Former President Carter States Americans Misled --

Show me a smarter, more resourceful, more respected diplomatic person for the job, and I´ll get behind them.

Carter is leading the charge in informing the public about some of the garbage this administration has been up to.

Good job, Mr. President.

I salute you as well.

He is truely a white knight.

White knight indeed :-)

Bear, ahem...


Real-Life ´National Treasure´ -- in Reverse
Walt Disney´s action film, "National Treasure," is a fanciful hunt for hidden treasure with characters following complex clues left behind by the Founding Fathers. In real-life Washington, the "October Surprise mystery" -- whether Republicans sabotaged Jimmy Carter in 1980 with behind-the-back dealings with Iran -- represents how the world really works, with modern-day leaders doing all they can to destroy any clues that might lead the nation to an honest conclusion. May 6, 2005

[link to www.consortiumnews.com]


"Republicans sabotaged President Jimmy Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran in 1980."

A Lawyer & National Security Cover-ups
Prominent Washington lawyer Lawrence Barcella has come under criticism for the use of a false affidavit to convict former CIA officer Edwin Wilson on terrorism charges in 1983. But the unraveling of the Wilson case -- and its damage to Barcella´s reputation -- also raise new doubts about Barcella´s role in "debunking"  the October Surprise allegations that the Reagan-Bush campaign disrupted President Jimmy Carter´s Iran-hostage negotiations before the pivotal national election in 1980. May 4, 2005

[link to www.consortiumnews.com]


David Rockefeller & ´October Surprise´ Case
Election 1980 was a turning point in American political history, but how the Republicans exploited Jimmy Carter´s humiliation over the Iranian hostage crisis to ensure Ronald Reagan´s victory is still little understood. Nor do the American people know the background roles in the "October Surprise" case played by David Rockefeller, the Shah of Iran´s banker, and his many powerful friends. Adapted from Secrecy & Privilege. Posted April 15, 2005

[link to www.consortiumnews.com]


Rockefeller Aide´s Tie to ´October Surprise´
Some of the most intriguing documents found in the files of the House ´October Surprise´ Task Force relate to the role of Joseph Verner Reed, one of Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman David Rockefeller´s top aides. According to an FBI agent´s notes, Reed tried to stonewall the investigation of alleged Republican interference in President Carter´s 1980 Iran-hostage negotiations. The Reed documents were never released to the American people but were found by reporter Robert Parry in a Capitol Hill storage room. Part of our new Document Archive. Posted April 12, 2005.

[link to www.consortiumnews.com]


"...a rare case of Moscow cooperating with the United States on an intelligence investigation -- asserts that Reagan-Bush campaign officials did secretly negotiate with Iranian leaders behind President Carter´s back."

Russian Report on ´October Surprise´ Case
For the first time, we are posting the "confidential" Russian government report about the 1980 "October Surprise" case. The report -- a rare case of Moscow cooperating with the United States on an intelligence investigation -- asserts that Reagan-Bush campaign officials did secretly negotiate with Iranian leaders behind President Carter´s back. Posted April 5, 2005

[link to www.consortiumnews.com]




BMG

Let see, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, who, during the 444-day, Iranian Hostage Crisis, helped plan an ill-conceived and disasterous rescue attempt, then did nothing else but mope around the White House Rose Garden, then got voted out of office after *one* term, due to his *inaction*, is *critisizing* Bush over the Iraqi war? People who live in glass houses....

Sorry Twiki, I gotta bust you on that.

What really happened. What you can find in historical documents, if you care to look, is that Old Ronnie bribed the terrorists to hang on to the hostages until after the elections.

That´s the Damn Truth, and You Don´t even Care, do you????

Peace.
David.

BMG

If the Reagan-Bush Campaign *did* secretly negotiate with the Iranians, at least *they* were trying to do something to *resolve* the crisis (unlike Carter). Remember how the hostages were freed the *moment* that Reagan was sworn in? It *could* have been a PR move instigated by Reagan, but it also showed something else. It showed that the Iranians respected Reagan *far* more than they did Carter, and by waiting until *after* he was out of office to free the hostages, it would be a final ´slap´ to his face (and honor).

That was pretty dumb, that arguement you just put out there.

You were just caught supporting terrorists. You said they respected Regan, as though it were a good thing.

What about Regan´s support from the KKK and the Neo-Nazi groups? Were those good?

The terrorists wanted to give back the hostages. They were trying to arrange to give them back, and Regan´s guys contacted them.

