonMoore]

No, not like Obama. Obama is just another shitty politician looking out for special interest groups.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[tolkienfan]

Jimmy Carter is much maligned. But he is one of the most honest, intelligent and respected statesmen in history.
He is still relevant.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[BalthCat]

Reminds me of the military prosecution lawyer who's now trying to empty Guantanamo, but was perfectly happy getting a man who was a 15 year old kid at the time convicted of terrorist acts despite him being considered a child soldier by a substantial number or organisations. I'm glad he's come around, but it's too little, too late, for complete absolution.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I study all of this in rather significant detail. Your 1/5 estimate, by any reasonable measure, is completely false.

I just tried to look this up, and the US is about 20% of the world MVA (manufacturing value added) index in 2010. I don't know exactly what that means, but since you studied it in detail, maybe you could explain why MVA is not the right thing to look at?

The question becomes how do we have a country when so little of our economy involves the actual basics of economics - production of the necessities of life?

You need a lesson on economics if you ever thought production of the necessity of life is the basis for economics. Quoting WP, "Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." Nowhere is "necessity" a part af that. "Goods and services" don't need to be necessities, they can just as easily be luxuries!

We can feed ourselves so easily that "necessity" is hardly a question anymore. Comfort and convenience are a much bigger slice of the economy now.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[nobodie]

Back up fool, Carter has lots of cred in international circles. He has worked in Africa to save millions of lives from some nasty diseases, gotten involved in the Gaza conflict occasionally and is considered an "elder statesman" by most of the world As if your opinion would matter though, not having done one iota of the things he did on a slow day.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fustakrakich]

...considered an "elder statesman"...

yeah, yeah, yeah, so was Nixon. And the same will be said about Bush and Obama. Means damn near as much as a Nobel Peace Prize.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

so the furthering of a paranoid conspiracy theory with zero facts to back it is "insightful" and calling it out for what it is, is flamebait?
Thank you moderators, your stupidity is at least predictable.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even think of the last time that Carter may have been politically relevant.

But this is the reason he was never politically relevant even when he was in office. He believes is things like human rights. He's not a team player.

Unfortunately

[ArcadeMan]

Jimmy Carter is no longer president of the United States.

Re:Unfortunately

[93 Escort Wagon]

Jimmy Carter is no longer president of the United States.

I was just entering adulthood when Carter became president, so I have some recollection of that time... and I've got to disagree with your use of the word "unfortunately".

I voted for him back then; I greatly respect his work with Habitat for Humanity; and I think he's spot-on with his comments about this particular topic. That said, he was a terrible president. He was a very intelligent man, but had absolutely no idea how to be a leader nor how to get anything done.

Re:Unfortunately

[plover]

If you set your wayback machine to when he took office, keep in mind that the country was still reeling from the Watergate scandal, and we were all pretty damn sick and disgusted with all of the politicians in D.C. It would have been almost impossible for anyone to get anything major accomplished in that environment.

Yes, he is certainly more of a "doer" than a "leader", and I'm not sure he would ever make a great president. But he sure as hell would be better than Obama or Bush, both of whom seem cut from the same tarp used to cover up Washington's dirt.

Re:Unfortunately

[93 Escort Wagon]

While I don't disagree with your statement, I think "reeling from Watergate" was a much bigger problem for Gerald Ford than for Jimmy Carter.

Looking back, I think Ford actually deserves far more credit than he's been given for helping the country to start trusting its leadership again... Which is a funny statement to make, since we now find ourselves in another era where we can't trust our leaders to act in our best interests.

Re:Unfortunately

[Sir_Eptishous]

There you go again...

Re:Unfortunately

[Sir_Eptishous]

Looking back, I think Ford actually deserves far more credit than he's been given for helping the country to start trusting its leadership again... Which is a funny statement to make, since we now find ourselves in another era where we can't trust our leaders to act in our best interests.

You can't be serious...
Ford Pardoned Nixon.

Re:Unfortunately

[fustakrakich]

I think Ford actually deserves far more credit than he's been given for helping the country to start trusting its leadership again...

Say whaaa???

Re:Unfortunately

[Rakarra]

We will still refer to him by the title "President." Please be civilized, and refrain from not doing so.

Although it seems to be custom to do so, it is incorrect. You can only have one President of the United States at a time. Once the President leaves office, he is "Former President of the United States." Somehow in our media it has become custom to drop the "Former," but that makes no sense.

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

people will quickly forget about it and our government will continue to spy.

Re:wrong

[master_kaos]

how is that shilling? The sad fact is, it is probably true. In a year or two from now this news story will most likely long be forgotten by the general public.

Re: wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot and tge general.public.dowsnt exist

Damn it!

[intermodal]

I hate agreeing with Carter.

Re:Damn it!

[Nadaka]

Why? He is a generally good guy.

Re:Damn it!

[CanHasDIY]

Why?

Conditioning.

Same reason why so many people still think they only get to choose between Democrats and Republicans in elections.

Re:Damn it!

[pspahn]

Go find Carter's interview with Jon Stewart. If you still don't like him after watching that, you should seek help.

Re:Damn it!

[interkin3tic]

I think you meant "Same reason people only vote in the general elections and not the primaries."

Nobel Peace Prize

[PPH]

Give Snowden Obama's prize. He's not using it.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize

[fsagx]

Henry Kissenger's is also available for a small fee.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize

[Xest]

Given the way he seems to be letting corporations and the security services dictate what should and shouldn't happen I'd argue the same applies to Obama's job too to be honest.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize

[ebno-10db]

Let Henry the War Criminal keep his. It's a reminder of how meaningful the prize is.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

Would the U.S. of A. allow him to pick up the price, or would he be another empty chair?

Re:Nobel Peace Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Hitler's and Stalin's prize?

I think Cheney should get one too.

But not Snowden. That would be an insult to Snowden.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize

[RabidReindeer]

Give Snowden Obama's prize. He's not using it.

Heck, Obama got the Nobel for "not being Bush". Turns out he IS Bush. Might as well give it to someone who at least did something.

Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[eldavojohn]

Mod parent up. We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of politicians speaking their minds about Snowden -- but I don't know if I'd call them "brave." Looking at just the previous administration, George W. Bush:

I think he damaged the security of the country

And Dick Cheney:

I think he's a traitor

Of course, as another poster mentioned, they've got nothing to lose same as Carter.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[gl4ss]

cheny & gwb got nothing to lose from their legacies being labeled as illegal and as herding the country towards "non-functioning democracy". sure as fuck they got plenty of points to lose. if either of them said that what the programs are doing is wrong they would be saying that they were wrong and not just wrong but unconstitutional and as extension actual traitors to the country, so what are they gonna do? label snowden as traitor, of course... just like they didn't like a lot the leaks which effectively tell that they're war criminals.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ackthpt]

Mod parent up.

We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of politicians speaking their minds about Snowden -- but I don't know if I'd call them "brave." Looking at just the previous administration, George W. Bush:

I think he damaged the security of the country

And Dick Cheney:

I think he's a traitor

Of course, as another poster mentioned, they've got nothing to lose same as Carter.

Yeah, well Bush and Cheney are like two criminals who've never been tried for the scan of engaging the US in Iraq. I can't see them finding a silver lining in any of this. Somewhere along the line the Bush Whitehouse decided to behave like J. Edgar Hoover, sans dresses.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[istartedi]

From the article you cited:

"I think he has committed crimes in effect by violating agreements given the position he had," he continued. "I think it's one of the worst occasions in my memory of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the United States."

The best thing to do with the Cheney quote is forget Cheney said it about Snowden. Re-read the quote, and imagine somebody else said it about Cheney. Which version rings more true?

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ebno-10db]

Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.

Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?

American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[i kan reed]

To Cheney, "National Security Interests of the United States" means bandwidth of channels for money to Halliburton. I'm sure they provide some sort of "consulting" to the NSA.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ArsonSmith]

I almost agree with Bush except, I think he damaged the security of the government. The country is quite a bit better off.

I also almost agree with Dick Cheney, he is a traitor to the status que within the government of obtaining more and stronger power in order to force the populace to do what the government wants with great disrespect to freedom and liberty.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[anagama]

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

This has got to be in the running for the most insightful quip of the year. Says it all.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ackthpt]

Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.

Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?

American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

One of the things I appreciate about Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert, keep us laughing at our own foibles, don't ignore those foibles, but recognize the idiocy of how we behave as parties, people and country. Under the Bush administration I felt we were approaching something vaguely Stalinist, where laughing at our mistakes was felt to be unpatriotic - when France challenged our information and motives for going into Iraq we had people re-naming French Fries as Freedom Fries - I think that was a very worrying thing and showed an extreme depth of stupidity. Turned out France was right to do so. Questioning government is the most patriotic thing we can do, not call ourselves pretend PATRIOTS and wrap ourselves up in the flag.

