August 17, 2006 at 1:20 PM #7229powaysellerParticipant
Here’s a Spiegel interview with Jimmy Carter.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country’s old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?
Carter: There’s no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.
SPIEGEL: For example?
Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We’ve never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.
SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington’s call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?
Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.
SPIEGEL: But wasn’t Israel the first to get attacked?
Carter: I don’t think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that’s justified, no.
Under Bush, our nation has taken on the largest budget deficits. He is the first president in over 100 years to have 0 vetoes. The join Republican controlled government has increase the size of government in size, budget, and scope. The Medicare bill will almost guarantee a doubling of taxes. He strayed far from Republican ideals, A real disappointment. Why doesn’t someone call an impeachment hearing?August 17, 2006 at 1:32 PM #32190rocketmanParticipant
Are you JUST starting to see the true side of this idiot and his cabinet? I wash my hands – I never voted for him.August 17, 2006 at 1:43 PM #32192hsParticipant
Either did I.
“Why doesn’t someone call an impeachment hearing?”
That is my question, too.August 17, 2006 at 1:47 PM #32194CarlsbadlivingParticipant
Too many people have been brainwashed.August 17, 2006 at 1:55 PM #32196Diego MamaniParticipant
Yes, impeachment. And Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried for crimes against humanity. Their unprovoked, lies-driven invasion of Iraq has caused countless deaths (over 100,000). Even today, there’s almost daily carnage there. All that chaos was unleashed by the real axis of evil: dubya-cheney-rumsfeld. Saddam was a crook and a dictator, but he was no madman, and he kept order in his country.
Now we are in a Catch 22: we are damned if we stay in the hell we created in Iraq, but if we leave, the Taliban-style fanatics will take over. Either way we are infinitely worse than had Saddam stayed in power. And hatred of the USA increases by the day, because of these injustices. This certainly makes us less secure, for decades to come. Satan (if he or she exists) should be very proud of this axis of evil (see above).
BTW: The 100,000 deaths are based on conservative and scientific estimates published by The Lancet, a highly respected British medical journal.August 17, 2006 at 1:59 PM #32198MANmomParticipant
Why are you posting this on this forum, start your own web sight if you want to talk politics…THIS IS A HOUSING BLOG…or did I miss something? Stick to the housing issues. PS, proof your writing before you post, it just looks like you don’t know what you are talking about and didn’t do your research – regardless of if you are right or wrong. Oh, and it is “Der Spiegel.”August 17, 2006 at 2:02 PM #32199Diego MamaniParticipant
Yes, MANmon, proof your writing. It is website, not “web sight.” And you did miss something: this is the Off Topic subforum.August 17, 2006 at 2:09 PM #32200powaysellerParticipant
I never liked Bush. I would prefer a president who had better than a C average in school. His poor public speaking and monkey face are not my main issue; rather, his lack of intelligence and vision is what I really dislike. His fundamentalist views, instead of making him more humanitarian, make him shut out all those who are not believers as he. I know the military and pro-gun people like him, because he gives a large military budget. Many of his advisors have resigned, he has no economic policy at all, and he has left a mess in positions and policies in his wake.
Here is more from Jimmy Carter:
SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?
Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God’s ideas and God’s premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases — as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world — it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant.
Another thing is that a fundamentalist can’t bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them — which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don’t believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it’s just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.
SPIEGEL: So how does this proximity to Christian fundamentalism manifest itself politically?
Carter: Unfortunately, after Sept., there was an outburst in America of intense suffering and patriotism, and the Bush administration was very shrewd and effective in painting anyone who disagreed with the policies as unpatriotic or even traitorous. For three years, I’d say, the major news media in our country were complicit in this subservience to the Bush administration out of fear that they would be accused of being disloyal. I think in the last six months or so some of the media have now begun to be critical. But it’s a long time coming.
SPIEGEL: Take your fellow Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton. These days she is demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But she, like many others, allowed President Bush to invade Iraq under a false pretext.
Carter: That’s correct.”