Regan´s guys WERE RESPONSIBLE for the HOSTAGES NOT BEING FREED EARLIER. MONTHS EARLIER.

How the FUCK can you defend that??????

Damn, Bundy.

I Just Kicked Your Arguement´s Ass.
David.

Jimmah Carter is a boob. He has proved it over and over again. It is a disgrace that a former President of the US supports the global haters; that goes for Clinton, too.

And David, that was directed at you too, then.

And if you´re so high on Carter, why hadn´t he been able to negotiate the hostages´ release (Surely a *President* would be able to offer them *far* more than a *Candidate* would be able to, right?)? So, I ask again, why hadn´t he been able to?

All those hostages came home.

And it was because of Carter they came home.

Regan Delayed their return for months.

Why would you defend someone making DEALS WITH TERRORISTS?????

Don´t you care that the Bin Laden family and the Bush Family are Old friends that Go Way Back????

Put your heads back in the sand.

I can tell the truth stings your eyes, and yet you still argue for the lies.

Peace.
David.

Question,oh Ancient One:

Tell me Oracle, who is the bigger boob?
Jimmah or Dubya?

Angel 2

MSNBC
Updated: 9:37 a.m. ET Nov. 3, 2005


Chris Matthews
Host of ´Hardball´

-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------

• Profile



If you believe in the adage, ´It takes one to know one,´ then, perhaps, the only person to offer true analysis of the Bush administration is a former president.

America´s 39th president, Jimmy Carter, has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administrations policies, particularly the war in Iraq and interrogation tactics. After serving from 1977 to 1981, he has worked tirelessly around the world on issues such as international conflict resolution, poverty, health care and social justice, earning him a Nobel Peace Prize in the year 2002. His latest book is entitled, "Our Endangered Values: America´s Moral Crisis."

President Jimmy Carter sat down with Chris Matthews to discuss his views on the recent revelation about the existence of CIA "secret prisons" and related interrogation tactics.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HARDBALL HOST: "Our Endangered Values" — are they endangered to some extent because of this new story we read in the paper, that the United States, the CIA has been setting up these prison camps unknown to the world, around the world, to keep the terrorists hostage?

Story continues below ↓
-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
advertisement

-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------

JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes. That´s one of the many values that this administration has changed dramatically and profoundly compared to all previous presidents who´s ever served, including Ronald Reagan and including George Bush Sr.
and including Gerald Ford and all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower.

I never even considered the fact that our country would be debating whether or not we could continue to torture prisoners around the world in secret prisons. This is something that´s inconceivable.

But I notice that the administration now is pushing hard to get Congress not to approve the John McCain proposal, supported by 90 out of 100 senators, that we not resort to torture. This administration is insisting that we resort to torture, which I think is a profound change in
our basic moral values, just one of many.

MATTHEWS: Isn´t that Dick Cheney, the vice president´s position? He basically taken the ramrod position in defending it?

CARTER: Well, he has. I think that´s an open fact that everybody knows. He been to
senators and they have made it public that he has urged them to permit the CIA to continue torturing prisoners.

MATTHEWS: Why are you opposed to torturing prisoners?

CARTER: Well, first of all, it´s against a basic human rights commitment that was made 50 years ago when the United Nations were first formed, and every country has agreed to abide by this restraint, including every president who served for the last 50 years.

It also besmirches America position as the so-called former champion of human rights. There´s not a single major human rights organization in the world that´s not now condemning America as one of the foremost violators of basic human rights.

And it´s not only just overseas in prisons for torture, but we have also done the same thing at home in doing away with civil liberties and incarcerating about 1,200 people after 9/11 who were not ever accused of a crime, who couldn´t have access to a lawyer, who couldn´t see their own family. They were finally — some of them secretly released.

But these kind of secret things that have been, I guess, excluded from the knowledge of even the overwhelming members of the Congress has now been revealed, and I think it brings about a lot of knowledge about what this administration has done that we didn´t know before.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the case of the guy who was picked up right before 9/11 up in Minnesota, asking to take flying lessons in the most sophisticated commercial aircraft -- not how to take off, not how to land, but how to fly the plane. Had we had him in custody, or you had, had him in custody as president and commander-in-chief, wouldn´t you have liked to interrogate him pretty harshly to find out what was coming? Wouldn´t it be justified — if he knew the story and what was coming to those people in the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon, wouldn´t we be better off torturing this guy to find out what was coming?