I do agree with Carter, the exposure of this sort of thing is healthy. Perhaps the government needs to do some of these things, but not under a cloak of double secrecy.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[RabidReindeer]

... to do what the government wants with great disrespect to freedom and liberty.

That word, like "pro-active" is grossly over-used. Try this, instead:

... to do what the government wants with great contempt for freedom and liberty.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom Fries should be the single symbol of the craziness and stupidity of that era.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Sir_Eptishous]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ArsonSmith]

Thank you, I do like that better, I will try to adjust my usage.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Creepy]

Dick Cheney (along with Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, and others) committed the exact same crime under the exact same act as Snowden did, specifically by giving information about something of national security (Valerie Plame's CIA cover) to someone that wasn't supposed to have it (the news). That makes him a hypocrite. George W. Bush turned the ECHELON successor PRISM against US citizens using his pet policy of the Patriot Act, but he is correct - Snowden probably did damage the security of the country by revealing that the NSA is snooping on and keyword matching even secure Scype calls, foreign and domestic. Typical politician - answering truthfully and not telling you anything more than you already know.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Valerie Plame who?

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Rakarra]

It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

In my mind that makes this by far the less dangerous time. Black powder in pressure cookers? That's nothing compared to nuclear armageddon.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly -- that was the point. Here's a "woosh" for your collection.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure you can still go on TV in front of millions of people and call the president an idiot. Aren't there quite a few people who do it every day?

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Zontar The Mindless]

"Under Capitalism, man oppresses man. Under Communism, the opposite is true."

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[Rakarra]

Exactly -- that was the point. Here's a "woosh" for your collection.

Uhhh... no, the OP makes it pretty clear that his "it was a less dangerous time" comment referred to the Cold War. He'd have to really reorganize things in the sentence to make it mean anything different.

He is not The One Who Is

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been said a few times by other people, but there goes: Jimmy Carter is pretty much the best former president the U.S.A. have ever had. Come to think of it, just like Obama might be remembered as the best future president the U.S.A. ever had.

Too bad we are living in the present.

Re:He is not The One Who Is

[GameboyRMH]

Why -1? I thought this was quite clever.

Re:He is not The One Who Is

[ebno-10db]

It was -1 for the "moderator didn't agree" reason. Censorship in plain language.

Re:He is not The One Who Is

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's reminiscent of de Gaulle's comment on Brazil. Brazil had all the size, population, and natural resources of the US, "and therefore," the conventional wisdom which ignores politics went, "they will become wealthy and powerful like the US in the future."

This, BTW, is why Heinlein had Brazil as the center of world power in Starship Troopers.

But the wise who knew politics knew otherwise, and de Gaulle said Brazil was "the nation of the future...and always will be."

Re:He is not The One Who Is

[Anonymous Coward]

This, BTW, is why Heinlein had Brazil as the center of world power in Starship Troopers.

Pretty sure that was Argentina. The main character was from Buenos Aires, which was destroyed in an attack.

Re:He is not The One Who Is

[cffrost]

It was -1 for the "moderator didn't agree" reason. Censorship in plain language.

Hey, you got one too. I'd like one, as well... Have we got any lil' tyrants with mod points to spare?

"Under a forum which down-mods any unjustly, the true place for a just comment is also down-modded... the only comment score on a censored forum with which a free user can abide with honor." — (I'm sorry, Mr.) Henry David Thoreau

Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily

[schneidafunk]

I had not heard of these before and had to look it up. The privacy act ONLY applies to newspaper reporters, stemming from this incident:

"Respondents, a student newspaper that had published articles and photographs of a clash between demonstrators and police at a hospital, and staff members, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against, among others, petitioners, law enforcement and district attorney personnel, claiming that a search pursuant to a warrant issued on a judge's finding of probable cause that the newspaper (which was not involved in the unlawful acts) possessed photographs and negatives revealing the identities of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers at the hospital had deprived respondents of their constitutional rights." source

On a side note, when explaining the Privacy Act to the general public, Jimmy Carter is probably the only president ever to make this statement: "We have reduced the size of these Government files by more than 10 percent."

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody even click the links in the summary anymore? It's right there, no reason for you to be translator emeritus for /.

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily

[schneidafunk]

I guess you didn't click my link, which was to a legal website instead of wikipedia.

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I appreciate GP posting info that doesn't require me clicking through a bunch of sites. What's your problem?

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily

[schneidafunk]

My point is to save people time, but apparently you are too self-righteous to appreciate it. I don't know why I bother responding to ACs.

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's the same guy on 4chan who whines about new threads with only one picture. Self-appointed enforcer like Hitler's goon squads, finally feeling powerfu

Ya know what? Forget it. (slides dagger back in sheath). I don't feel mean today.

Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Jimmy Carter is no longer president of the United States.

That's right. James Clapper is.

Some years ago

[vikingpower]

...many American friends and relatives of mine would be agape at my alleged lack of political insight when I said: "Jimmy Carter was one of the best presidents the USA ever had". And now...

Re:Some years ago

[ebno-10db]

Revenge is a dish best served cold (though hopefully w/ family "revenge" just means "I told you so").

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

He was one of the most rational and honest President's America has ever had. Obviously that means he had to go.

Re:Some years ago

[tnk1]

The thing is... he wasn't one of our best Presidents. He might well be very smart and well intentioned, and those are good things, but they don't by themselves make you a great leader.

I'm not a big fan of FDR, but I can tell you that if it had been FDR in office at the end of the 70's and not Carter, Ronald Reagan would have died an ex-Governor of California. FDR knew how to get stuff done, Carter, not so much.

Obama is sort of coming in the same as Carter, although as our first black president, he's already made the history books. There's nothing wrong with Obama as a person, he's just not a very good President. Presidents who are good at their jobs don't just have good intentions, they get shit done. It doesn't matter if they were dealt a shit hand by the past administrations. FDR inherited a Great Depression. Lincoln inherited a Civil War. They took care of business.

Aside from Carter being in love with leftist dictators, I actually respect him as a statesman, but let's not start re-writing history here.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with Obama as a person, he's just not a very good President. Presidents who are good at their jobs don't just have good intentions, they get shit done. It doesn't matter if they were dealt a shit hand by the past administrations. FDR inherited a Great Depression. Lincoln inherited a Civil War. They took care of business.

Implying Obama hasn't taken care of business?

He averted an econopocalypse. There were not runs on the banks. FDIC didn't come into play. The stock market bounced back, if not the job market.
He ramped down our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. In such a way that was a non-newsworthy event. This is a SLAM DUNK.
He has pushed his health care plan though a RAGING MAELSTROM of vile hate. And it passed.
And he pushed for the assault on Osama Bin Laden. That business? Taken care of. He's also taking the slightly more direct approach of killing "terrorist" in the field rather than capturing them.

No, the heavens didn't split with trumpets and perfect solutions to everything at hand. There are still a lot of unemployed. The Iraqi populace still probably hates us. Healthcare, as opposed to health insurance, is still a clusterfuck. And he's got the same sort of track record with privacy that Bush had. But all in all he's got shit done. Despite the massive resistance he's facing from the Republicans.

Yeah, let's not start re-writing history. That would be bad thing to do.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Revenge is a dish best served cold (though hopefully w/ family "revenge" just means "I told you so").

Ha! Only ONE person can sit the Iron Throne!

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Lincoln inherited a Civil War.

No, Lincoln was one of the reasons for the Civil War. To put it poorly, he helped start it. The southern states started to secede as a response to him getting elected, what with him and his party's position about slavery.

Of course, Lincoln's way of "getting shit done" end up being the bloodiest war in American history (more American casualties than WW1+2 combined). It was also the trigger to much of the federal government expansion that followed (income taxes, Reconstruction Era, Transcontinental Railroad, bigger standing armies later used in America's dab into Imperialism...)

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a whole list regarding what Obama's done: http://obamaachievements.org/list. Some of those are pretty big items, such as healthcare. It's pretty impressive considering the blockade that the GOP has set up in Congress.

Of course, he's also continued a lot of Bush era policies which I'm not a fan of, but he has gotten quite a few things done in spite of congressional push-back.

Re:Some years ago

[Sir_Eptishous]

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I can tell you it was much easier for FDR to get things done in the 1930's than for Obama to now. Comparing the congressional composition and atmosphere in the 1930's, when it was controlled by the Democratics, to how it is now, with Republican control of the House and heavy influence by the Tea Party is a big mistake.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes and no. Lincoln's election was the straw that broke the camel's back, but the North and South were at each other's throats over economic and social policies long before Lincoln was even on the national stage. Lincoln did not even support abolition publicly (indeed, abolitionists were not happy with his nomination for the GOP). A civil war was probably inevitable whether or not Lincoln got elected.

