President Carter's Comments

Remove all ads!

If we are going to discuss the Constitution of the USA I think we should start a new thread.

If we are going to discuss former President Carter fine. Historians and political anaylis seem to disagree about him so it isn't surprising that we do too.

 

DW,
no more guilty of abusing the Constitution than many other Presidents??!

Bush is the first US president ever who made torture by any other name official US policy. Now that's truly an achievement for a country that once prided itself to be a shining light on a hill. Was that only about living standards? I want to throw up when I think of those morons at the GOP convention. Double Guantanamo! Go get the information!
What an idiocy.

They couldn't do that with near impunity without Bush paving the way for such insanity. You really should read those memos that were penned to make a case for what Bush wanted to see done, and listen to folks like Yoo. It's a descent to the heart of darkness.

You ought to keep things in perspective. Yeah, many presidents have done bad things, but only Bush claims such sweeping powers under the unitary executive doctrine, like to lock you up in secret and throw away the key, or just kill you, or try you in a Kafkaesque showtrial with secret evidence, possibly including a confession they beat out of you. Let's rejoice, the Star Chamber trial is back!

For what did you have this stupid revolution of yours? In think that on that question Carter knows the answer. Bush evidently does not.

 

Sorry, DW. I had thought that you voted for Bush in the last election (which was 2.5 years ago?). And since I voted for Kerry it would be equally fair of you to call Kerry "my guy" as well, even though I am not really that wired about him. Nevertheless, I am willing to stand up for my actions in the voting booth - you won't find me coping out on my vote, by saying, "well, I voted for so-and-so, but I really didn't want to because of blah-blah-blah...." But the plain fact is that you voted for Bush and you helped put him where he is today.

Please bear in mind that I have no hard feelings towards you, or any others who supported Bush in 2004, in anyway - none of this is personal - it's only politics. We have a system and we agree to the terms, which IMO is better than most. While it's true that I believe that the SOCTUS showed a lack of integrity in 2000, Bush won the 2004 election on his own, because of the those who voted for him. IMO, Bush supporters made a mistake, judging by where we are today.

But that's just my opinion, since we will never know for certain if the alternative would have been any better. But if I had voted for Kerry (which I did) and he had won, and he turned out to not be a very good prez, then that would be "on me," as well as those others who supported him. At least that's how I see it. Again, please don't take this as a personal attack, only a reality of past and present events.

 

Oh please...Booga Booga Booga.

Japanese internment camps of WWII.
Johnson's sending CIA operatives into Vietnam to torture errr...I mean interrogate civilians. Heck Johnson's entire handling of the Vietnam war...if Bush were an apprentice, his master would have been Johnson, and the apprentice has not become and greater than the master.
Entering WWI under false pretences.

There is nothing new under the sun.

If you want to read up on violations to the Constitution, try studying the events of WWII...rights were trampled internally and externally in wholesale fashion.

I am not excusing it...but when you are on the receiving end of an attack like a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 the gloves are going to come off, and nasty things are going to happen...welcome to reality.

(Before someone goes there...no I am not saying that Iraq had any direct connections with 9/11, and I never was under the misunderstanding that it was. I guess a lot of people were, but I don't ever remember any official making such a case, implied or otherwise)

Nakia,

The Constitution's purpose is not to provide people with a democracy. It is a blueprint for a form of government that provides checks and balances to maintain a fair and just republic. Pure democracy is not only inherently unfair, it is impossible to attain without slavery. Part of the Constitution's focus (when taking the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution) was upon maintaining States rights to be a check and balance against abuses of power by the Federal Govt. The 17th Amendment was, and still is, an enormous blow to the power of the States, and since its ratification the Federal government has abused the first clause of Section 8 of the First Amendment to the point of making 10th Amendment meaningless.

Sorry, I know I am off topic, but unfortunately I have said almost all that I have to say about President Carter. I will say my final words on him and be done...He is a good hearted man who means well but has become jaded, disillusioned, and perhaps senile. He is being used by those with an agenda and a purpose, and those same people who use him will turn on him and eat him in a second if it becomes advantageous for them to do so.

As I have said many times...the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

That would be Bush himself, at a press conference. The Daily Show re-airs the sound byte every few months or so, as they tend to do with clips that are funny. Something along the lines of "Why did I say there's a link between Iraq and 9/11? Because there is a link between Iraq and 9/11." He's hardly the first president to lie, though, even about something as big as a war.