CARTER: No.

MATTHEWS: Why?

CARTER: Well, I think as Senator John McCain has explained very well, in the first place, when you torture somebody — and I think I would be the same way — you would probably confess to your interrogators` allegations just so they would quit torturing you.

MATTHEWS: Sure.

CARTER: So, therefore, in any trial court in the civilized world, testimony given by a person being tortured is prohibited as testimony, because they know that it´s under duress and you say something just so they quit beating you over the head, or whatever, twisting your arm.

Also, it brings about discredit for the reputation of America as a country that believes in justice and fairness and abides by international structures that have been put forward.

I have a personal feeling about this because my favorite uncle was captured by the Japanese less than a month after Pearl Harbor, Tom Gordy. He was in the Navy, on Guam, and he was tortured for four years and finally released at the end of the war.

It was only at the end of the Second World War that people assembled in Geneva and confirmed in writing with the whole world agreeing, we agree not to torture prisoners who are taken in wartime.

So this not only protects enemy prisoners who we have captured, but it also sets down a marker that if you capture one of our prisoners, you don´t torture them.

MATTHEWS: The reason I bring this up is because Professor Alan Dershowitz up at Harvard has said that when there are extreme cases, when there´s about to be something coming down, a major terrorist attack, we´ve got to take extreme measures to stop it from happening, including this kind of thing.

You can foresee a problem as commander-in-chief where you really just have to say, "Damn it, I don´t like doing this, it´s awful, it´s un-American, but we got to stop this from coming, we got to find out what´s coming up here"?

CARTER: No, I don´t agree that that´s a good premise because, as I said before — I don´t mean to repeat myself — under torture, you will confess to almost anything that your torturers want you to say.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this. There´s a great quote in your book, and I don´t know if it´s true or not.

Your new book, "Our Endangered Values": "This sharp and growing difference over the issue of whether international disputes can be better resolved by diplomacy or by military action is now the most accurate predictor of party affiliation — more important than gay marriage, homosexuality or abortion."

In other words, you can tell if a person is a Democrat or a Republican, where they tend to think, let´s go in, let´s use force, or Democrats, let´s try diplomacy.

CARTER: That´s exactly right. And that´s confirmed by all the major public opinion polls, which I studied for a couple of months before I wrote that paragraph.

That´s absolutely right. And it´s an honest different of opinion.

Most of these departures from basic moral values are held by very deeply committed people who believe they are absolutely right.

A lot of people believe in the Republican Party that if you have a strong military, the best way to meet America needs or to implement our influence around the world is to take military action.

Most Democrats believe that it´s better to use military action only if our security is directly threatened, but to use negotiation, mediation and forming alliances as a best approach.

That difference is the major single difference that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans.

MATTHEWS: If the current crowd running the country now, President Bush and Vice President Cheney and all the ideologues they have working with them were in power during the Cuban missile crisis, what do you think they would have done based upon what you just said?

CARTER: I think they would probably have gone to war. And I think...

MATTHEWS: Instead of handling it diplomatically the way Kennedy did.

CARTER: I think John Kennedy did it perfectly well, by being diplomatic about it. But one of the...

MATTHEWS: You think they would have just invaded Cuba?

CARTER: That´s just conjecture.

MATTHEWS: Well, you just said That´s the way they go about things.

CARTER: But I am talking about the modern-day Republicans. You have to remember too that this is something that has been mirrored in public statements by the president.

We have known for 200 — well, at least for 100 years, I wouldn´t say all the way back to the Indian times — that the United States government had the policy under Democratic and Republican presidents, we will go to war as approved by the international agreements if our own security is directly threatened. That particular premise concerning peace has been abandoned.

MATTHEWS: Sure.

CARTER: We now have preemptive war, which means we will go to war, we will bomb people, we will send missiles in to attack people, we invade countries if we disagree with their leader and think he ought to be removed or if we think that someday in the future they might pose a military threat to us.

That´s a complete and unprecedented and dramatic change in basic values of America.

MATTHEWS: Do you think if we had 50 hostages taken in Iran today, what do you think this administration would do? Use diplomatic means — it was kind of embarrassing, to put it lightly, for a year for you.

CARTER: It was.

MATTHEWS: You may have lost the presidency over this. Most people
think you did.

CARTER: But every hostage came home.

MATTHEWS: This administration — right. Would this administration have put up with that, or would they have gone into Iran?