The Civil War was also obviously a mixed bag. A lot of people died, and the potential for a rampant federal government grew. On the other hand, the Civil War was also a boon for human rights (whether that was intended from the onset or not) and saving the country from splitting in two arguably let the region prosper much more. In my opinion, Reconstruction would have gone much better had Lincoln not been shot- JWB is probably one of the biggest traitors to the southern states that has ever existed.

Re:Some years ago

[Nyder]

... but let's not start re-writing history here.

But that's the reward for being in power!

Re:Some years ago

[phantomfive]

Well said.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reference set is too narrow. Allow me:

Jimmy Carter was one of the best individuals the USA ever had

So he is no George Washington... but no one ever is.

Re:Some years ago

[dkleinsc]

To put it poorly, he helped start it.

That's certainly putting it poorly, given that the South seceded not because of what Lincoln had done (he wasn't president yet, and hadn't implemented any kind of policy), nor because of what Lincoln and his party said he was going to do (namely make the new states forming in the west free soil). South Carolina in particular seceded because of what the Glenn Beck's of the age feared Lincoln might do some time down the road, because despite all his protestations and tangible evidence otherwise they thought he had a secret plan to take all their slaves away.

In the most charitable interpretation, secession was a massive overreaction: Lincoln stood for gradual changes and a moderate change in course, but the secessionists reacted like Abe Lincoln was like Nat Turner coming to kill them. And it backfired, because the Civil War pushed Lincoln towards emancipation in a way that mere political resistance probably wouldn't have. The Radical Republican faction that pushed in the 13th Amendment wasn't even an important political force in 1860, but by 1866 it dominated Washington.

There's a lesson to be learned here: Focus on what a politician proposes and/or implements, not on what you fear he might do.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

This all inflates the role of the president over party politics. There are big differences in party composition between those presidencies.

It also puts it out of context. For example, I was listening to "The Skeptic's Guide to American History" (c.f. lectures 15-18) recently and contrary to the usual historical narrative progressive ideas were finding their way into law long before both Roosevelt's presidency and the great depression

Re:Some years ago

[tnk1]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Obama had full legislative backing in his first term and he squandered it. It would be one thing if he hadn't sailed in on the most anti-Republican wave since the Great Depression. Instead, between his inexperienced leadership, and the congressional Democrats not being about to figure out how to pass anything, almost nothing got done. And then they managed to lose the House to the Tea Party of all people.

Gerrymandering be damned, GW Bush had only been two whole years out of office! How do you lose when all you needed to do is say "I'm not Bush" and every Independent voter will suddenly vote for you or your favorite candidate.

Certainly, he isn't a do-nothing, but most of his agenda other than the health care bill might as well have been done by McCain or Romney for that matter. And don't talk to me about the wars, after 10 years of war, even the Republicans would have wrapped it up. I'd be surprised if anyone was still in Iraq by this point.

And Osama bin Laden? Did he really have to push anything? Was there anyone who actually wanted the guy to live? And of course, Obama's orders were not to kill the guy, they were to capture. He didn't "bravely" support an assassination, he just didn't have a hissy fit when the guy got shot in the face by DEVGRU. Can you imagine any potential President, except maybe Ron Paul, who would have done anything differently?

I give him credit for staying out of the way of the operatives who got the job done, but as President, his overall value in the situation was the no-brainer authorization to go get him once they eventually found him. The only thing he could have done wrong was get in the way, but not getting in the way is not really bold decisive action.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's our worst president. That probably goes to James Buchanan and a chain of other forgettable ones. However, he had all the tools to get his whole agenda in place. All he needed was enough experience and balls to make the right moves. Today, Reid is talking about maybe sort of using the nuclear option. FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court, if necessary, to get his stuff done. Just how successful were the Republicans in shutting down the New Deal? Not at all, except for some minor setbacks that he just replaced with something else.

Sure, you can bitch about a minority of Republicans getting in the way, but if you want to be counted as a President who gets shit done, you don't let a bunch of people that most of the country hates keep you from doing what they want you to do.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

That's certainly putting it poorly given that the South seceded not because of what Lincoln had done (he wasn't president yet, and hadn't implemented any kind of policy), nor because of what Lincoln and his party said he was going to do (namely make the new states forming in the west free soil). South Carolina in particular seceded because of what the Glenn Beck's of the age feared Lincoln might do some time down the road, because despite all his protestations and tangible evidence otherwise they thought he had a secret plan to take all their slaves away.

What you say there actually makes it sound like it isn't so poor after all. The south acted similarly to those who doubted Obama and petitioned to secede

Secession didn't happen this time around of course, but... that didn't stop Obama from doing all the things he did.

As the saying goes: just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're wrong.

In the most charitable interpretation, secession was a massive overreaction

Similarly to above, just because you overreact, doesn't mean you're wrong.

Furthermore, that's not the most charitable interpretation.

The most charitable interpretation is that the south did not overreact. The most charitable interpretation would say they preemptively reacted appropriately, and they're proven correct in the way Lincoln reacted.

The most charitable interpretation would say that it was Lincoln who overreacted in escalating the Civil War, much like how Obama escalated many of Bush II's policies.

For example, initially the southern states wanted to form treaties with the north like fellow sovereign nations would. Lincoln rejected those attempts on grounds that the south was not a legitimate government. In the most charitable interpretation, that should be applied to Lincoln. It is Lincoln who needs to prove his legitimacy. A government is legitimate if it has the consent of the people, and what the south basically was saying they do NOT consent to rule by Lincoln.

There's a lesson to be learned here: Focus on what a politician proposes and/or implements, not on what you fear he might do.

Right right right. The TSA. The NSA. The drones. The enemies list. They're all done for security and jobs. That's what the politician says they're for! Don't fear what that database might do later. Move along citizen, nothing to see here.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, initially the southern states wanted to form treaties with the north like fellow sovereign nations would. Lincoln rejected those attempts on grounds that the south was not a legitimate government. In the most charitable interpretation, that should be applied to Lincoln. It is Lincoln who needs to prove his legitimacy. A government is legitimate if it has the consent of the people, and what the south basically was saying they do NOT consent to rule by Lincoln.

Madness. Are you suggesting that a state ought to be able to secede whenever it swings against the winner of an election? The country would be left in pieces after the first 50 years, and then it would repeat on a local level. Lincoln was legitimately elected by an electoral majority and a popular plurality. The people consented, and you're trying to arbitrarily subdivide "the people" after the fact to reinforce your position.

Re:Some years ago

[Magius_AR]

He averted an econopocalypse. There were not runs on the banks. FDIC didn't come into play. The stock market bounced back, if not the job market.

An assumption -- you don't know if there ever was going to be an "econopocalypse". This is an example of the tiger-repellant rock. Hell, if anything staved off the "runs on the banks", it was the TARP program that passed under Bush, not Obama. The fact we're now 5-6 years passed the start of the economic collapse (~4 years passed the "trough"), and still seeing sluggish recovery at best isn't exactly a selling point for Obama.

He ramped down our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. In such a way that was a non-newsworthy event. This is a SLAM DUNK.

Hardly. This was going to happen anyway, as those wars were already over and winding down.

He has pushed his health care plan though a RAGING MAELSTROM of vile hate. And it passed.

And you think forcing politically-motivated legislation through Congress against the will of the people is a good thing???

And he pushed for the assault on Osama Bin Laden. That business? Taken care of.

Fair enough, but this is more a star in the caps of the intel community, not the president.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

>Aside from Carter being in love with leftist dictators..
>Let's not start re-writing history here.

After you. I mean, appealing for reality after saying something that ridiculous is pretty arrogant and hypocritical.

Re:Some years ago

[Uberbah]

What you say there actually makes it sound like it isn't so poor after all. The south acted similarly to those who doubted Obama and petitioned to secede

Secession didn't happen this time around of course, but... that didn't stop Obama from doing all the things he did.

Like taking your guns away and winning a second term despite being born in Kenya? Oh wait, neither of things happened, so what are you going on about?

Re:Some years ago

[Uberbah]

It would be one thing if he hadn't sailed in on the most anti-Republican wave since the Great Depression. Instead, between his inexperienced leadership, and the congressional Democrats not being about to figure out how to pass anything, almost nothing got done.

Actually, Obama has gotten pretty much everything he's ever wanted, just like his predecessor. It's just that the things he wants (assassinations, cuts to Social Security, NDAA, NAFTA on steroids, Romneycare) aren't the things he campaigned on.

Re:Some years ago

[dkleinsc]

It is Lincoln who needs to prove his legitimacy. A government is legitimate if it has the consent of the people, and what the south basically was saying they do NOT consent to rule by Lincoln.

Lincoln did have the consent of the people, as determined by the election. He didn't have the consent of southern white people, but those people didn't come close to constituting a majority in 1860. Unless you believe those are the only people that counted.

