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

No historian has shown this, at least, not one with any credibility. Few historians have evaluated modern presidencies at this point. The only one I've ever seen came from the Smithsonian, and their evaluation was based on ongoing research done down the street at the National Archives, related to effectiveness of a president during his term. Gerald Ford earned the title of "least effective" of the modern presidents, along with George H.W. Bush, of the post WWII era. Carter was in the middle of the pack, not too far behind Ronnie. I believe the Smithsonian sells that book at its museums in D.C., but it will run you a pretty penny.

 

I don't need a historian to tell me about Carter.

He may not be the worst in history, but he is certainly the worst in my lifetime.

 

'AMERICA CAN'T DO A THING'
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
November 2, 2004

"AMERICANS will certainly have 9/11 in mind when they vote today. But they should keep another date in mind, too — one almost exactly a quarter-century ago: Nov. 4, 1979. A clear path runs to 9/11 from the day of the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of American hostages"....

"The 1979 embassy attack came at a time when the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran...."

"The Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran. A ban imposed on the sale of arms and materiel to Iran, imposed in 1978, was lifted,...

"The embassy raid ...by all accounts, took Khomeini by surprise....According to his late son Ahmad, the ayatollah feared "thunder and lightning" from Washington. But what came, instead, was a series of bland statements by Carter and his aides pleading for the release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds....

"Carter went further by sending a letter to Khomeini.
Written in longhand, it was an appeal from "one believer to a man of God."
Carter's syrupy prose must have amused Khomeini, who preferred a minimalist style with such phrases as "we shall cut off America's hands."

"As days passed, with the U.S. diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras blindfolded and threatened with execution, it became increasingly clear that there would be no "thunder and lightning" from Washington. By the end of the first week of the drama, Khomeini's view of America had changed.

"Ahmad Khomeini's memoirs echo the surprise that his father, the ayatollah, showed, as the Carter administration behaved "like a headless chicken."

 

History is but a personal experience with dates.

As an outsider, I see presidents of the USA differently than do Americans with a political agenda. I often see citizens praising some men for what they do, but seldom acknowledging what they do not do, which often has more value than what they do.

Every president has played a role of need in American society. When someone is placed on a public pinnacle, he is open to every criticism possible. Every crack or crevice is exposed, and even cracks that aren't have been exposed by a press out to make a name.

We forget what Nixon accomplished early on and focus on his demise. He opened up the free world to China, which had been a closed society up til then.

Reagan restored the greatness of America if he did nothing else. He also returned a respect for Canada, America's best neighbour and friend, whether some will admit it or not.

Carter did restore a sense of moral values. Some viewed him as weak on military prowess, but maybe that was an important thing at the time in world values.

It is easy to point to flaws, but like the old saying goes, "When we point a finger, we always have three fingers coming directly back and a thumb pointing to God.

I think the presidency is the toughest go in life for any man, and personal flaws get magnified rather than looking for the good each man possesses.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Can't argue with that Jim.

 

Once again, Jim gives the reason scripture tells us to respect our elders.

Very nice stuff, eh ?

 

Dinosaur notices:

Those scriptures are secondary to the Constitution dont ya know.

 

Jesus corrects:
"Render unto Caesar, those things that are Caesar's and unto God, those things that are God's."

 

Me neither, carpro. Having lived, and survived, the Carter presidency I shudder to think that we might have had, or will ever have, a president as bad as him.

 

Why do historians rate Carter above average? Mostly because of his lasting impact on the world. Predominately his brokering of the only lasting peace treaty between Arabs and Israel.

His economic record looked worse in 1980, before we had the greatest economic turndown since the Great Depression (Bush I) the largest tax increase in US history (Reagan), debtor nation status (Reagan) and so on.

 

I truly believe history will remember him for doing what absolutely had to be done and those same writers will decry those that came after him and destroyed that great effort.

 

This scripture neither suggests that we should disrespect our leaders nor seperate God from our government. Because a government without God is a government against God.

 

How many men died because of him? How many regions did he destabilize?

I don't know, but it seems like some people give the highest ratings to presidents most responsible for war and destruction...because they are seen as "strong", sort of uber-he-men.

 

Great and mighty President Carter?