CARTER: That´s just conjecture. I think they would probably have gone in, because That´s now a new policy — let´s take military action in effect first, not wait until our security is threatened.

MATTHEWS: What about the exception of genocide? Shouldn´t we invade if we see situations like Rwanda or even in Kosovo, where you have situations where one ethnic group is destroying another group, killing them all? Shouldn´t there be exceptions to this non-intervention policy?

CARTER: Well, I think that may be true.

But there again, there is a reticence here in international circles that I think is very wise, and that is that you go before the United Nations Security Council — and the United Nations is condemned by a lot of the people who disagree with my book — and you put this forward and say, look, there is likely to be genocide in this country. Let´s marshal an international attempt to correct it.

That´s what George Bush did when Iraq went into Kuwait. He didn´t go in unilaterally. He got the whole world to help.

MATTHEWS: Do you think President Bush, Sr., the first President Bush was pretty good at diplomatic efforts?

CARTER: Absolutely.

I think he was one of the best presidents I have ever known in international affairs.

Watch ´Hardball´ each night at 5 and 7 p.m. ET on MSNBC.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

David

"That was pretty dumb, that arguement you just put out there.

You were just caught supporting terrorists. You said they respected Regan, as though it were a good thing.

What about Regan´s support from the KKK and the Neo-Nazi groups? Were those good?

The terrorists wanted to give back the hostages. They were trying to arrange to give them back, and Regan´s guys contacted them.

Regan´s guys WERE RESPONSIBLE for the HOSTAGES NOT BEING FREED EARLIER. MONTHS EARLIER.

How the FUCK can you defend that??????

Damn, Bundy.

I Just Kicked Your Arguement´s Ass.
David."

Stop putting words into my mouth. I was *not* supporting the terrorists, and I was *not* saying it as though it was a good thing. I was making an observation, based upon circumstatial evidence.

You point about his *supposed* KKK-Neo-Nazi ties is BS because it has absolutely *nothing* to do with this discussion.

You say that the terrorists wanted to free the hostages far sooner, but that Reagan stopped them. Hmm, that sounds like you´re saying that a *Republican candidate* for President had more influence upon the terrorists than your man Carter (a *Democratic President*) did. That sure *sounds* like a ´no-confidence vote´ on Cater to me.

I am not defending anything.

BTW, if the terrorists *did* want to free the hostages, why didn´t they do so in the beginning (*before* Reagan started negotiating)?

No, you kicked your *own* ass!

Bundy.
Regan Bribed them.

His guys told the Terrorists that if they held on to the hostages, it would get Regan into office, guaranteed, and then they would give the Iranians all kinds of weapons and trade rights.

Probably lots of money as well.

Peace.
David.

So Iran Released them RIGHT after Regan gets into office.

Doesn´t that timing make you wonder???

At All???

You can´t even see Blatent corruption.

Why am I trying to explain something even slightly subtle to you?
David.

Maybe it´s not about influence ut rather that Reagan and GHWB pulled some favor or paid them off to hold ´em till Ronnie was elected as a going away surprise for Jimmah

David

You are avoiding one question of mine. If the terrorists *wanted* to release the hostages, why didn´t they do so in the first few days (long *before* Reagan and his people went to Iran)?

That is NOT the original Jimmy Carter, that is a clone retilian shill. Beleive at your own risk!!

They didn´t know that outing a covert CIA agent was unethical. So now they have to be shown whats right and wrong.
-----------------------------------------


White House counsel to give ‘refresher’ course
By Jim VandeHei Updated: 12:32 a.m. ET Nov. 5, 2005

"President Bush has ordered White House staff to attend mandatory briefings beginning next week on ethical behavior and the handling of classified material after the indictment last week of a senior administration official in the CIA leak probe."

[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]

The issue at hand is whether Bush misled the country!

I say no! He LIED!!! Plain and simple!

Don´t be side-tracked by the good cop/bad cop game...

From the National Review Online by James Robbins

www.nationalreviewonline.com

If you go to this article there are several important links to senate hearing findings, the duflur report, many reports which clearly prove Mr Carter and others who are perpetuating disinformation regarding prewar intelligence. If you have the guts check it out.

November 04, 2005, 8:34 a.m.
Intelligence Failure
Dems, now.



Senate Democrats are suffering intelligence failure. They have closed down the Senate and called for an investigation into prewar estimates of Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program. But their inspection teams have failed thus far to locate a mammoth July 2004 report on this very topic, the result of 13 months of effort by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The report was approved unanimously by the committee, supported by for example Senators Levin, Feinstein, and Edwards (a few weeks before he was selected as John Kerry’s running mate).