The problem with Bush, as I’ve said many times, is his lack of ability and/or willingness to negotiate with our perceived enemy. He has alienated more countries and endangered American safety even more by thinking he is “too good to talk to them”. The Democrats are no better. Now, that the war is obviously going bad, they are calling for resignations. Why didn’t they make this call several years ago? Why did they allow the war to go forward? Hillary’s call for Rumsfeld to resign in politically motivated. She is not doing this in the best interest of the country; but in the best interest of her selfish plan for election.
Another thing we must all realize it is really a 2 party system. Although we have other party candidates on some ballots, the laws make it extremely difficult for a Libertarian, Natural Law Party (my favorite party), Communist, Socialist, or other politician to make it on the ballot. They have to gather tens of thousands of signatures within a few weeks timeframe (ONLY within those few weeks), to even get their name on the ballot.
The Republicans and Democrats basically control the system and make it impossible for any other party to get elected to President. If you ever read the ideas of other parties, you will realize that the difference between Republican and Democrate is like the difference between a Protestant and a Methodist; basically, they are the same. I would love to get a whole new set of ideas sometime, and a choice of more than 2 parties on the presidential ballot. Wouldn’t that be true freedome?August 17, 2006 at 2:18 PM #32201PerryChaseParticipant
Bush is a nutcase. He has walked away from all conservative ideas such as small government and low government intrusion on people’s lives for a police state that benefit his hard core followers.
We’ll all be paying for his misguided policies for decades to come.
It’s very interesting to me that his voters in the red states are low income rural folks who don’t benefit from his social policies (and whose children he’s sending to war). Why are they voting againts their interests?
A group of generals and diplimats are now calling Bush’s Middle East policy a major failure. George Soros is also speaking out against the Administration.
At least Nixon was a pragmatist and not a theocrat like W. Nixon (Kissinger) took a great ennemy like China and made it a friend. We should do the same with Iran.August 17, 2006 at 2:43 PM #32203PerryChaseParticipant
” I would love to get a whole new set of ideas sometime, and a choice of more than 2 parties on the presidential ballot. Wouldn’t that be true freedome? ”
Yes, it would be more freedom to have more political parties. However that would mean trying to build fragile coalitions to govern. I believe that one reason that the American model economic model is successful is because we have little discent. We have some rancor in our political debate but pretty much everyone eventually falls into line. That allows us to work, work, work more efficiently.
I think that, with technological advances that allows the government to track everyone, we might be headed to a Star Trek kinda life where everyone is “happy” but then again everyone has to ask for the captain’s permission to go to the “hollow deck”
Having traveled around the world, I notice that, in America, friends rarely disagree. If they did disagree they wouldn’t be friends anymore. In other parts of the world, friends and family would sit down at the dinner table and vehemently disagree. Yet they still love each other and remain friends. For example, in America, a socialist and a capitalist could never be friends.August 17, 2006 at 3:05 PM #32207picpouleParticipant
Well, you guys are true blue Californians, which is absolutely dominated by Democrats. Yes, Bush has authorized spending a lot of money, but we’re fighting a war against Islamic Nazism. It’s money well spent to me. And anyway, spending — it’s a big yawner. What politician doesn’t want to spend money? It always kills me when I hear liberals complain about spending today. You guys love spending money! Let’s be honest, do you think there would be less spending with Democrats holding power? All you have to do is look at California, which is run by Democrats who control the purse, and see what a basketcase the state is in.