Re:Some years ago

[Uberbah]

He averted an econopocalypse for the people who caused it

FTFY. Real unemployment has hovered around 14% for as long as he's been in office. Millions of people have lost their jobs and their homes, frequently due to bank fraud, since he became president.

Meanwhile, the scumbag bankster fucks that caused the mess in the first place have been rewarded with bailouts, allowing them to purchase those millions of homes for rock-bottom prices and rent them out to the people that used to own them.

FDIC didn't come into play.

It did at the banks that were allowed to fail. You know, the regional or small banks that couldn't afford to buy off a Senator or two.

He ramped down our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

DaFuck? Obama tripled forces in Afghanistan and wanted to extend the occupation of Iraq. When the Iraqis refused to continue granting Americans immunity from war crimes, Obama was forced to follow Bush's timeline for troop reductions in Iraq.

He has pushed his health care plan though a RAGING MAELSTROM of vile hate. And it passed.

He passed Rommeycare with the mandates and excise taxes that he campaigned against. And killed the Public Option, which he campaigned on, in just the sort of back room deal he campaigned against.

He's also taking the slightly more direct approach of killing "terrorist" in the field rather than capturing them.

He doesn't even know who he's killing with 'signature strikes', which also kill 49 civilians for every alleged terrorist. Bombing a wedding creates far more "terrorists" than all the words from bin Laddin ever could.

But all in all he's got shit done.

Oh, he's gotten shit done, alright. Everything that he campaigned against, and little that he campaigned for.

Re:Some years ago

[cheekyjohnson]

There's a lesson to be learned here: Focus on what a politician proposes and/or implements, not on what you fear he might do.

That seems very naive and foolish.

Re:Some years ago

[theArtificial]

Implying Obama hasn't taken care of business?

He's been getting so much done, he's had time to comment on a trial in Florida! Forget about the IRS, Syria, Benghazi, Fast and Furious (fuck everyone involved in this), NSA unconstitutional domestic spying, keeping tax cuts, patriot act garbage. There is a long list of issues that really need to be addressed in this country, and we're too busy squabbling about little shit.

He averted an econopocalypse. There were not runs on the banks. FDIC didn't come into play. The stock market bounced back, if not the job market.

The whole thing began because of pressure from the government on the banks. In addition, 290,000 fewer people were counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work. That drop in those seeking jobs was the reason the unemployment rate fell to 7.6%, the lowest since December 2008. Second Largest Employer In America Is Temp Agency. And the stock market? Is not a bastion for the American middleclass.

He ramped down our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. In such a way that was a non-newsworthy event. This is a SLAM DUNK.

Not according to the facts. All because of this due to the military industrial complex not to mention the deaths of thousands, for what, freedom?

But all in all he's got shit done. Despite the massive resistance he's facing from the Republicans.

Fuck all the partisan posturing. What's the narrative when he had a democrat majority in the senate and House? Why don't we take an objective look at what both of the hands are doing to for the body they're attached to?

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Responding to multiple people because, hey, I'm only AC

Madness.

Ad homenim.

Are you suggesting that a state ought to be able to secede whenever it swings against the winner of an election? The country would be left in pieces after the first 50 years, and then it would repeat on a local level.

I'm suggesting that when a Founding Father said "a Republic, if you can keep it", he didn't mean you keep the Republic through force and violence, killing more Americans than any other war US engaged in (and crippling many more)

It's also absurd to suggest states will secede left and right. Who do you think your fellow Americans are? A bunch of uneducated, short-fused, trigger happy, stubborn children who secede at the drop of a hat? Secession isn't a toy. The south resorted to it because they were that serious.

Lincoln did have the consent of the people, as determined by the election. He didn't have the consent of southern white people, but those people didn't come close to constituting a majority in 1860. Unless you believe those are the only people that counted.

Other way around. I should be the one asking: do minorities not count? Tyranny of the majority is a-ok?

As I said above, the south didn't secede on a whim. After the first shots were fired, Lincoln asked for volunteers. Know what happened? Four more states decided to also secede. In other words, Lincoln asked, to all the states, to back him up, to reaffirm their consent, yet four additional states decided that they also don't consent to him.

Now, West Virginia then split from Virginia and rejoin the Union, but that further rebukes the other poster above: people are not so fickle to secede and split the country to 50 pieces. If what you believe in is right, then there be will others who share your beliefs and stay/join/rejoin you.

People - your fellow Americans - are not malicious retards or incompetents who cannot resolve their differences without violence. That's kinda the whole point of forming a society - we decided that we're not gonna resolve our differences like competing nations and barbaric tribes. If we cannot resolve our differences, the nobler course to take is the same as if marriage or labor negotiations fail: you step away. If you can't stand being together, stop being together.

If the Republic cannot do things civilly, and it takes the majority to coerce the minority to obey through force, then AFAIC the Republic is a sham. You're not "keeping" the Republic as said by the Founding Father, but forcing it together (which would help explain the expansion of government, as over time more and more effort is needed to keep the union together)

Like taking your guns away and winning a second term despite being born in Kenya? Oh wait, neither of things happened, so what are you going on about?

You would know if you read more than just the first couple lines of my post. Or maybe you did read, and are purposely setting up strawmen. I mean, was it pure luck that two things you talked about just happen to be two things that have nothing to do with what I said and didn't mentioned?

Re:Some years ago

[dkleinsc]

I should be the one asking: do minorities not count? Tyranny of the majority is a-ok?

Electoral minorities count only insofar as their constitutional rights must be respected, and the majority should not be treating that minority any differently than anyone else. Losing an election and having the winners implement the policies they campaigned on is not tyranny of the majority, it's just losing an election.

For example, let's say 1/3 of Americans think murder should be legal, and 2/3 think it should be illegal. By your arguments, in that society murder should be legal, because the significant-enough minority thinks it ought to be, and anyone trying to pass and enforce a law to the contrary is tyranny of the majority.

As I said above, the south didn't secede on a whim. After the first shots were fired, Lincoln asked for volunteers.

Ok, so let me get this straight: A state declares itself independent, some other states join them, and they shoot at troops the federal government and a US Navy vessel, forcing their surrender.

If we cannot resolve our differences, the nobler course to take is the same as if marriage or labor negotiations fail: you step away.

Look, I know that in Dixie white kids are taught that it was all the damn Yankee's fault, and that their ancestors didn't fight for slavery, that everything would have been OK if the north had just left them alone, and that the federal government was a happy club of gentlemen before 1860. And I know that this sentiment runs very very deep. The problem is that none of the available historical evidence (including anything from the Confederate side written before the Confederate surrender) suggests that any of that is true.

Re:Some years ago

[dkleinsc]

Are you talking about the risk of a politician doing that which he's never talked about doing, or never tried to do?

Yes, that risk is there. There's absolutely no way to mitigate it: you can't stop plans you don't know about. But you simply can't make good decisions based on what you're afraid will happen with no evidence whatsoever, because all that really amounts to is your prejudices coming to light.

Re:Some years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Electoral minorities count only insofar as their constitutional rights must be respected, and the majority should not be treating that minority any differently than anyone else. Losing an election and having the winners implement the policies they campaigned on is not tyranny of the majority, it's just losing an election.

Equal treatment? Ok, so when will we see the federal government start calling in the military against its own people? That's how the feds treated the south. Equal treatment goes both ways.

(looks around at all the government surveillance. Sees government going after Snowden as a "traitor", the same label they applied to the south)

Oh, ok. Never mind, you're right. We are getting equal treatment. Even some non-Americans get the same treatment. You... win?

For example, let's say 1/3 of Americans think murder should be legal, and 2/3 think it should be illegal. By your arguments, in that society murder should be legal, because the significant-enough minority thinks it ought to be, and anyone trying to pass and enforce a law to the contrary is tyranny of the majority.

No, that is not by my arguments. That's yours.

Let's reverse your scenario. Imagine if Lincoln and Republicans lost the election, and the winner (and majority who voted for him) instead holds the opposite view on slavery, and as a response some northern states secede (and let's say the north shot first too). This new pro-slavery president/party then proceed to send in the troops. By your argument (which you falsely attribute to mine), that is a-ok, because majority support slavery.

What this reversal should reveal is that the issue of slavery was not one of who is the majority or minority. The issue was one of morals. Don't get me wrong: I don't support slavery (bold for emphasis). My position is that morals (slavery) was not something the government should have tried to get involved with. The government does not have the moral authority. It is not the church. It is not a king.

Ok, so let me get this straight: A state declares itself independent, some other states join them, and they shoot at troops the federal government and a US Navy vessel, forcing their surrender.

And? Note that nowhere in that description justifies one side or the other. To you the south were rebels. To the south they were revolutionaries.

Now, the South shooting first gives the government a right to self defense, and to demand compensation for whatever damage done to federal property, but the subsequent escalation that became the Civil War is far from what I would call self defense.