Meanwhile, former President Jimmy Carter has decried the manipulation of Iraq intelligence to deceive the American people into going to war. But this question had been covered exhaustively by the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, which released its report last March. It found “no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq´s weapons of mass destruction,” and that “the Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion.” Mr. Carter should follow the news a little more closely.

What’s at issue now is “Phase Two” of the original Senate report, in which statements by administration officials are being compared to prewar intelligence to see if the American people were being given the straight story. The Democrats hope that they will be able to find some examples of statements at extreme variance with the admittedly flawed intelligence reports. They submitted 300 such cherry picked statements for review, and the GOP added another 150 from both sides of the aisle in Congress just to be fair.

One would think that this would be an exercise best left to the blogosphere, which has already parsed and dissected every public statement made by the administration on the topic of WMDs. If there were a “smoking gun,” determined bloggers would have found it by now. But the White House has always been careful not to overstep reports. For example those who mocked the president for his statement in the 2004 State of the Union address that weapons inspectors has uncovered “dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” should have consulted the Iraq Survey Group interim progress report, from which he was quoting directly. The phrase was a bit clunky, but if the president had characterized what was found in any other way, those same critics would now be charging high crimes and misdemeanors.

Somehow this is all being linked to the Scooter Libby indictment, and Joe Wilson has been fanning those flames in his usual unassuming, low-key way. But since Wilson is reluctantly back in the limelight it is a good opportunity to revisit his 2002 trip to Niger to investigate whether the Iraqi government was seeking to reopen its long-standing Uranium trading relationship. Wilson went public about his mission in July 2003 to denounce the president’s assertion in the 2003 SOTU address that Saddam’s government had “recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Wilson claimed his investigation turned up no such evidence, at least not in Niger. From this he concluded that the administration was twisting the facts.

However, former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had admitted that in June 1999 he was approached by intermediaries requesting he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq, which Mayaki interpreted to mean renewing yellowcake uranium sales. I suppose you could quibble about the meaning of the word “recently,” but not about Saddam’s intention to restart his nuclear program at first opportunity, which was also the finding of the fall 2004 Duelfer Report. So if someone was lying it certainly was not President Bush.

When Wilson was questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee he exaggerated the significance of his findings beyond what the CIA had concluded, and also admitted that he had passed false information — i.e., had “mis-spoken” — to the press. Wilson has since made a number of conflicting statements in various venues, often with the intention of inflating his own importance. The Agency in fact gave his information only a middling grade, saying that it “did not provide substantial new information.” The CIA noted that the people Wilson spoke to knew that he was working for the U.S. government, and so naturally they would not admit to any illegal activities. (Can’t quite see them saying, “O.K. Joe, you got us, we’re the guys dealing with Saddam. Your country can invade us now.”) The only nugget to come out of the mission that the Agency considered valuable was the information about Mayaki’s perception of the June 1999 meeting, which actually supported the administration’s position.

I never understood the link between “outing” Wilson’s wife as a CIA employee and the notion that this would discredit him, unless of course it was the matter of nepotism. The CIA described Wilson as “a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record,” an amateur who could possibly come up with something useful if he was lucky, but who would never be relied on as the sole source for dispositive proof on any question, as Wilson has since represented himself. One wouldn’t say he suffers from deficient vanity. Considering the vast array of intelligence assets available to the U.S. government, someone like Wilson is obviously a bit player, and the more grandiose his claims become the less credibility he has. The best way to discredit Wilson is to let him keep talking and do the job himself. A few more sickeningly self-important photo spreads wouldn’t hurt either.

Truth is Democrats have once again backed into a corner.. man they are fun to watch, getting so predictable! If only they would expend energy on their own policy´s rather than try to crush their opponents, the good Lord knows they sure can´t out think em.

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version





November 04, 2005, 8:22 a.m.
Timetables, Apologies, & Scalps.
Craven Democrats.



Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let’s reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject. First, here’s the president:

If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.




Here is the vice president:

If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.

Here’s the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. These were not off-the-cuff remarks but vetted statements by the two highest officials of the United States.

Clinton and Gore were not alone in their conviction that Saddam had WMDs. France thought so, too, as did Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the Democratic administration. The Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months.

