David should like this one!

[Tigermike 2,359]

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:25 AM

Our Worst Former President, Again - Jed Babbin

Jimmy Carter is at it again. It was only about two weeks ago when the former president said, in an interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel, that Israel was unjustified in attacking Lebanon. Now, speaking to the British Daily Telegraph, he's condemning British PM Tony Blair for being too compliant and subservient to President Bush.

The Der Spiegel interview was, itself, a comprehensive view of Mr. Carter's view of the Middle East and the war on terror. Flacking his new book, Carter was asked whether he believed that the hatred of the US throughout the Arab world he stated in his book indicated that Washington's calls for democracy in the Middle East had been discredited. The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize laureate answered, "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."

That was too much for the interviewer who followed up by asking, "But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?" Carter was undeterred. "I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for the massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon." Carter added later that he believed he spoke for the vast majority of Democrats. Now the UK Sunday Telegraph brings Carter's wisdom to Britain.

The Telegraph article begins, "Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter." Carter begins by expressing surprise and "extreme disappointment" at Blair's behavior. And it gets worse. Carter blames Blair for what he believes to be a disaster in the Middle East resulting from a wrongheaded policy of pre-emptive war: "We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that even in countries like Egypt and Jordan our approval ratings are less than five per cent. It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."

Carter's comments - as offensive as they are ill-timed - will hurt Blair badly. Blair is trying to hold on to office beyond the end of this year at a time when even the hapless Cameron Tories are catching up to him, and his own ministers are working determinedly to maneuver him out of office quickly. Blair - like him or not - has as clear an understanding of the global terror threat as anyone else in his nation or on the Continent. Any new Labor prime minister could easily withdraw British troops from Iraq suddenly, resulting in a substantially weaker coalition presence there at a critical time. That appears to be just what Carter has in mind.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/

[DKW 86 6,404]

Hell, I dont have to make a fool of Carter, he does it himself...

[TexasTiger 9,013]

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:25 AM

Our Worst Former President, Again - Jed Babbin

Jimmy Carter is at it again. It was only about two weeks ago when the former president said, in an interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel, that Israel was unjustified in attacking Lebanon. Now, speaking to the British Daily Telegraph, he's condemning British PM Tony Blair for being too compliant and subservient to President Bush.

The Der Spiegel interview was, itself, a comprehensive view of Mr. Carter's view of the Middle East and the war on terror. Flacking his new book, Carter was asked whether he believed that the hatred of the US throughout the Arab world he stated in his book indicated that Washington's calls for democracy in the Middle East had been discredited. The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize laureate answered, "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."

That was too much for the interviewer who followed up by asking, "But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?" Carter was undeterred. "I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for the massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon." Carter added later that he believed he spoke for the vast majority of Democrats. Now the UK Sunday Telegraph brings Carter's wisdom to Britain.

The Telegraph article begins, "Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter." Carter begins by expressing surprise and "extreme disappointment" at Blair's behavior. And it gets worse. Carter blames Blair for what he believes to be a disaster in the Middle East resulting from a wrongheaded policy of pre-emptive war: "We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that even in countries like Egypt and Jordan our approval ratings are less than five per cent. It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."

Carter's comments - as offensive as they are ill-timed - will hurt Blair badly. Blair is trying to hold on to office beyond the end of this year at a time when even the hapless Cameron Tories are catching up to him, and his own ministers are working determinedly to maneuver him out of office quickly. Blair - like him or not - has as clear an understanding of the global terror threat as anyone else in his nation or on the Continent. Any new Labor prime minister could easily withdraw British troops from Iraq suddenly, resulting in a substantially weaker coalition presence there at a critical time. That appears to be just what Carter has in mind.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/

Carter's right. And Blair's own constituents agree with Carter. BTW, history and the American people will see Bush as the worst American President hands down. Only the addle-brained kool-aid drinkers don't see that at this point.

[DKW 86 6,404]

Tex, no matter what, Bush is still not Carter.

[TexasTiger 9,013]

Tex, no matter what, Bush is still not Carter.

Yes, and Carter is not Bush.

Two things we can agree on.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

......history and the American people will see Bush as the worst American President hands down.