Bush is far from perfect, but Jimmy Carter was the absolute worst President we’ve had in recent history. He didn’t support the Shah of Iran — who admittedly, was no angel. But at least the Shah was friendly to the West and the people of Iran were not living under the crushing oppression of the Ayatollahs, Shariah law and the religious police. And Iran was funding terrorism around the world. Carter could have tried to persuade the Shah to adopt democratic reforms. But he didn’t even try. In my opinion, Jimmy Carter was an idiot wimp who had no idea what to do when Iranian “students” took over our embassy in Tehran and held 66 Americans for 444 days. Under Jimmy Carter, we got to see the failed Operation Eagle Claw, which caused the death of 8 of our servicemen who were trying to rescue the hostages. All the while, the Ayatollahs laughed at Carter’s wimpishness and took heart in how weak he was. Emboldened by his weakness, Iran became a state supporter of international terrorism, which the Ayatollahs unleashed around the globe enthusiastically. In my view, we’re in the fix we find ourselves in today because of Jimmy Carter and his weakness in the face of those despicable Ayatollahs who today are busy taking down satellite dishes, rounding up homosexuals and Jews, hanging young girls who can’t resist the advances of older men, and perpetrating other crimes and civil liberty violations on the Iranian people. In his Der Speigel article, Jimmy Carter shows us once again the utter nincompoop he is and always has been.August 17, 2006 at 3:12 PM #32209CarlsbadlivingParticipant
Under Jimmy Carter, we got to see the failed Operation Eagle Claw, which caused the death of 8 of our servicemen who were trying to rescue the hostages.
I can’t wait until 8 of our serviceman die under the watch of George W. Oh wait, I think that might have already happened.August 17, 2006 at 3:21 PM #32210speedingpulletParticipant
I’m with you there PerryChase.
When the US first went into Iraq, I made the mistake of disagreeing with somebody about the ‘reasons’ behind it.
Oh.My.God….I seriously think the guy I was talking to would have shot me if he’d been able to. As it was, our co-workers had to seperate us…well him from me, anyway. I won’t go into the names and epithets he threw at me, except to say that my way of thinking was very ‘unpatriotic and unamerican’…
That was my first introduction to poltical ‘discussions’ over here. Now I normally keep my mouth shut – which is difficult for me.
Growing up in England, you’d quite often have an ‘argument’ – ie a discussion with another person who did not share your own views – that would be interesting and exhilhirating – views would be exchanged, hopefully each side would learn a little bit about the other’s, and after agreeing to disagree it would be time to get another round in 😉
Over here, I often find that my viewpoint is left of Stalin’s. My own fault for living in ‘socialist’ Great Britian, i guess. Consequently, due to my leftist leanings, and the lack of debating skills of many people here (present company on Pigginton’s excluded) I try not to open my mouth when things get ‘hot’. Being a card-carrying agnostic, I find the religiosity in the States both baffling and a little bit scary, as most of the UK has no religious leanings at all.
As for third/fourth/fifith political parties…you win some, you lose some.
On the other side of the spectrum, you get the kind of mess that plagues Italy and Israel – new parliaments almost every year. Proprotional Represtational politics is even more bloody than a two-party state, as you need to woo other parties to your ‘side’ in order to have enough representation to govern.
The UK almost makes it with three parties – Labour, Conservative and Liberal. however, Liberals have not had a good run of it in the last 50 years or so, so for all intents and purposes the main choice is either Labour or Tory (Conservative).
I wish that the parties over here would actually make a stand for what they think. So much time on both sides seems to be taken up with trying to cuddle up to the middle ground. Republicans and Democrats are now so similar in ideology that its hard to decide which party to vote for. Democrats seem to want the same electorate as the Republicans, and will throw away any signs of ‘leftist/socialst/liberal’ leanings, in order to be exactly like thier Republican counterparts.
My feeling on the coming vote is….’meh’.August 17, 2006 at 3:23 PM #32211picpouleParticipant
We’re in a war, so yeah, servicemen are going to die. Unfortunately.August 17, 2006 at 6:34 PM #32227bgatesParticipant
More servicemen died during the last year of the Carter presidency than during any year of the Bush presidency. (I don’t think the last year was an aberration, but I don’t have the data available for 1977-79.)
What those deaths accomplished was the removal of two dictatorships. Some of the violence since the removal of Saddam and the Taliban has been due to Iranian agents, who would be less of a problem if the Iranian regime had been confronted earlier, by any of W, Clinton, HW Bush, Reagan, or, yes, Carter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.