Daisy asked of President Jimmy Carter:

Well, I would say

Number 1 – Middle East. Well I would start with Iran and the middle east. Of course Carter inherited a bad situation in Iran but his actions made it much worse. He neither supported the Shaw and allowed him to put down the Islamic revolutionaries nor did he reach out to those revolutionaries to help the smooth transition to a new government. The result was not only an Islamic religious state which would have been bad enough by itself but an Islamic religious state who viewed the United States as their principle enemy.

Carter’s lack of action prior to the fall of the Shaw was exactly what he continued after they had taken our citizens hostage. He lacked the courage (or ability) for military action but instead tried to force Iran to release the hostages through economic sanctions. I would have to say that this region of the world is still destabilized as a result of Carter’s inaction. How many men died because of it? I would say every casualty of the Iran-Iraq war, every casualty of the Kuwait invasion and Desert Storm, and every casualty of our current war in Iraq. With a stable government in Iran friendly to the US we would have never supported Iraq as we did. Saddam would have never been more than a 3rd rate dictator, and these wars would have never happened.

Number 2 – Central America. Despite the huge investment of American lives and dollars during its construction Carter gave control of the Panama canal to a dictator who had seized power not through election but by coup (I am talking about Omar Torrijos, not Manueal Noreaga). This set the stage to allow a corrupt military drug runner to seize control of this nation and force the United States to invade Panama in 1989. Of course Caters failures in central America would also have to include his authorization for the CIA to attempt a coup in Nicaragua and the aid he gave to the government of El Salvador which Carter described after leaving office as the bloodthirstiest on earth.

Of course there was also the agreement between Carter and Baby Doc Duvalier to return Hatians seeking asylum (didn't we have to sent troops there also) and the emptying of the cuban prison system through the Cuban boatlift of 1980.

Number 3 – Southeast Asia. Oh I know the Vietnam war was over when Carter was elected. But he initiated a joint US Thai operation called task force 80 in 1979 that for 10 years propped up the notorious Khmer Rouge in Cambodia under the banner of anti-Communism. Carter was a strong supporter of Indonesia in their war with East Timor where the Islamic Indonesian government killed over 200,000 people in East Timor (over one-third of their population) due to war-related starvation, disease, massacres, or atrocities.

Number 4 – Afghanistan. No list of Carter’s failures would be complete without Afghanistan. Here in order to oppose the Soviet invasion Carter aligned the United States with those starch anti-communist nations of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We spent over 40 billion dollars of US money here to build a new army of Islamic freedom fighters including of course Osama bin Laden.

How many men have died and how much of the world has been destabilized as a result of Jimmy Carter? Like the number of licks in a tootsie roll pop, the world may never know.

Here is a link if you want to read more:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2463

Believe it or not I have met former president Carter and heard him speak several times. I have even bought several of his books. I like him as a man and I think his intentions were pure. But as a president I would have to say he was horrible.

 

Carter's severe recession was much worse than Bush I's economic turndown. I don't care what line some economist might give. I lived through both.

 

We should be so lucky...

In fact, unemployment declined under Carter. In spite of a massive olil shock that caused great inflation, the unemployment rate was lower than before Carter took office.

In Reagan's first term, when the borrow-and-spend philosophy was implemented, unemployment soared to over 10%, somethig that was never seen on Carter's watch. Reagan finally implemented a draconian tax increase, the largest in US history, and that succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate at the end of his term.

It was only a short-term fix, however, since spending continued out of control under Bush I. It wasn't until Clinton's term, that unemployment again fell. It actually fell below 4 percent in the last months of 2000.

With Bush II, the "spend yourself rich" philosophy again ruled, and accordingly, the economy has suffered and unemployment has again risen, although not to Reagan levels.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan

I think he was wrong. Truth is worth knowing. And economists know the truth about the eoncomy.

 

Yep. Because of what was set in motion during the Carter presidency. That is fact and is undeniable.

 

Must have been a very long motion. The worst of it came in 1983, long after Reagan's economic policies took hold.

And it didn't fall back to Carter-era levels, until after his borrow-and-spend policies had been abandoned for tax-and-spend.

 

Great answer!:applause:

 

The tax cuts were not passed until well into 1981. It took a couple of years to undo 4 years of mismanagement by the Carter administration.