We will see. Liberals said the same thing about Reagan when he was in office. Not so true today, is it?

Even if history judges him as "the worst American President handsdown", it will also show that no one the libs could put against him could beat him.

Jimmy Carter, the only American president ever to be attacked by a rabbit!

[DKW 86 6,404]

Carter out frenched the French. Got his a$$ kicked in Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, And by Reagan. The economy was SSSOOO bad under Carter that Reagan just decked him in the last debate by bringing up the Misery Index. Inflation+Unemployment=Misery. It got nothing but worse under Carter. It went from 13-14% under Ford, to 21%+ under Carter.

He was a domestic Failure. A Foreign policy Failure. A international failure with Iran. There has never been a President that never suceeded at anything like Carter, except for maybe Hoover and at least he wasnt a International failure. He sucked domestically. Carter and Hoover will tie for the worst President of the 20th Century.

Carter was the complete failure package.

[TexasTiger 9,013]

Carter out frenched the French. Got his a$$ kicked in Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, And by Reagan. The economy was SSSOOO bad under Carter that Reagan just decked him in the last debate by bringing up the Misery Index. Inflation+Unemployment=Misery. It got nothing but worse under Carter. It went from 13-14% under Ford, to 21%+ under Carter.

He was a domestic Failure. A Foreign policy Failure. A international failure with Iran. There has never been a President that never suceeded at anything like Carter, except for maybe Hoover and at least he wasnt a International failure. He sucked domestically. Carter and Hoover will tie for the worst President of the 20th Century.

Carter was the complete failure package.

Bush's failures have far longer term consequences. Carter did not balloon the national debt and did not irreparably screw up the middle east as has Bush. Carter failed in Iran, but Bush has made Iran far more powerful.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Carter didn't screw up the middle east? What are you smoking? It's Carter's fault we're in the fight we're in now.

[DKW 86 6,404]

Carter out frenched the French. Got his a$$ kicked in Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, And by Reagan. The economy was SSSOOO bad under Carter that Reagan just decked him in the last debate by bringing up the Misery Index. Inflation+Unemployment=Misery. It got nothing but worse under Carter. It went from 13-14% under Ford, to 21%+ under Carter.

He was a domestic Failure. A Foreign policy Failure. A international failure with Iran. There has never been a President that never suceeded at anything like Carter, except for maybe Hoover and at least he wasnt a International failure. He sucked domestically. Carter and Hoover will tie for the worst President of the 20th Century.

Carter was the complete failure package.

Bush's failures have far longer term consequences. Carter did not balloon the national debt and did not irreparably screw up the middle east as has Bush. Carter failed in Iran, but Bush has made Iran far more powerful.

Testimony that you are truly lost Tex. The Iran problem of today is the grandchild of Carter's screw ups in the 70's. Hell Tex, the leader of the hostage takers is the new president in Iran!!!!!!

[TexasTiger 9,013]

Carter out frenched the French. Got his a$$ kicked in Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, And by Reagan. The economy was SSSOOO bad under Carter that Reagan just decked him in the last debate by bringing up the Misery Index. Inflation+Unemployment=Misery. It got nothing but worse under Carter. It went from 13-14% under Ford, to 21%+ under Carter.

He was a domestic Failure. A Foreign policy Failure. A international failure with Iran. There has never been a President that never suceeded at anything like Carter, except for maybe Hoover and at least he wasnt a International failure. He sucked domestically. Carter and Hoover will tie for the worst President of the 20th Century.

Carter was the complete failure package.

Bush's failures have far longer term consequences. Carter did not balloon the national debt and did not irreparably screw up the middle east as has Bush. Carter failed in Iran, but Bush has made Iran far more powerful.

Testimony that you are truly lost Tex. The Iran problem of today is the grandchild of Carter's screw ups in the 70's. Hell Tex, the leader of the hostage takers is the new president in Iran!!!!!!

Further testimony, as if it were needed, that you no understanding of history or complexity. First, it is unclear if the current Iranian President was involved in the hostage crisis, but even if he was, the Iranian revolution was the result of a simmering resentment of the West propping up the Shah since the 1940s. The taking of the hostages is not a point of pride in Iran-- otherwise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would claim, instead of deny, involvment even if it weren't true.