The point I was making is that even after the initial shooting, some states still felt it was federal government who was in the wrong, so much that they are willing to risk being called traitors and secede. The notion that the south are all just a bunch of racist volatile cowboys is frankly insulting to the south, and that means it's insulting to Americans in general. After all, are the people of the southern states not Americans?

Look, I know that in Dixie white kids are taught that it was all the damn Yankee's fault, and that their ancestors didn't fight for slavery,

As above, I say it is you who has been indoctrinated to think that it's all the south's fault.

Again, I don't support slavery. I'm not saying the south was right to support slavery. I'm not saying the south are all gentlemen. I'm saying they are also not all fools and barbarians. I'm saying the Civil War could have, and should have (that's IMNSHO) been avoided, and avoiding it was something Lincoln could have done. But they didn't, so AFAIC they share the blame, if not all the blame (since they're the victors and got to implement their policies), for all the bloodshed, and the seeds that they sowed leading to subsequent government expansion.

They may have had good intentions, but we know what road that paves tow

Re:Some years ago

[cheekyjohnson]

We can't take everything they say at face value, and especially so when they ask for powers which could easily be used to abuse people's fundamental individual liberties. History gives me absolutely zero reason to trust the government with such powers, so why would I not take into account what it could do with the powers it's asking for, even if I don't have any direct evidence that the government is going to abuse them? That seems very foolish to me.

He's not a politician

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason he can be brave, is that he's not a politician anymore.

When it comes to government-vs-governed, you either work for the government, or you don't. He used to, but he doesn't. So of course he's going to take the governed's side.

There might be a few handfuls of non-government people who selflessly take the anti-people side, but they're either literally stupid (in the sense that they wouldn't do well on IQ tests) or mentally ill. Seriously. Find anyone who is both anti-Snowden but also not a government employee or government contractor employee. 100% of these people are either dumb (you'll pick it up in a few minutes of talking to them about anything; it won't have to be politics) or crazy. I dare you to find a counter-example. You can't.

Note that I'm just talking about anti-Snowden non-government people. You will of course find some smart and sane people who are anti-Snowden. But for those people it's a simple case of "don't bite the hand that feeds you." I used to be rabidly anti-advertising but now I work in advertising to advance the cause of evil, so just like you can't trust me on ads, you can't trust government contractors on civics.

Re:He's not a politician

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't work for the government, nor do I work for a government contractor. I think Snowden is an arrogant fool.

Since I know I am not a moron, after a number of objective tests and a lifetime of experience, I am forced to conclude that you are talking out of your ass.

Re:He's not a politician

[lister king of smeg]

I don't work for the government, nor do I work for a government contractor. I think Snowden is an arrogant fool.

Since I know I am not a moron, after a number of objective tests and a lifetime of experience, I am forced to conclude that you are talking out of your ass.

and your an ac

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate agreeing with Carter.

Why?

Looking back on history, I never got the dislike towards him. He was handed a bad deck into his presidency (inflation from Viet Nam, Oil embargo, stagflation, Iran hostages, military incompetence, and a couple of other things he was blamed for).

One of the most ballsy things he did was Tip O'Neil was elated that "one of them" was in the White House and Carter wouldn't play ball. And as we have seen many times, when one party controls both the Whitehouse and Congress, the pork flies and the budget sinks!

He was also one of our smartest presidents and one of the few who had some sort of science training - he was a nuclear engineer (BS, US Naval Academy).

So, why the dislike?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up. It's time the children learned the truth about President Carter... including that he has the brain the size of a planet. With near certainty, he is smarter, more rational, more driven and more ethical than any that will comment on this summary here today. Even his worst mistakes would make our greatest accomplishments seem inconsequential.

Re:Why?

[Antipater]

It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.

To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys

Re:Why?

[MightyYar]

I think a lot of it was presentation and circumstances (as you mention). His presentation was "aw, shucks" and folksy. That plays as "moron" in much of the country, despite the man's credentials. I see a similar reaction to Obama's "academic" tone, which I think turns off the same people that Carter's folksy presentation appealed to. Personally, I like Obama's style better, even if I think he's got some pretty atrocious policies and a disaster of an executive style. Carter had a similarly horrid executive style, which may have frustrated his potential base. As a contrast, Reagan had a lot of success getting his way even though he had to deal with a split congress.

Re:Why?

[ebno-10db]

So, why the dislike?

Partly it's image. He ran with a big smile saying "I believe America is a wonderful country". In 1976, after Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate and Ford, it sold real well. In 1980 it had passed it's sell-by date. By then people wanted a tough guy president to deal with the Iranians holding the hostages. Jimmy had the wrong image (never mind that he was actually much tougher about such things than Reagan). Also, people wanted a scapegoat.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying that his failures were monumental? Even I wasn't going to be that hard on the guy.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.

To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys

Precisely. He honestly thought the best ideas would simply win out on their own merits, no convincing or horse-trading required. So he didn't bother, and came off as an aloof political idiot.

He couldn't even get along with his own party, let alone the opposition. Not to mention the Oil Crisis and a giant friggen volcano blew up, and the US had no power to prevent either, he just had to muddle through with the shit sandwich fate gave him.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 for this one. Reagan was the opposite of Carter, a full time political player with no interest in academical solutions

Re:Why?

[FreeUser]

+1 for this one. Reagan was the opposite of Carter, a full time political player with no interest in academical solutions

And then we reached our true nadir with George Dubya, who proudly and vehemently proclaimed "I am not an intellectual!" It showed, too...we'll be digging out of the hole he put us in for the next 15 years, assuming we're lucky^H^H^H^H^H smart enough not to elect another one just like him...

Re:Why?

[asylumx]

I thought that was what we'd get with Obama. He did show some of that, but I think he got forced to play the game as a result of the political climate, and he's just not that good at it.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Rs used him as a punching bag to get W elected. They used him as an example of why Democrats are weak leaders. It goes along with Rove's nasty little tactics like the swift boat veterans, etc.

Re:Why?

[dywolf]

thats why we need honest men to be elected, and make grand decisions... ...and then we need those honest men to hire the Dick Cheneys and Karl Roves of the world to get it done. because all to often the honest man is at the natural disadvantage of the dishonest man.

I'm reminded of the Gap Cycle books. the space police chief, Warden Dios, is almost unfailingly loyal and honest to his people, or tries to be. But one of his chief department heads is a compeltely amoral individual, who heads his research/spying/dirtytricks section.

Re:Why?

[Aerokii]

My only regret today is that I used up my mod points before reading this comment. +1 mod in whatever category most pleases you.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because he was an engineer.

So was Eisenhower. But he did not get the same bad rap.

Re:Why?

[fustakrakich]

He was also one of our smartest presidents and one of the few who had some sort of science training - he was a nuclear engineer...

And he was a real life hero..., but he was only given the job to keep the seat warm until everyone could forget about Nixon and Vietnam.

JC

[hottoh]

He is more likable since he was president than when he was president.

Re:JC

[wcrowe]

I've always felt that he was too honest and intelligent to be president.
 

Re:JC

[Infiniti2000]

Jesus Christ was president?

Re:JC

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ was president?

Seems you missed the second coming. You need to read some real news in stead of Slashdot.

Re:JC

[sjames]

Are you kidding? The religious right would sooner burn in hell than elect a hippy for president!

sure, he likes Venezuela democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not saying that USA democracy is perfect, but hearing this from someone that support the kind of fake "democracy" in Venezuela is astonishing. I still remember his private meeting with the, at that time president Chavez, a big media conglomerate owner, Cisneros, a good friend of him, and how a few weeks later Carter started to support every anti democracy decision made, how Cisneros channel stopped being critical of the government, how a TV station big competitor of Mr. Cisneros was closed

He can be right if his opinion, but everything that goes of his mouth is moved by his and his friends interests

Re:sure, he likes Venezuela democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because if you want to make a lot of money and friends in the USA the best way to do it is to publish a book accusing Israel of being a colonial, apartheid regime engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Carter is Right

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Carter is right that Snowden's leak about the NSA will be beneficial in the long run. This is about government surveillance, but more importantly it's about secrecy.

People like Feinstein, Graham and Obama came out supporting the NSA after Snowden's leak, saying it saved lives. That may be, but they failed to show that the program would not have saved lives if it was made public. In fact the program is still being continued. So why continue it if PRISM can't catch a terrorist now everyone knows about it? The entire argument is hypocritical. Snowden wouldn't have nothing to "Leak" if the government told its citizens these programs exist.

Also it's not like the terrorists have the means to effectively communication in real time via channels other than email, text or phone. If they can't communicate, they might just give up. In such a case, PRISM would save lives via deterrence, and there is still no need for secrecy.

I think the central point is that the US government decided instituting a spying program like PRISM will be massively unpopular. So instead of having the people debate over the issue, they proceeded in secrecy under the guise of national security. These kind of actions is against the ideals of Democracy, and Carter is pointing that out.

Funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there no mention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978? He signed that one too.

Senator Gordon Humphrey

[PraiseBob]

Here is the relevant message from a former Senator:

Mr. Snowden,

Provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution.

Having served in the United States Senate for twelve years as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I think I have a good grounding to reach my conclusion.

I wish you well in your efforts to secure asylum and encourage you to persevere.

Kindly acknowledge this message, so that I will know it reached you.

Regards,
Gordon J. Humphrey
Former United States Senator
New Hampshire


Here is another of his messages:

Mr. Greenwald,

Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum.

To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistle-blower.

I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the U.S. Government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.

Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out.

Regards,
Gordon Humphrey

Re:Senator Gordon Humphrey

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod the Discordian up

Strange..

[Virtucon]

This is the first set of comments that I've ever agreed with Jimmy Carter on. Maybe as we've both aged we've become more moderate, rational and reasonable? I mean he still puts inexplicable pauses in his speeches that for some ridiculous reason only he knows why.

"My.... fellow Americans. Tonight I'd .... like to discuss the.... Iran Hostage.... Situation.."

Man I was ready tear my TV a new one every time he'd come on... Not that wimpy Plasma LED shit we have now, no one of those glass busting go boom picture tube monsters that weighed 300lbs. The TV, not me...

Jimmy, I'll give you props you don't seem to be the liberal lunatic I once painted you as.

There's no way to generalize.

[Anonymous Coward]

Certain guys, like Patrick Volkerding and Jimmy Carter, make us reflect about how prejudices are wrong.

Personally, I wish Americans recover the hacker spirit these two men show, 'cause they don't just make the USA better -- they make the entire world better.

Carter's legacy

[sjbe]

Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Only by people who think Reagan was the second coming of George Washington. If you were dumb enough to vote for Bush the Lesser you might actually believe that Carter was a bad president. Carter was a mediocre president who served during a period of rather bad economic problems that were not his fault. His record is mixed but isn't especially bad overall. I'm old enough to actually remember when he was in office and there hasn't been a president since who I feel was substantially better and one who was considerably worse.

Re:Carter's legacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Carter was a complete disaster for the US."

Only by people who think Reagan was the second coming of George Washington.

Sorry, typical libertarian belief is that every president in our lifetime has been a sack of shit. Of course, we're a minority which is likely why you believe it is OK to lie about us.

Re:Carter's legacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Above, an example of how typical libertarian belief is that anyone and anything that doesn't jibe with its worldview is a "lie".

US Individual Liberty is an illusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, in the US, the phrase "Individual liberties" is tantamount to "3 out of every 5 Dentists..." In other words, its complete marketing bullshit. A mantra for lulling people into believing they have freedoms and that their rights are protected. So far, (barely) speech and religion are the only two that get discussed in the public discource. What about my right against illegal search and seizure? (wire-tapping, drug-screening for work etc.)

Let's take a cue from the Canadians and add something like their "Charter 10 Rights and Freedoms" and include the right to be free from invasive search like this and many other things, eg. random drug testing for low-level menial jobs when performance or behavior has not suggested substance abuse. In addition, corporations like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. should not be able to coerce you into signing a 20 page legal document that authorizes them to collect everything you've ever done, online, in an effort to "provide you a better shopping experience" (another phrase that is bullshit).

The only "group" that currently has any "freedom" is the one with money in the US. Its about damned time that we start protecting individual citizens, the People, and abolish this ridiculous notion that the Corporation has the same rights as those individuals.

I say, leave Snowden alone unless you can conclusively produce physical evidence that he harned the United States by sharing private State information with our enemies - I have yet to see anything that suggests he has!

*end of rant*

Scapegoating

[sjbe]

Looking back on history, I never got the dislike towards him.

It's mostly scapegoating from the right. Presidents who serve during tough economic times usually get a disproportionate amount of blame for problems that they weren't responsible for creating and often can't do much to fix. Since he wasn't exactly beloved by his own party, Carter is a fairly easy target by the conservatives. Their criticisms of him are rarely fair or accurate but the tactic has worked in the past.

Re:Scapegoating

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

It's mostly scapegoating from the right.

True. And the opposite with Reagan. Reagan got most of the credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, but Gorbachev did most of the work. Some other things about Reagan pissed me off too, but the point being a massive effort by Republicans to name things for Reagan as part of some coronation as The Great President.

Re:If I ever had any doubts that Snowden is wrong

[anagama]

mod parent "neo-con shit-for-brains"

Nice guys finish last.

[jd.schmidt]

No President is better described by those words than Jimmy Carter. He really has been a good person to a fault.

One of the criticism I most remember about him was his selling the Presidential Yacht. He did so to try to set an example of austerity, and of course save money. But he was criticized, perhaps justly, because that yacht had been one of the better tools for the President to influence congress. Apparently it was a big deal to get invited on a yachting day with the President and all that one on one time would allow the President to influence votes.

Carter however felt that Congress should just vote for things because they were right. He was always trying to appeal to the better part of human nature. In some ways Obama is similar, he doesn't really schmooze with congress well, certainly not in the way Ron, George, Bill and George did!

I have come to feel we get the leaders we deserve all too often.

Re:Nice guys finish last.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not called being "nice." It's called being "too naive to understand real human nature and wearing a set of blinders that prevents you being able to deal with real world problems."

That's why he is second only to Obama in the race to the bottom of the barrel of historical Presidents.

Re:Nice guys finish last.

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble with that is 'we' the rest of the world have to put up with the shit thats pulled when you elect a bad one.

Re:Nice guys finish last.

[jd.schmidt]

Yes, no, maybe. First if you really think he is the worst president, you should study history more. Objectively he did leave the country is better shape than he found it (note growth early in Reagan first term), doing the right thing for its own sake does have some rewards.

But it is really a story about people and our inability to accept the right thing to simply because it is right. A leader has to understand this, but you have no consentience if you don't aspire for it to be otherwise.

The police,FBI CIA,NSA Cant spy

[Stan92057]

The police,FBI CIA,NSA Cant spy on us without a warrant but a Company/Corporation,Web Site owner that wants advertising dollars are free to spy as they please. Facebook,Google are the 2 biggest offenders i can think of. I think this is a huge double standard.

Re:The police,FBI CIA,NSA Cant spy

[Budgreen]

you consent to being watched for advertising to use a free service.

you do not consent to be monitored even more broadly just in case they need all your info to use in some possible future crime, or to track your political views, or to..... insert any number of nefarious purposes, but it's secret so it's ok.

.

Re:The police,FBI CIA,NSA Cant spy

[Stan92057]

Actually i agreed to nothing and just because they make spying mandatory doesn't make it legal. Plus we have already paid for the content in higher product prices to fill advertising coffres.

Re:If I ever had any doubts that Snowden is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the motion. All in favor?

Yes.

[whitroth]

As a President, I really disliked him, as he ramped up the military, when it really wasn't necessary, and played into the hands of the Republicans....

On the other hand, he's the greatest ex-President this country has had in my lifetime, standing for, well, what the US is *supposed* to stand for, and *claims* to stand for.

                          mark

Re-hashing past politics

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that there are far more interesting things to write about than stale rehashings of old Nixon vs Carter vs Reagan vs Bush... discussions. Even the current arguments about whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor are not very interesting, and of little long-term interest (e.g. how long has the McAfree saga remained interesting)? More interesting, imo, is what democracy will mean in the increasingly connected, superficial world...

Jimmy

[Anonymous Coward]

Carter was an honest man who tried to do what is right and good. This has no place in USA politics.

I still see him as the last good prez. He TRIED. Which is more than you can say for anyone since he was in office.

And he's STILL done more good for the entire world than any other handful of presidents of the modern age.

Given the last few shitheads we've had in charge... Carter would be a nice change right about now.

Solar Panels on the Whitehouse

[Sir_Eptishous]

Carter put solar panels on the Whitehouse.
Reagan took them down
Here we are 30-some years later still jacking off over renewable energy...
If anything, Carter was way ahead of his time.
Every president since has been under heel of the carbon extraction industrial complex.

Re:Solar Panels on the Whitehouse

[Anonymous Coward]

If it helps, Carter was an engineer so he "got" the big picture of energy and infrastructure in ways that no president since him have neurons enough to grok.

Re:If I ever had any doubts that Snowden is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent "partisan that labels instead of debating."

RE:Jimmy Carter Calls Snowden Leak Beneficial.

[MobSwatter]

Interesting, Jimmy Carter just made the watch list?

Re:If I ever had any doubts that Snowden is wrong

[dywolf]

... then having the approval of the worst US president of the 20th century has removed all doubts from my mind.

I thought Warren G Harding and his Republican, anti-progressive platform died in 1923 ?
Has he really still been pulling the strings of the party all these years?
Damn, he's good, at being bad.

