riverman wrote:
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.

Regardless of how you paint Carter, he was quite a bit worse than Bush.
He supported a violent takeover of Iran by radicals. The Middle East
has not been the same since. He was worse than ineffective in dealing
with the hyper-radical Iranian gov't. The world has NEVER recovered
from that. That was almost thirty years ago. Our lives are still
dominated by his failure.

Carter didn't need to attack his opponents, he was the Democrat that
came after Nixon/Ford. The Dems could have run anyone against Ford and
won. Carter had his political advantage. His party held the majority.
By the time he was up for election, his record was so bad that it
would not have done any good to go after Reagan. Carter knew it was no
good to try an attack, his own personal record of corruption would have
been exposed and he would probably have ended up resigning before his
term was up. Besides, he lost the 1980 election a year before the ballot.

He most certainly DID pack Washington with self-serving cronies. And he
let his family (even supported his family) break more laws then Bush and
Caney could. The FBI was getting close to unraveling all the **** Billy
was pulling. It was even an embarrassment to the administration in the
press. Carter reorganized the operation which had been focusing on
investigating international corruption which kept pointing to the White
House. Then he fired the investigators that got close to exposing his
family's crimes. Had the Republicans been in power, Carter probably
would have seen the same fate as Nixon.

Carter did lead the country into a financial crisis. Inflation rates
and interest rates were out of control. It took five years after he was
booted out of office to recover from that nightmare.


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 did mislead the country. But it was for personal gain and to
cover-up his own personal corruption and that of his family. Carter's
failings were not a matter of trust in the system, it was intentional.
Pure corruption. He was the naive bumbling idiot that many paint him,
but he used it effectively to cover his corruption.

Its good to see that you admit to Carter's obviously dangerous
deficiency in global politics. World has never recovered from that.


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


Bush did botch the war in Iraq, that's indefensible. But he wasn't the
root cause of the Middle East problems that lead to the war. He was not
the root cause of the problems that lead to the 9-11 attack. He did not
marginalize or ignore the previous attacks on the U.S. by radical
Muslims prior to 9-11.

(BTW, its spelled "apocalypse")

We can only hope that Obama doesn't screw up too badly.