Former President Jimmy Carter is trying to step back from calling President Bush’s foreign policy "the worst in history." Carter now says his remarks last week were "careless or misinterpreted." He says that he was only comparing the Bush administration’s foreign policy with President Nixon’s, and that he "was certainly not talking personally about any president."
But the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported Carter saying in an interview that "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." He also said that "the overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations . . . has been the most disturbing to me," and that Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war was "a radical departure from all previous administration policies."
And when asked by the BBC about British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support of Bush, Carter responded: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient. And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world."
Careless? Yes. Misinterpreted? Doesn’t seem like it.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
37 Comments
How about … ACCURATE!
I think Carter’s cognitive ability has diminished.
His inability to deal with Iran made his Presidency weak and impotent.
There were military members on welfare during Carter’s term.
Fighter aircraft had to scavenge parts in order to stay flying. Ships had to scavenge parts.
Super high interest rates.
Yeah, what a gem of a president.
How about … ACCURATE!
Posted by: Ben | May 21, 2007 at 01:14 PM
Which statement?this one:I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”
or this one:”he was only comparing the Bush administration’s foreign policy with President Nixon’s, and that he “was certainly not talking personally about any president.”
Face it. either he lied (one time or the other), or he’s lost it.My view, he’s lost it.
Carter is speaking an honest truth, not for parties or political gains.Republican, what Carter is saying has nothing do with being a Democrat.
Carter has spent the last 20 yrs trying to make up for his failed policies. he accomplished nothing during his, so he has to try and knock everybody else down..
The first statement. Personally I think he should have stuck to his guns abuot Bush’s policies.
As for the second – he simply noted that he was referring to policies not personalities.
Ben-
the fact is, he recanted his “this administration has been the worst in history”.Now he states he was only comparing it to the Nixon administration? Fact is, he changed his tune. Quickly. Either he lied, the first time or the second, or he’s lost it. Eithe way, I think he is diminished in effect.
Perhaps. Myself, I would put Bush the worst ‘that I know of’ referring to the part of history I have lived.
I understand. I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with Carter, but noting his inconsistency. WHile I voted for Bush, I am not a fan, and would not do so again unless his opponent was just totally abhorrent to me.
I think what you are seeing is “too much the diplomat.” That is why he fired Andy Young as UN ambassador. (I liked Young)
By the way, I referred to Young the other day on a Wolfowitz thread. Yound gave a vigorous defense of Wolfowitz on PBS NewsHour.
Carter just wishes that he wasnt the worse president ever after he let the draft dogers come back with no punishment.
You could be right about ‘too much the diplomat”. I don;t know which is giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think losing it may push out “lying”. All of us sometimes lose it, it is a human trait, especially as we get older. Lying is a character trait, one that i try not to assign unless I know for sure.
Carter should have simply said ‘watch what bush does, don’t listen to what he says’:U.S. bids to stop G8 push for climate deal By Jeremy Lovell44 minutes ago
LONDON (Reuters) – The United States is battling to stop next month’s Group of Eight summit in Germany from pushing for urgent talks on a new deal to fight global warming after the Kyoto Protocol lapses in 2012.
ADVERTISEMENTIn a draft of the final communique for the June 6-8 summit seen by Reuters, Washington wants references taken out to the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for a U.N. conference in Bali in December to open talks on a new global deal.
According to the draft, the United States supports the deletion of the following paragraphs: “We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and sustain our common basis of living.”
“To this end we will, in the face of the U.N. Climate Change Conference at the end of this year, send a clear message on the further development of the international regime to combat climate change.”
Environment ministers are due to meet on the Indonesian island of Bali on December 3-14. Britain and Germany are pushing for an agreement to kick-start talks on a successor treaty to Kyoto, extending and expanding its scope and membership.
Instead, the United States wants the final G8 statement to say: “Addressing climate change is a long-term issue that will require global participation and a diversity of approaches to take into account differing circumstances.”
The deletions are part of a concerted effort by the United States, which rejected Kyoto in 2001 and has ever since tried to undermine it, to water down the tone and content of the G8 summit declaration.
Most references in the draft, dated April, 2007, to targets and timetables to cut climate warming carbon emissions have met with objections from Washington.
It objects to efforts by G8 president Germany to get rich nations to agree to cut energy consumption by 20 percent by 2020 and raise energy efficiency in transport and power generation by the same amount over the same period.
It also objects to a call for actions to limit the rise in global temperatures to two degree Celsius this century and to cut carbon emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Top scientists predict that average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this century due to burning fossil fuels for power and transport, bringing floods, famines, storms and putting millions of lives at risk.