George Bush 5 time President

[Anonymous Coward]

Ronald Reagan made himself famous as an actor. He continued that vocation during the 2 terms he was directed by Bush The Elder.

Bush jr competent enough to be president all on his own? Are you serious? Wholly owned by Poppa Bush, under the supervision of Dick Cheney.

Bonus points:
1.) After Nixon refused to resign, as the head of the Repulican Party, from his office in the White House, demanded & got Nixon's resignation.
2.) Director of the CIA.
3.) Director of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Carter did okay.

[microbox]

Read up the history of the iran hostage crisis -- particularly the brass balls Carter had for ordering the raid which failed, and that his administration negotiated the release of the hostages, and that the GOP took credit in the eyes of the sheeple.

Carter was a smart guy, and a good guy, and he was outmaneuvered by fate. The Iranians were so proud that they brought down the US president. (Hey, we're so powerful!!!)

Then Reagan ended up being selling arms to Iran to fund a war the congress said he couldn't have. All the people indicted were given presidential pardons.

The GOP has since been busy re-writing the history of the 80s. Meanwhile, the USSR fell, and many mujaheddin in Afghanistan think they did it single handedly!. And now they think they are bleeding the USA (they are), and may yet bring down the great satan.

The world is fundamentally irrational and can by quite tragic and cruel.

Carter did okay as president, and never let his presidency stop him from being the most successful ex-president ever.

Bush Sr. was up to his neck in Iran Contra and oth

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to popular belief, President George H.W. Bush was not all that terrible of a President or political operator. He just wasn't all that popular. And he was actually a decent spookmaster.

Wait, what? Have we fallen so far that we have to paint over Bush Sr.'s legacy like we already have Reagan's? How pathetic.

Even if you discount the unproven and unproveable stuff (dirty deeds for Hoover, lying about his presence in front of the book depository, bagman for the October Surprise, member of the pedophile "big brother" club, bigotry against atheists, et cetera ad nauseum) it's still pretty clear that Bush Sr. was a warmongering corporate toady who only looks good by comparison with his retarded son.

Much like Clinton, who looks great when compared with anybody else post-Eisenhower, but that's only because the field's so weak.

Re:Bush Sr. was up to his neck in Iran Contra and

[fustakrakich]

Much like Clinton, who looks great when compared with anybody else post-Eisenhower, but that's only because the field's so weak.

Kennedy was okay. He had a great looking wife and mistress.

Carter proved the USA died; it wasn't him.

[bussdriver]

Carter was proof of the collapse of the peoples' democracy. It happened already, during Nixon (arguably, with the death of JFK.)

Most people don't realize how the system dysfunctions. The president does not have great power, the system is more powerful and when they go with the flow they can appear to have great power - but as soon as they swim upstream they realize they have no actual power. The military will even have generals screw up on purpose if necessary. (Whats dozens of lives vs an agenda?)

Carter didn't play games which became MORE important than governance (always is to some but when it is nearly everything is gaming, it is the beginning of the end.) Carter fought his own party because it had plenty of corruption of it's own. But it is FAR FAR more than just those petty but dominant political games:

We transitioned during Nixon to a P.R. perception machine unlike anything the US had ever seen before and more advanced than Hitler could have dreamed of... all while keeping the pretense of a free press and free speech! It continues to this today. Carter was old-school and the new propaganda system easily defeated reality. Today, they don't even care about even being realistic with their lies on many demographics they control. Nixon and his backers INVENTED the modern "think tank" to do research to counter universities and public research as well as handle propaganda, which dominate the mainstream media today, as well as act as the sole information source for many politicians.

NIXON took us off the GOLD standard, yet Carter was/is blamed to this day by revisionists. That caused low-level problems that the public was never informed about as the symptoms flared up. It put the USA at the mercy of OPEC for starters. It doesn't matter how much OIL the USA has, because if you don't make people buy OIL in US dollars, the money falls flat! That was part of the scheme, replace GOLD with OIL which only could be bought with US dollars. This tied the USA to the middle east more than anything, including our demand for oil! (Carter didn't dare touch the bankers.) It was not possible to go back after that and today it is nearly impossible since we've inflated the value of the dollar so much. Transition planning has been going on.... in think tanks...

Watch "Yes, Minister" because it highlights the power of the support system and the genius of the Nixon era planners at targeting aspects of it.
Doesn't matter how smart you are - hundreds of average people combined will eventually beat you overall.

Don't whitewash Nixon here.

[Valdrax]

Wow, there's a lot to go through here.

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell?

Unlike with Nixon, there's no evidence that Obama had anything to do with that. The Watergate scandal, in comparison, involved people from Nixon's presidential campaign (Liddy), the US Attorney General, and Nixon's personal Presidential Council. It's most likely that Curtis Morrison acted independently. He was a member of Kentucky liberal advocacy group that had no connections (that I'm aware of at least) to Obama or his Presidential Campaign. If you have evidence that says otherwise, I'd love to read it.

Just because Obama is a Democratic President doesn't mean that he's actually directly in charge of every Democrat or other liberal.

How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS, the EPA, and other federal agencies, and have the NSA spy on them and on reporters?

Well, first of all, the IRS scandal was mischaracterized in its early stages by the media. The IRS looked at a broad spectrum of 501(c) groups. Conservative groups were targeted (groups that mentioned "Tea party," "9/12", "patriots," etc.). So were liberal groups (ones that mentioned "occupy," "progress," "equality," etc.). So were groups interested in Israel, constitutional issues, the integrity of elections, and several other nonpartisan issues. Of those groups, the only one that was denied 501(c) status was Emerge America, a liberal advocacy group. No conservative groups were denied.

Now it wasn't completely non-partisan. Conservative groups were delayed in receiving their approval. There's indication that the National Organization for Marriage had its 2008 tax return deliberately leaked. Some chicanery was going on there.

But did Obama know? Signs indicate that he learned of it about the same time the public did. (He was aware of an ongoing investigation but not the contents of it.) No evidence has arisen that he did know ahead of time.

As for the EPA FOIA fee thing, I'll admit that's kind of shady. I don't believe it comes from the top, but it's a black mark on his administration, I think based on the facts I currently have. I think the effects of being on Nixon's enemies list was a bit more harsh: tax audits, denial of federal grants and contracts, etc.

For the last, I hate the NSA spying programs, but is there any evidence they've specifically went after reporters? I'd love to hear it. (More fuel for the fire on that subject, as far as I'm concerned.)

Nixon never orchestrated a false flag kidnapping at a consulate, and then tried to cover it up when it went south.

Neither did Obama. That's full-on crank territory if you want to claim that's what Benghazi was. Nixon did however orchestrate a burglary at the Chilean embassy, which is far closer to what you're accusing Obama of than what actually happened.

He never sold weapons to drug cartels.

True, you'd have to wait for Reagan for that. Of course, he was straight up selling arms to terrorists and using the money fund drug trafficking contras to fight communists. (Yet another episode in a long, terrible history of covert US actions to support terrible people just because they are the enemies of our enemies.)

Obama's ATF, at least, was selling the guns to try to track down criminals with an intent to disrupt and arrest them -- not to deliberately support them. Still, a pretty colossal screw up considering how many arms weren't recovered.

He didn't target children with drones, either.

Only because he didn't have them. The carpet bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens of thousands of civilians was a far greater atrocity than Obama's drone program (which I think is unconscionable too; just on a far different scale of "collateral damage," aka negligent mass murder).

Re:Don't whitewash Nixon here.

[Curunir_wolf]

Good response, I have to hand it to you. And you're obviously quite informed. I won't try to address everything you've brought up, but I'll respond to a couple of things:

For the last, I hate the NSA spying programs, but is there any evidence they've specifically went after reporters? I'd love to hear it.

This was a big deal in the news, but it was overshadowed by some of the other stuff going on, not surprised not everyone heard about it. Basically, the justice department obtained months of AP reporters' phone records, a rather huge sweep rather than a targeted investigation, just looking for evidence of leaks. So far, Holder has not been forthcoming about why they did it.

Obama's ATF, at least, was selling the guns to try to track down criminals with an intent to disrupt and arrest them -- not to deliberately support them.

According to them (politicians / liars, but I repeat myself). But, according to some, the real purpose was to supply guns to the largest cartel, allow them to wipe out their rivals, with the theory that a single large cartel could be manipulated better than all the little competing groups. Who to believe? I don't know, but in either case you could claim that there were good intentions involved. But then we know what road is paved with that.

I do, in fact, credit Obama with following up on Iraq and Afghanistan as he said he would (even though I disagree with his decision to escalate / continue the conflict in Afghanistan. But the Middle East strategy is still the same one created during the Bush administration, and so is the domestic spying, secret programs, drug trade, corporate welfare, and other fascist programs, and I condemn him for that, doubly so because he promised MUCH different.

Re:Don't whitewash Nixon here.