The Iranian crazies were assisted by terrorists loving negotiator Reagan-- remember "arms for hostages"?

The terrorists were long ago emboldened by Reagan's cutting and running after 243 Marines were slaughtered in Lebanon.

Reagan reversed Carter's plan for energy independence by 1990, thus further empowering the Arab world, connecting our future to it.

These facts have far more to do with the current state of the middle-east than Carter's frustrating efforts to get the hostages released-- even though all were eventually released alive.

[DKW 86 6,404]

Further testimony, as if it were needed, that you no understanding of history or complexity. First, it is unclear if the current Iranian President was involved in the hostage crisis, but even if he was, the Iranian revolution was the result of a simmering resentment of the West propping up the Shah since the 1940s. The taking of the hostages is not a point of pride in Iran-- otherwise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would claim, instead of deny, involvment even if it weren't true.

Tex, you need to get away from the brainwashing from the Left. The CIA Denials I read sound like more politics than a dinner with your ex-wife and your kids. The original post sited below points out that there was a miscommunication on which hostage taker was supposed be MA in the photo. The hostages identified the right most guy, the idiots in the press tried to debunk the man just to his left. Now the denial seem more for politics than for reality. One hostage denying he is the guy says (parahrased) "it is not importnat what my recollections are if it harms a return to normalized relations."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/103307.shtml

I guess Tex will now claim that He knows better than the 6 hostages held for 444 days under Carter.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/099446.php

Six former American hostages have said they recognized Ahmadinejad.

"As soon as I saw the face, it rang a lot of bells to me," Don Sharer of Bedford, Ind., told CNN. The former naval attache at the Tehran embassy said he was 99 percent sure of his identification. "When you're placed in a life- threatening situation of that nature, you just remember those things," he said.

Another former hostage, William J. Daugherty, a former CIA officer who now lives in Savannah, Ga., said he remembered Ahmadinejad "acting in a supervisory or leadership capacity" during the early weeks of his captivity.

Retired Col. David Roeder, 66, who was deputy Air Force attache at the embassy in 1979, has told reporters that Ahmadinejad watched as interrogators threatened to kidnap Roeder's handicapped son in the United States and mutilate him "if I didn't start to cooperate."

Daughtery, the sixth to make the allegations against Ahmadinejad, is a political science professor at AASU. WSAV:

In 1979, Dr. Daugherty was a young CIA agent. He was stationed in Tehran, the Iranian capital, when he and dozens of other Americans were captured and held for over a year. 25 years later, Dr. Daugherty says a familiar face from that time is now running Iran.

Last week Iranians picked a new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Daugherty says he's sure he was one of his captors.

"This is him, he's clearly- uh you can see he's trying very hard to look menacing and threatening here, here he's looking much more relaxed but you see the similarities in the nose, in the chin, the hair line, the eyebrows."

Dr. Daugherty is a professor at AASU here in Savannah now, teaching political science. He says he's not surprised the new president of Iran is one of his former captors. He says others have held positions in the Iranian government.

The Iranian government says these men are not the same person, but Dr. Daugherty says he knows they are.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.president/

The Associated Press, in its archives, has a series of photographs showing a student hostage-taker that some of the former hostages believe to be Ahmadinejad.

His official biography says that as a student at the University of Science and Technology, he was a member of the Office for Strengthening Unity, the student organization that planned the takeover.

Abdi told CNN that of the Office for Strengthening Unity members involved, none were University of Science and Technology students.

Ahmadinejad joined the Revolutionary Guards in 1980 and served in the Iran-Iraq war. Last Saturday he was declared the winner of Iran's presidential election, winning more than 61 percent of the vote over former two-term President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

"I saw his picture in the Washington Post on Saturday morning, recognized it immediately and then sent an e-mail out to some of my former colleagues ... telling them what I thought and seeing what kind of responses they might have to it," said William Daugherty, a former CIA officer who now lives in Savannah, Georgia.

Daugherty said he remembers "seeing him acting in a supervisory or leadership capacity during the first ... 2 1/2 weeks (but) on the 19th day, I was moved into solitary confinement and had limited contact with even my Iranian guards after that."