However, they also note that because of the 30-year time lag between taking action to curb emissions and those actions having any discernable effect, the lower end of the increase is inevitable even if tough curbs are introduced immediately.
Washington rejected Kyoto as economic suicide because it was not binding on boom economies China and India whose emissions are mushrooming.
Those countries argue that as most of the pollution in the atmosphere came from the rich, developed nations, they should bear the brunt of the bill for tackling its causes and effects.
China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil will be at the summit at the German seaside resort of Heiligendamm.
Negotiations to expand and extend Kyoto beyond 2012 are barely moving and diplomats are hoping that the G8 summit will agree on a declaration strong enough to revitalize the talks.
They say success at Heiligendamm would raise hopes the Bali meeting could agree outline principles for new post-2012 talks.
Failure in Germany could delay the process even further and risk leaving a post-2012 vacuum given the time it is likely to take to negotiate and ratify any Kyoto replacement.
For sure CO2 affects climate change. However, it is highly speculative that human driven CO2 that is 0.12 percent of CO2 emitted is hardly the sole cause of GW.
It is most likely not even a primary forcing cause. Water Vapor and Clouds Feedback is huge compared to to the other gases combined.
Carter saying this is like the pot calling the kettle black.
As a private citizen, President Carter has the right to voice his opinion and as a former president, I am sure he is appalled by the abuses of power he has witnessed under this Presidency and feels a moral obligation to speak the truth to Bush’s incompetence. To write off President Carter as “increasingly irrelevant” as the White House has done, is arrogant and disrespectful of 70% of the American population who also believe Bush has not upheld the constitutional values of our democracy.
Republican,
“However, it is highly speculative that human driven CO2 that is 0.12 percent of CO2 emitted is hardly the sole cause of GW.”
No… it’s highly inaccurate.* Humans add more than 0.12% of the CO2.* The added CO2 has a lifetime of 100+ years, so it accumulates.* CO2 is not the “sole cause” — human-added CH4, N2O, CFC’s, etc ALSO cause warming. Plus a small increase is solar.
Water vapor is a positive feedback. It reacts to the forcings caused by CO2 and other factors.
Can the 28% that still suppport Bush’s policies please stand up? I’m sorely disappointed that President Carter backed off his criticisms of the Bush administration, but it’s interesting that we are spending anytime discussing whether Carter is “losing it” or “lying.” There would be much more content if we discussed whether Bush is losing it, ever had anything to begin with, or is a bold-faced liar. My vote is for all three toppings.
For those of you who are in the exclusive “1/4 of America Bush Supporters Club” please feel free to respond, since you are well practiced in your defenses of the current administration. While your talking, I’ll be counting down to the end of this administration and the beginning of the rebuilding of America in our own eyes and the eyes of the world. Perhaps Carter was initially speaking out because of the relief that his administration was no where near as defunct, destructive, or poorly managed as our current administration.
I vote ACCURATE>>>>
lmao – CO2 never ever dissipates eh Cosmos? It just sits around, lingers nothing ever happens to it once it gets to the atmosphere?
What a maroon.
Your 0.12% CO2 is nothing compared to what nature introduces and yet you and your U.N. buddies claim it’s responsible from everything to hurricanes to blizzard conditions and the making of desserts.
Yeah, uh huh…
They call them feedback loops for a reason Cosmos. Water Vapor dwarfs CO2 in size and effect.
When was the last CO2 rain storm have you seen? Have you seen CO2 fog?
How about a lake of CO2 Cosmos?
What is the human body comprised mostly Cosmos? CO2 or water?
Do ocean going ships float on a CO2 or is it that wet stuff?
When you look up into the sky Cosmos, what do you see? Clouds of CO2?
How many times has their been Climate Change Cosmos and all before man even omhabited the earth.
Did the dinosaurs make up in their dinosaur brains all of those tropical places?
How about the woolly Mammoth Cosmos? Did the Mammoth image all of those glaciers and snow?
And what happened to those Mammoth Cosmos? Did they start burning fossil fuels and their environment disappear?
Come back and play again Cosmos, when you can afford to buy more chips at the big boys table.
Say what you want about Jimmy Carter, he is an honest and moral person who lives his values.
Can’t say that about ‘ole dubya.
Republican,
Are you unable to read, or do you enjoy lying about what I post?
I wrote: “The added CO2 has a lifetime of 100+ years, so it accumulates.”
You falsely claimed I’d said “CO2 never ever dissipates eh Cosmos?”
