On Nov 19, 9:31*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

wrote:

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. *Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

Carter did not lie to the country to get us involved in a war that has
cost the lives of thousands, and did not lead the country toward
financial disaster. He did not pack washington with self-serving
cronies, declare his office and anyone associated with it above the
law, bend (or break) laws to serve his political goals, and redefine
the balance of powers in DC. He did not cause a rift between liberals
and conservatives, and did not seek to destroy or invalidate his
political opponents.

He did many things wrong out of a sense of trust in the system,
expectation of goodwill among others, and being naive about how
Washington and global politics works. Those errors are nothing
compared to the deliberate misleadings and manipulations of Bush.

Carter was a disaster. Bush was a disaster, wrapped in a catastrophe,
hidden in an apocolypse. They are nowhere in the same league, and
we'll feel the effects of Bush's presidency for years and years to
come.

--riverman