On Carter, I think they're blowing this a bit out of proportion. Sure, it's a breach of etiquette for a retired president to criticize a sitting president, but it's not like three quarters of the country isn't thinking the same thing (though most likely not to the degree of Carter). Why is it such a big deal that he actually said something that others are only thinking? Simply because he used to hold the same post Bush does? He's still just a man like anyone else, and his opinion counts no more or less than any of ours. (As you can probably imagine, I was also a bit surprised by the lashing the Dixie Chicks got from their fans when they spoke out against the war. They're just country singers, for crying out loud; why is their opinion newsworthy?)

And then the administration countering by calling him "increasingly irrelevant"? Well...he is, but given that fact, why did they feel the need to speak out against someone who is irrelevant? My guess would be the defensiveness that is brought on by being disapproved of by so much of the population. You can't very well lash out against the voters, so Carter, viewed by most as a political black hole, makes a convenient target.

[ May 25, 2007, 15:55: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Are you kidding? Fel already pointed out that Bush has said this on more than one occassion, and Cheney is more guilty of it - continuing to spout such even when it was generally accepted by just about everyone that there was no connection. Rumsfield said it too. About the only major player in Bush's first term that I don't recall saying it was Rove. Powell might not have said it directly, but when he went to the UN, I'm sure that was one of the implied points in his presentation. If you don't remember ANY official saying it, you don't have a very good memory.

 

That's what the Bill of Rights was intended for. This is Jefferson's reply to Madison after reviewing the orginal contents of the new Consitution and his suggestion of the Bill of Rights:

It is intended to provide citizens with both broad and specific rights regarding "any government on earth."

 

http://www.bushoniraq.com/bush1.html

scroll down to bush qoute number 3 and tell me again bush never implied a connection between 9/11 and iraq

 

DW,

Johnson never claimed to possess the right to do that to Americans.

It sounds as cynical as it is, but there is a difference when it hits some faceless gibberish speaking dark-skinnies abroad - or if in the new legal understanding of the president that sort of treatment is perfectly well applicable to you, Paul and Linda as well.

Bush brought torture, once one of America's dirty little secrets, home. That is very new.

Under Johnsson there was little doubt you would have a lawyer in court when you're accused of, say, terrorist acts. Under Bush that's no longer so. If you're lucky you get a military comission, with secret evidence and secret testimony used against you, which you're not allowed to know because it is after all classified. Forget about the presumption of innocence, or even a fair trial.

Allowing torture discounts the presumption of innocence completely. I see that as a new paradigm.

[ May 25, 2007, 18:50: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

You hit the nail on the head, Ragusa. Rather than defending the Constitution, Bush has usupred its powers for himself and his cronies alone, even cutting out many in his own party from his secretive agenda. Look at the case of Gonzo Gonzales: They are excusing their political excesses with a loop-hole in the Unpatriotic Act - the prez appointing government attorneys without the approval of the Senate, which the Act so kindly gave him. While Bush was busy claiming that he was defending Americans, he was really defending his own power. The last election (2006) may have saved the Constitution. At least Bush is now accountable for something.

 

Meh. I don't disagree with anything leveled against Bush, but I don't hold that you lot (and the rest of us, for that matter) are out of the woods yet; there's still plenty of time to have ol' #22 repealed...

But then again, if it does get struck down, we would have the option of...Clinton coming back.
(That reminds me, I keep forgetting he still owes me $20. )

EDIT: to get remotely back on topic, thinking about term limits got me to realize that CARTER is still fully eligible to run and secure a second term...

 

DW,
on second thought this: When you say torture is nothing new for America, you overlook the implications of that argument. If America torturing for instance is not new but merely a continuation of an old practice, the US were and are morally just as bad as the dreaded Soviets -- with better PR.

I don't think so. Do you?

PS: Chandos, the ratio legis behind giving the power to appoint US attorney was to ensure continuity of government, here, prosecution, in case a US attorney gets killed say in a terrorist incident. That clearly was not the way it was used.

 

Regarding torture, I was reminded of this standing order given by Gen. George Washington during the Revolution regarding the treatment of British prisoners:

 

"Back to the comments made by former President Jimmy Carter.

Did he have the right to make them? First I would like to point out that this is not the first time he has criticized a President; nor the first time he has criticized Bush."

I don't see why someone does not have the right to criticize a president, unless he is specifically working in a company or agency where this is forbidden - which could be a valid policy of the presidential administration, some other governmental agencies, or PR companies on government contracts. AFAIK, Carter is neither, so he has as much right to criticize Bush as any other citizen of the USA as far as I'm concerned. Being able to express a negative opinion about the government and suffer no ill because of it is a trademark of a free society, as far as I'm concerned. Freedom is not just confined to supporting the regime, else we should recognize practically every dictatorship. Okay, maybe North Korea has specific rules about how to worship the great leader.