[betterprimate]

It's most likely that Curtis Morrison acted independently

Definitely he had. I cannot help but dismiss a person or party altogether simply by suggesting otherwise; it's such a fantastic (as in stupid) conspiracy. To even suggest Obama or his administration had anything to do with Turtle Man is just preposterous. Nor was McConnell's office even bugged; it was recorded from outside the office and perfectly legal in some states.

This guy was just a political zealot with journalistic aspirations.

Re:Don't whitewash Nixon here.

[betterprimate]

He never sold weapons to drug cartels.

True, you'd have to wait for Reagan for that. Of course, he was straight up selling arms to terrorists and using the money fund drug trafficking contras to fight communists. (Yet another episode in a long, terrible history of covert US actions to support terrible people just because they are the enemies of our enemies.)

Reagan essentially created the drug cartels. Which is among many great examples of why we should not allow political and social ideologies to fuel our foreign policies and warfare; instead we should take a consistent diplomatic stance of neutrality.

Cross Iran off that list.

[Valdrax]

But we've had a long history of selling weapons to pretty much anybody. Except Iran, DPRK, and Cuba, of course.

Cross Iran off that list, given how much we sold to the Shah before the revolution (which how they still have American aircraft in service), and the arms we sold them during Iran-Contra affair.

Peace Prize

[sjbe]

Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Price for his efforts at various hot spots around the world...

And deservedly so. Unfortunately Barack Obama was also awarded the same prize apparently for getting elected president rather than any actual actions on his part in support of peace AND he used the acceptance speech to argue that war is sometimes justified AND he has failed to close Guantanamo Bay or to even keep making the argument that it should be close which makes the credibility of the prize a bit more suspect than it used to be.

While he may have not accomplished much of note while in office, Carter has far and away been the most active, most influential, and best ex-president this country's ever seen.

I very much agree with that. Carter appears to be a very genuinely decent human being and has been a real force for good in the world.

Snowden is BOTH whistle blower and traitor

[WindBourne]

When he spoke about spying on Americans, he was a whistle blower. Had he been smart, he would have stopped right there.

Sadly, that idiot carried it into treason and has not only harmed America's interest, but his own: his life.

Snowden will never ever have a normal life. More importantly, no nation will trust a man that is such a traitor. Sure, they will USE him for a time, but he will not be allowed into any place in which he could damage that nation. And within 20 years, he will want to come back to the west, and will be willing to do his time.

Re:Snowden is BOTH whistle blower and traitor

[cffrost]

When he spoke about spying on Americans, he was a whistle blower. Had he been smart, he would have stopped right there.

Sadly, that idiot carried it into treason and has not only harmed America's interest, but his own: his life.

Are you referring to the badly sourced, unsubstantiated allegations made in the The New York Times smear piece? If not, can you please provide a source that backs up your claim that he committed treason, along with what actions of his constitute treason?

Re:Snowden is BOTH whistle blower and traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling everyone your government is breaking the law spying on citizens (of every part of the world) is right. Telling everyone how your government do the spying on other nations diplomatic and government institutions is treason.

Re:Snowden is BOTH whistle blower and traitor

[WindBourne]

No, it has to do with his describing how we do things.

Look, I have no doubt that BOTH china and Russia have copied the disk drives, and without his know it either.
BUT, the real treason was not just when he stole drives, but when he speaks about how we do these things.

Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian. The files provided by Edward Snowden illustrate the scale of co-operation between Silicon Valley and the intelligence agencies over the last three years. They also shed new light on the workings of the top-secret Prism program, which was disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post last month.

Right there, that is treason. He was not talking about spying on Americans. He was talking about how the NSA does its job. I can not stand MS. They are a very corrupt and inept company. However, they were doing the right things and will burn for it.
Snowden is a traitor in every sense of the word.

Re:Snowden is BOTH whistle blower and traitor

[WindBourne]

Actually, it was NOT right for him to tell that we were spying on other nations. That is treason. What is whistle blowing is speaking about spying on Americans, and showing proof that it occurred.

A whole lot of [cite needed]

[rsborg]

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell? How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS, the EPA, and other federal agencies, and have the NSA spy on them and on reporters?

That's a whole lot of assertions where [cite needed]. Got links from non-partisan sources?

Death of US manufacturing greatly overstated

[sjbe]

As you can see, the aggregate manufacturing output is 12% of the GDP, less than that attributed to real estate. The aggregate value of industrial production in the US is $1.7 trillion dollars. If you honestly believe the aggregate value of all manufacturing in the world is $8.5 trillion, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

The US has 18% of global manufacturing output according to the link YOU provided. That means that the $8.5 trillion number is pretty close if you accept those numbers. The fact that manufacturing is a smaller portion of the economy is not an indication of any failure on the part of US manufacturing but rather speaks to the success of other sectors, particularly services. The only country with a manufacturing sector of comparable size is China.

The US does have some industry, but it is not relevant to the employment and purchasing power of the average citizen.

Per the link YOU provided the US is the largest manufacturer in the world with a manufacturing output greater than India, Germany, France and Brazil combined. Explain to me how we can have such a large manufacturing sector, employing about 12 million people and have it be "not relevant to the employment and purchasing power of the average citizen". Additionally manufacturing is responsible for 60% of US exports and 29% of total economic growth since 2009.

PS: Your 1/5 number was probably true in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not going to lookup that data however.

I suggest you do look it up because that number is correct. 18% is a pretty good approximation of 1/5. You pretty clearly have not looked at any actual data on US manufacturing.

Face value

[Anonymous Coward]

President Carter is a brilliant man that employed an ineffectual staff/cabinet.

Reagan was an idiot with a diabolically evil staff/cabinet.

He's The Guy

[Greyfox]

I hear tell that after he got in office the CIA briefed him on their assassination program and he was appalled. IIRC he signed an executive order pretty much on the spot saying we don't kill bitches. That was the last I heard of us killing bitches until President "Rain Death From Above" Obama got into office. I don't think even W killed any bitches (He just imprisoned them without any method of judicial review and shocked their testicles from time to time.) (And yes technically he DID kill a LOT of bitches, but he AFAIK he mostly did so "legally".) Glad to have our age-old tradition of killing bitches back with the Big O, but we still have a lot of catching up to do with the Russians, who have it honed to a fine, polonium-tipped art.

Shuuure

[Anonymous Coward]

Now look up the video how GHWB sucks up to the Wahabist tyranny. Saudis did 9/11.

Looking Back It Is Easy To See

[jmd]

Argue tit for tat all you want but, Carter was on the right track. We as a nation derailed with Reagan..................

The way I saw it ...

[dbIII]

The straw that triggered the landslide was an actual attempt to take on terrorists instead of paying them off, the failure of that attempt, then Reagan stirring up trouble over that. Guess what Reagan did on his first day and guess how many millions were in that payout to terrorists? That and the debacle in Lebanon set the scene for how extremists saw the USA as a soft and easy target in the years since.

"Beneficial"

[betterprimate]

Peanuts!

Carter?

[IndieVoter]

Jimmy Carter may be a 'good' person, but was a terrible President. He set back US foreign policy 20 years. It is unfortunate when someone cannot just accept the past and move on. They need to hire publicists and filmmakers to attempt to recast themselves or attempt to buy future favor. Outragious quotes and publicity stunts seem to be a favorite method these days. Expected for fallen Hollywood bimbo, but distasteful for an ex-President. Oh, and Mr Carter, you can reimburse the US taxpayers for the billions of dollars you spent on a submarine base that no one, including the US Navy, wanted. I am sure you put a stipulation somewhere that it will be named after you when you pass.

Road to Reagen

[Presto Vivace]

The Destruction of the Carter Presidency by the Democratic Congress

tsch

[KingBenny]

there's no real democracy to be found anywhere in the world. You get a particracy at best. Moreover, everyone's trying to keep more control all over the place since 'the days of old' are obviously over now the information age is actually really beginning. What happened with Snowden is beneficial to everyone but him i suppose. Like any hacked revealing a possible exploit he showed his ex-masters where to plug the holes and towards ze peepel he affirmed what most already suspected (the ones who actually spend time thinking about non-convenient stuff)
in my momentarily very being bored opinion everyone wins but him since he will be on the run and wanted for like
ever ?

/. Fuckers Late

[Anonymous Coward]

Hay /. Fuckers.

Your FISA court just authorized continued vacuuming of internet and telephone communications traffic.

Don't U feel proud.

Don't U feel exonerated.

Don't U fell ... exalted.

Could the FISA whose Judges can be killed by Obama, using death squads from Army Special Forces -- i.e. contractors, rule any other way?

Answer: Hell NO.

Hay /. Fuckers ... time to get drunk buddy!

Feel'n ... betrayed [?] ... since the Roll'n Stone Cover ... Ay! Fuckers.

What the world would be without Obama and /. Fuckers.