Sharer said he was 99 percent sure Ahmadinejad was involved.

"In one incident he just called (Army attache Col. Charles Scott) pigs and dogs and we deserved to be locked up forever," he said. "When you're placed in a life-threatening situation of that nature, you just remember those things."

The AP reports that one person who did not recognize Ahmadinejad as a captor was senior defense attache at the time, Col. Tom Schaefer. The AP reported him being more concerned about the return to power of hardliners in Iran than by the thought Ahmadinejad might have been a hostage-taker.

Asked about Schaefer's recollections, Daugherty and Sharer said memory works different ways for different people.

"We were all in different circumstances," Daugherty said. "We were exposed to some of the Iranians more than others. So, you know, if Tom was actually quoted correctly in saying he didn't remember, again that's not the same thing as the guy not being there."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...=002&sc=782

However, Mark Bowden, whose book on the hostage crisis, "Guests of the Ayotollah," will be published next year, said Ahmadinejad had been a leader of the group whose members seized the embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

"He was one of the top members of the group and directly involved in decision-making,'' said Bowden, whose book is based on interviews with many of the hostages and hostage-takers. "Not so much in the supervision of hostages - - that was left to lesser lights."

He said the denials now emanating from Iran might be motivated by internal politics as well as by the international uproar.

[TexasTiger 9,013]

Further testimony, as if it were needed, that you no understanding of history or complexity. First, it is unclear if the current Iranian President was involved in the hostage crisis, but even if he was, the Iranian revolution was the result of a simmering resentment of the West propping up the Shah since the 1940s. The taking of the hostages is not a point of pride in Iran-- otherwise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would claim, instead of deny, involvment even if it weren't true.

Tex, you need to get away from the brainwashing from the Left. The CIA Denials I read sound like more politics than a dinner with your ex-wife and your kids. The original post sited below points out that there was a miscommunication on which hostage taker was supposed be MA in the photo. The hostages identified the right most guy, the idiots in the press tried to debunk the man just to his left. Now the denial seem more for politics than for reality. One hostage denying he is the guy says (parahrased) "it is not importnat what my recollections are if it harms a return to normalized relations."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/103307.shtml

I guess Tex will now claim that He knows better than the 6 hostages held for 444 days under Carter.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/099446.php

Six former American hostages have said they recognized Ahmadinejad.

"As soon as I saw the face, it rang a lot of bells to me," Don Sharer of Bedford, Ind., told CNN. The former naval attache at the Tehran embassy said he was 99 percent sure of his identification. "When you're placed in a life- threatening situation of that nature, you just remember those things," he said.

Another former hostage, William J. Daugherty, a former CIA officer who now lives in Savannah, Ga., said he remembered Ahmadinejad "acting in a supervisory or leadership capacity" during the early weeks of his captivity.

Retired Col. David Roeder, 66, who was deputy Air Force attache at the embassy in 1979, has told reporters that Ahmadinejad watched as interrogators threatened to kidnap Roeder's handicapped son in the United States and mutilate him "if I didn't start to cooperate."

Daughtery, the sixth to make the allegations against Ahmadinejad, is a political science professor at AASU. WSAV:

In 1979, Dr. Daugherty was a young CIA agent. He was stationed in Tehran, the Iranian capital, when he and dozens of other Americans were captured and held for over a year. 25 years later, Dr. Daugherty says a familiar face from that time is now running Iran.

Last week Iranians picked a new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Daugherty says he's sure he was one of his captors.

"This is him, he's clearly- uh you can see he's trying very hard to look menacing and threatening here, here he's looking much more relaxed but you see the similarities in the nose, in the chin, the hair line, the eyebrows."

Dr. Daugherty is a professor at AASU here in Savannah now, teaching political science. He says he's not surprised the new president of Iran is one of his former captors. He says others have held positions in the Iranian government.

The Iranian government says these men are not the same person, but Dr. Daugherty says he knows they are.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.president/

The Associated Press, in its archives, has a series of photographs showing a student hostage-taker that some of the former hostages believe to be Ahmadinejad.