Republican’s “0.12% CO2″ is a MISQUOTE of a FALSE claim made by retired meteorologist Augie Auer.
‘You, too, can be a leading climate scientist’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php
Republican cannot even accurately quote the skeptic’s falsehoods.
This isn’t about Carter. Carter is simply commenting about what we already know about the Bush cabal. Carter’s choice of words is of no significance and frankly couldn’t be bad enough to describe the “Bush Bunch.”
So this “word watch” may be an opportunity to divert attention from the subject of the “worst presidency ever,” but is irrelevant to the matter at hand; the destruction of the United States by Bush and his cronies.
Isn’t it amazing how a president is regarded once he leaves office? He has no power. He is no threat. And all of the sudden he is a new person. No matter how many misdeeds or how incompetent, he is eventually remembered with admiration. Even Nixon.
Back when I was in college Jimmy Carter was running against Ronald Reagan. I voted for Carter. I was a registered Democrat back then. By the time four years rolled around, my life had changed. I was in the real world and I realized how little I had in common with the Democrat party, the party of my parents and grandparents. I became a Reagan Republican. And I’ve been one ever since.
I think Carter is a good man. I have no doubt he thinks exactly what he said. But it has been an unwritten rule, a good one in my view, that former presidents don’t personally criticize the current White House occupant. Mr. Carter is, I think clearly a few logs short of a rick these days.
President Alzheimer was the one with the short rick . . .
The bozo is the White House doesn’t know what a rick is.
“There were military members on welfare during Carter’s term”Posted by: Republican
Hey Republican, guess what… There aint that much different from todays military. Today, a solder as high as E6 with one kid and a wife qualifies for welfare, and thats on deployment pay…
I agree that Carter was not an effective president, but Bush is by far the worst I have seen in my 58 years. He is stupid, arrogant, bull-headed and those are just his good points.
Can anyone name a worse President than Bush? And how are the 28% of the American public who like Bush somehow relevant in comparison to the 72% that despise him? Once again the conservative extremists are out of touch with the American public.
outlander,
“I became a Reagan Republican. And I’ve been one ever since….But it has been an unwritten rule, a good one in my view, that former presidents don’t personally criticize the current White House occupant.”
Both Reagan and Ford criticized Clinton, while Clinton was president.
Do you folks remember when the Reagan v. Carter match was too close to call via the polls. And we all know how that one turned out. It seems that Dems wanting to vote for Reagan were too ashamed to admit it.
There will be a decided switch for at least the next two elections. Bush has so, to use the former CF’s words, screwed the pooch, that the dems could run a profoundly inadequate candidate. That concerns me. We’ll see what happens.
Tony,
You can check the pay scales yourself, but an E-6 with 12 years of service, married and one child makes 4040.08/month. That includes Base Pay, Separate Rations and Housing Allowance.
Tell me what part of Kansas or any state for that fact, has $48,480.96 per year that qualifies for welfare.
I vote for “Accurate”
Bush ranks right down there with Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, and Hoover for his failed foreign policy (war in 2 countries) while failing in his economic policies (cutting taxes for the rich while paying for a war), along with the scandals of his administration and the failure to meet the needs of the people of the United States. (New Orleans, New York trade center, etc.)
The vote for worst president ever, is the only vote I could give for Bush!
Carter just wishes that he wasnt the worse president ever after he let the draft dogers come back with no punishment.
And Bush wants to give illegal immigrants amnesty for breaking the law. Isn’t this no punishment also?
What is your point?
Jimmy Carter is by far the most honest of all our presidents and sometimes his honesty gets him into trouble.
Besides, isn’t Jimmy Carter also afford his right to free speech? Are you Republicans really trying to stifle this man’s right to his expression of his own feelings?
Isn’t the freedoms we have here in America the very reason GWB invaded Iraq to bring those people who were so desperate for the same freedoms?
Why, then, would you want to stifle Carter’s free speech when we are trying to show the world and Iraq what democracy and freedom is truly about?
Carter – the yellow-bellied sap sucker is eating his own words now – like the coward he’s always been.
What’s new? He STILL can’t take a stance on anything and hold his ground.
What a loser.
Why, then, would you want to stifle Carter’s free speech when we are trying to show the world and Iraq what democracy and freedom is truly about?
Posted by: cat | May 22, 2007 at 12:56 PM
wow. did I miss something? disagreeing with him, even calling him irrevelant, is different that wanting to stifle his free speech? One unwritten rule was spoke of, and it has in fact been a generally unwritten rule. Notice,”unwritten”. I don;t care if he talks or not. but by interjecting himself into the political arena, he opens hinmself to criticism