Historians Will Morally Impeach George W. Bush For Exploiting, Not Honoring, 9-11

Maybe Bush will be seen that way. History has shown that Jimmy Carter was the worst president in United States history.

History often shows a person to be better or worse than they were thought of during their lifetime.

 

As Carter's term recedes into history, the Camp David accords loom larger than his economic failures, and historians generally place him in the average to low average as presidents go.

Probably, his work on humanitarian and international relations after his presidency will help, although it's really irrelevant to his term in office.

Carter is well regarded in the rest of the world, because his major impact there was a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt. When Egypt abandoned hostility to Israel, that shut the door on any possibility of a military conquest of the Jewish state.

 

That is not surprising, and speaks volumes as evidence of Mr. Carter being the worst president in United States history as he did a terrible job defending U.S. interests vis-a-vis the rest of the world. So, of course, the rest of the world regards him well.

 

:applause:

Good point, Ken.

 

Carter was notorious for doing what was right, regardless of the consequences. You could argue that's a bad trait in a president. But it's an admirable trait in a human being.

And thirty years of peace between Israel and Arab is a fitting monument the kind of man he is.

Compare Bush's peace process, and you get some idea of the relative worth of the two.

 

Yeah, he really made all the right moves in 1979-80 concerning Iran.

 

Interesting. I thought that Hamas and Hezbollah are made up of Arabs.

 

Comparing Carter to the issue raised in this thread is irrelevent. The reason the article is so refreshing is the consequence that we now find ourselves in before the election. The Republicans have failed to lead, and deserve to get thrashed at the polls. The dilemma is the fact that putting Democrats in the position of leadership is not the answer, as we have all seen what their accomplishments throughout the 1990's in regards to foreign policy and terrorism result in. The only answer that demands attention is a new party with competent leadership.

 

Hmm... didn't turn over the Shah as demanded. Refused to deal with the terrorists to return the hostages... sent a military force to rescue them...

Which of these do you think was wrong? Note that the Iranians waited until he was out of office to return the hostages. They sure felt he was giving them a hard time about it.

They handed them over as soon as Reagan was inagurated, but it wasn't until much later that we discovered why.

Barbarian on Carter's establishment of lasting peace between Egypt and Israel:
And thirty years of peace between Israel and Arab is a fitting monument the kind of man he is.

Yep. Bush tried to do the same thing Carter succeeded in doing. You can see the results. One of the more telling differences between the two. Egypt and Israel remain at peace thirty years later. Everything Bush touches in the world goes haywire, except his work with India, which somehow went well.

 

Actually, either party would do, if they could find a leader who would shake them out of their doctrinaire habits and work for America for a change. Clinton came close to doing that, although the left wing was too strong for him. He did reform welfare, and did hold the line on the budget better than the presidents before and after him. By now, I'm grateful for "slightly better."

 

Actually, the Congressional Republicans reformed welfare. President Clinton finally went along with it when the political landscape made it impossible to oppose and win politically.

 

All the successful reforms during the clinton Administration were a result of the landslide win of the congress and senate in 1994. It was the "Contract with America" where welfare reform was established and implemented. Clinton fought and then came back to present it later as his.

 

Originally Posted by The Galatian
He did reform welfare

No. Newt had a different plan in mind, but Clinton told him to take the one offered. And Newt folded as he always did. Clinton's plan passed, with very few additions. Newt especially objected to provisions that gave incentives to jobless mothers with children to work, but even liberals have come to admit that the program has reduced welfare rolls.

Sorry, that kind of revisionism won't fly. All the provisions in the plan advocated by Clinton in his 1996 state of the union address ended up in the bill, in spite of criticism from the extreme right and extreme left. Gingrich did a head count prior to the vote, and discovered that he could not count on party solidarity. And Clinton got what he demanded.

Newt was the classic bully; tough until someone stood up to him. Clinton played him like a saxophone. :laugh:

 

Which was poorly planned and was a disaster. If Bush is going to be bear responsibility for things going wrong in Iraq then Carter must bear responsibility for things going wrong in the rescue mission.

By the way, I voted for Carter and worked as a volunteer in the Carter campaign in college in 1976.

 

I believe it is you, my friend, who is revising history. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I know that this is a legit photo.

 

Barbarian on the rescue mission Carter sent...

The difference, of course, is that Carter didn't plan the mission. Bush, on the other hand, overruled his military, and the whole country is now paying the price for that arrogance.

Indeed. Would you rather have Carter kowtow to the Iranians and send them military supplies in the foolish hope that they might like us better? Iran/Contra was a public humiliation for America. But at least Carter didn't grovel, as Reagan's people did.

 

Sorry, that kind of revisionism won't fly.

It's not me. In fact, Newt put together two different welfare reform bills and sent them to Clintion, who vetoed them both as ineffective. And his vetos were upheld.

Later, when Clinton insisted that provisions encouraging single parents to work be included, Newt caved and gave him what he wanted.

And it's a good thing. Under Clinton's plan, AFDC has declined 18 percent. And most of that represents people who found jobs sufficiently well-paying to get out of the system.

A good result in anyone's book.