His official biography says that as a student at the University of Science and Technology, he was a member of the Office for Strengthening Unity, the student organization that planned the takeover.

Abdi told CNN that of the Office for Strengthening Unity members involved, none were University of Science and Technology students.

Ahmadinejad joined the Revolutionary Guards in 1980 and served in the Iran-Iraq war. Last Saturday he was declared the winner of Iran's presidential election, winning more than 61 percent of the vote over former two-term President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

"I saw his picture in the Washington Post on Saturday morning, recognized it immediately and then sent an e-mail out to some of my former colleagues ... telling them what I thought and seeing what kind of responses they might have to it," said William Daugherty, a former CIA officer who now lives in Savannah, Georgia.

Daugherty said he remembers "seeing him acting in a supervisory or leadership capacity during the first ... 2 1/2 weeks (but) on the 19th day, I was moved into solitary confinement and had limited contact with even my Iranian guards after that."

Sharer said he was 99 percent sure Ahmadinejad was involved.

"In one incident he just called (Army attache Col. Charles Scott) pigs and dogs and we deserved to be locked up forever," he said. "When you're placed in a life-threatening situation of that nature, you just remember those things."

The AP reports that one person who did not recognize Ahmadinejad as a captor was senior defense attache at the time, Col. Tom Schaefer. The AP reported him being more concerned about the return to power of hardliners in Iran than by the thought Ahmadinejad might have been a hostage-taker.

Asked about Schaefer's recollections, Daugherty and Sharer said memory works different ways for different people.

"We were all in different circumstances," Daugherty said. "We were exposed to some of the Iranians more than others. So, you know, if Tom was actually quoted correctly in saying he didn't remember, again that's not the same thing as the guy not being there."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...=002&sc=782

However, Mark Bowden, whose book on the hostage crisis, "Guests of the Ayotollah," will be published next year, said Ahmadinejad had been a leader of the group whose members seized the embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

"He was one of the top members of the group and directly involved in decision-making,'' said Bowden, whose book is based on interviews with many of the hostages and hostage-takers. "Not so much in the supervision of hostages - - that was left to lesser lights."

He said the denials now emanating from Iran might be motivated by internal politics as well as by the international uproar.

You're right. All those guys look like him. Funny how he has more trouble growing a beard now, than then. He looks like Ethan Hawke trying to show he's a man.

Of course, I never said he wasn't, just that it was unclear-- which it is. I also said that if he was, it didn't support your "argument"-- a term I use loosely with you.

You, of course, refused to address my points.

[DKW 86 6,404]

No, Tex. I firmly believew the more we deal with Iran the stupider WE look. They have beaten us up multiple times in diplomacy. Dealing with them is a Lose-Win deal.

They were seriously emboldened by the Hostage taking and the Muslims seem to love it as a real tactic even today. ie Lebanon-Hezbollah.

Iran is doing exactly what they wanted to do, slowly turning the Mid-East into a Sharia Law based Republic.

IF carter had read the tea leaves earlier with the Shah, we would not be where we are today. Reagan did what he felt he had to do.

As far as Energy Independence goes, I have done a 180. It must happen if we are to stay strong. That means cutting fuel consumption, even if it takes Al Gores/John Kerry's dollar a gallon tax to get there. BUT, we must also start drilling in the Gulf and and in ANWR. We need to work both ends of the Independence angle. As China and India grow economically, we will slowly fall behind in importance and oil will become more and more expensive. Just take today's world economy and add about 2BN homes and 4BN cars to it.

[Tigermike 2,359]

As far as Energy Independence goes, I have done a 180. It must happen if we are to stay strong. That means cutting fuel consumption, even if it takes Al Gores/John Kerry's dollar a gallon tax to get there.

How about if Al Gore & John Kerry get out of their SUV's & limos?

[DKW 86 6,404]

As far as Energy Independence goes, I have done a 180. It must happen if we are to stay strong. That means cutting fuel consumption, even if it takes Al Gores/John Kerry's dollar a gallon tax to get there.

How about if Al Gore & John Kerry get out of their SUV's & limos?

MAybe a dollar agallon tax would get them out of the limos and out of their own jets too.