Furthermore, Carter has been involved in several humanitarian projects, and I suppose his opinion of Bush is indicative enough of the current POTUS's reputation in such circles. Well, given the news of the last five years, this is hardly a surprise. Also, as has been pointed, this is not the first time Carter criticized Bush. So what's the big deal now, anyway?

Edit: I wonder exactly what tortures were used in the US independence war, and how they were classified by the participants. This could be quite enlightening.

P.S.: talking about Carter, it is quite interesting that a president who often referred to religion (afaik) and its values would be "alarmed" by the spread of religious-political cooperation, as he was in 2006.

 

Oh, I see, President Bush mentioned 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence on 1, possibly 2 occasions, and everyone in America (and possibly the world) made the jump from that to believing that that the invasion of Iraq was in retribution for some role that Iraq had in the 9/11 attack. So much for all those discussions about violations of UN resolutions, WMDs and attacks on our aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zone. Sorry but that is an absolute load of . I guess I shouldn't complain too much...this is a case of the Democrats borrowing a page from the Republican book of dirty tricks (Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet being a classic example).

Somebody give me a verifiable quote where Bush implies that Iraq was complicit in 9/11 and I will be happy to retract and apologize.

Getting back to the subject...I was reminded by a relative this weekend that Jimmy Carter did start Habitat for Humanity...a non-profit publicly funded charity (the kind I can get behind), so he did have one accomplishment that meets my criteria. Unfortunately 1 good act doesn't reverse my opinion of him based upon the absolute disaster that was the rest of his Presidency.

 

"The reason that I said Iraq had connections to Al-Quaida is because Iraq has connections to Al-Quaida."--George W Bush

And there are hundreds more Bush quotes just like this one.

Look, dude, everything Bush has said publicly has been recorded.....and on the White House's web site, no less, where transcripts of every speech he's ever made as president are available. You can't revise history on this one. People are saying that Bush lied about 911 because Bush lied about 911. It isn't opinion. It isn't conjecture. It is verifiable fact and a matter of public record. Get over it already.

 

Darkwolf, do you want more current quotes? Because if your request includes the 2002-2003 period, there are quite a few links made between Saddam and Al-Queda.

 

DW,
you know that the idea to use Afghanistan as the 'Bear Trap' and lure the Russians into it, emerged under Carter? The resulting Soviet defeat there probably contributed more to the Soviet collapse than Reagan's arms buildup. Oh he was such an appeaser

PS: As for Iraq & Al Quaeda Cheney also made lots of utterances like that. While he is not Bush it is foolish to assume that the decider who decides realy gives him such a long leash as to allow him an independent opinion - in the 'message consistency administration'.

The administration as a whole made the case, and it was usually left to Cheney to say the crazy stuff too hot for the president (like Atta's fictious trip to Prague), and for the neo-cons outside the administration (Perle, Kristol, Woolsey etc) to say the really crazy things. But that doesn't absolve Bush. It was his policy to have the word spread in the first place. I do not think that Cheney's speeches are independent of what the Whitehouse wants to see spread. They are just too well coordinated in that. Cheney as a loose cannon, for four, five years? Never. Suggests to me that Cheney is doing what for Bush what Bush cannot do himself.

The quote above underlines how far Bush wanted to go himself. In concert with Cheneys dark claims the implication that Saddam and Al Quaeda were in cahoots was inescapable. The trick they perfected is to create a steady drumbeat to which the President's words create the desired tune. You cannot separate what Bush sais from his administrations utterances and vice versa.

Asking 'Where did he say that' is misleading. Stop playing that game. You're smarter than that.

 

Oh, now we are down from "Bush implied that Iraq was involved in 9/11" to "Bush implied that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Queada...sorry, but A does not equal B. I will agree that any ties between Iraq and Al Queda were tenuous, and not on any official level (though there was aid an comfort provided). I still don't remember this being a primary reason for the invasion, nor remember seeing Bush providing this as a rational for the invasion of Iraq, but I do remember him making those claims, more after the invasion that before as I remember, but to be honest it wasn't a factor in my support of the invasion.

People are looking for things to hang Bush with, I don't get why they have to go to such extreme claims to do so when there are plenty of real things that he can be beat over the head with. I guess as long as they can get people like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore to re-write history for them they can justify it in their minds as being the correct thing to do.