Robert Einhorn, Clinton’s deputy assistant secretary of state, told the Senate Governmental Affairs committee in March 2002 that Saddam could have nukes and the missiles capable of striking Europe “within four to five years” and would be able to deliver nukes in America via “non-conventional means.” “If Iraq managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material,” he said, “these threats could arrive much earlier.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller — the ranking Democratic on the Senate intelligence committee and now a full member of the “Bush lied” chorus — echoed Einhorn’s assessment, adding, “I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat” and “we can no longer afford to wait for a smoking gun.”

Sens. Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards all voted for the war.

Most of these Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the president. But now, in one of the most repugnant and craven partisan ploys in modern American history, Democrats have decided that they cannot accept their own responsibility in what they clearly consider to be a mistake. They cannot even criticize the CIA for yet another horribly botched job or stick to the ample areas where constructive criticism is warranted. Instead, the same CIA that liberals derided for years is now heroic, and Senate Minority Leader Reid has decided — now that the Fitzgerald investigation has fizzled — to dedicate his party to slandering the president.

Meanwhile, the Democrats cannot even admit they made a mistake supporting the war — except in that they believed Bush’s “lies.” But how could Bush have lied? How was he to know the intelligence was wrong? Without knowing that, he could not have lied. But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility that the very same intelligence that prompted Clinton to bomb Iraq also informed Bush’s decision to topple Saddam. And they will not even concede that, after 9/11, the argument over WMDs wasn’t the best — never mind the sole — argument for toppling Saddam but the easiest one.

“Never again” was the new rule after 9/11, and — after ousting the Taliban — Saddam was the next obvious target. He applauded the attack, funded suicide bombers, defied the international community and, we now know, pretended he had WMDs. Remember: “Regime change” became the official policy of the U.S. in 1998, not 2002. Post-9/11, where would you start?

But the Democrats don’t care. They don’t care about all the previous investigations or that the planet is watching this spectacle. Or that their shabby accusations feed the very worst theories about America’s role in the world. Heck, Howard Dean is recycling the charges in fundraising letters. They don’t care that Iraq is poised to become either one of America’s greatest achievements or its worst debacles. They want timetables, apologies, and scalps.

But does anyone doubt that if there were no insurgency, with Iraq as far along in the democratic process as it is now, the Democrats would be boasting about their bipartisan support for the war and cackling about how Democrats were right about “nation-building” all along?

But they don’t care. In their America, partisanship begins at the water’s edge.

— (c) 2005 Tribune Media Services


* * *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!

Whoever said this was right on target...

****Carter is a good man, but I don´t think he should be leading this debate. A lot of people think the beginning of the "War on Terror" began during his administration with the Iraniun hostage situation. If his presidency had dealt forcefully with the Iraniuns back then it may have avoided a lot more bloodletting now in the entire mideast.****

That´s exactly where this whole thing went wrong. That hostage situation was the precise point in history where radical Islam got the idea that the US was all talk and no action. (Or as the Texans like to say, all hat and no cattle)

All Carter had to do was bomb the living shit out of Tehran and they would have never screwed with America again.

And, might I add....Carter had a 23% approval rating at the end of his term. He´s ranked 38 on the list of "greatest" presidents.

Carter is a real nice guy. His humanitarian work has been outstanding. But as far as politics go, he should keep his mouth shut. He got his ass kicked. Margaret Thatcher could still take him in a fist fight.

Right on! A voice of clarity and honesty after years of so much lies, corruption, hate and bullshit. Bravo!

Idoits are posting here again. Critizing Jimmy Carter,(not a favorite of mine) for Iran and the hostage crisis.

Whoa huh, 40 something hostages, and eventually they were all freed.

Look what happened on Monkey boy´s watch. How many died on 9/11??? and that little inbreed chimp let it happen.

In 1951 iranian elections returned a to a popular nationalist government under Mohammed Mossadegh. His most controversial commitment was to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian oil company. It went ahead to great popular acclaim, but in August 1953 Mossadegh´s government was violently overthrown and replaced by a dictator called the Shah, and, with the assistance of economic aid from America and a brutal secret service, ruled roughshod over Iran for 26 years.

Did Jimmy Carter do this? Didn´t think so.

thank you james carter for finally stepping up to the plate. your a little late to the party though don´t you think?

Naturally the right-wing-nuts show what totally fucking morons they really are. Post away you idiots.

ya know - in the 80´s - I believed that BS about
Carter being a wimp, now I know better.


.