Cynical Nation

I'm no big fan of Bolton's rants, either.

Truth to tell, the fact that such diverse and opposing views can be expressed in one forum and that such an international marketplace of ideas encourages me. I may not like what is being said, I may not like these people, I may not like their decorating style, but I like the idea of the whole thing. Let's fight the war of words. I, at least, am not afraid of having American-style democracy going toe-to-toe with the leaders of totalitarian regimes and socialist regimes in the marketplace of ideas. I relish it. I like a good fight, and if you really want to win the ideological battle, this is one place where you fight it.

My only complaint is that we have a crappy set of people as spokespersons. The other side makes inroads because we have an inarticulate boob as president who reads poorly constructed and poorly thought out speeches with as much conviction and sincerity as you can find in any third grade performance of Our Town. We wouldn't ever have to cringe at the appearance of the Chavez's or any others (I don't get the Sheehan obsession, by the way...that was a glib and peculiar reference) if we had someone who could delineate a position as credibly and with as much intelligence as a John Kennedy (whatever you thought of his politics, he was a great speaker and the films of his press conferences are classic). If you prefer, a Reagan would be better than this, and I am the opposite of a Reagan fan.

The fact is that our current leadership is what gives these others so much power and credibility. If we had better leadership here, we would see the world listening politely and then moving on when these others spoke.

Also, again, I don't get the UN hatred. It is a great forum and we need to use it better, not hate it more. It's like when you see politicians (or athletes) express their contempt for the press. That's only because they aren't any good at handling the press.

I was proud of Chavez. Finally someone has pointed out the obvious.

The Chimp Emporor has no clothes ... or brains, morals, work ethic, etc ...

Oh, and the Sheehan hatred is much like the wingnut Clinton hatred: when the facts are against you, assassinate the character!

Here is a woman who lost her son in Bush's illegal invasion that he lied America into. She wanted to meet with Bush face to face, but he wasn't man enough. He was on vacation, hiding on his "ranch".

Like Kerry's war performance compared to coward draft-dodger Bush's, the Republicans knew they had NO CHANCE with the facts, so they Roved the issue. They lied and belittled a war hero. They did the same to Cleland, Murtha, and even McCain was Roved so that Bush won the 2000 nomination. Bush the coward has backstabbed many heroes.

Sheehan was even harder to assail, so they just called her a "sympathy whore" and a communist. Rush repeats it almost daily, so that JMK can remember why the mother of a dead soldier can be spit on and ignored in this country.

They still have post traumatic stress syndrome over Clinton. The man is long gone from power, but they bring up his name every day, still trying to get back at him for standing in the way of their evil plans for EIGHT LONG YEARS while the country, especially the hated middle class, prospered to all-time highs.

The can't face the fact that Clinton was a great president.

I don't hate the U.N. I just get frustrated by those who insist on taking it more seriously than it deserves.

"Here is a woman who lost her son in Bush's illegal invasion that he lied America into. She wanted to meet with Bush face to face, but he wasn't man enough. He was on vacation, hiding on his "ranch"." (BH)
get your facts straight, it merely requires a little research - VERY LITTLE.

Bush MET with Cindy Sheehan.

"Her son Casey Sheehan died in the Iraq war effort on April 4, 2004 in Sadr City outside of Baghdad. On June 18, 2004, President Bush met with Cindy Sheehan and her husband, along with the parents of other fallen American soldiers (at an Army base near Tacoma, Washington), in which pictures were taken of Mrs. Sheehan embracing President Bush, who gently kissed her on the cheek, as he has done with countless mothers of fallen soldiers before and since.

"By March 15, 2005, Mrs. Sheehan’s mood had dramatically changed, writing in a letter to ABC’s Nightline, “Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedom and democracy... not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.”

"What changed between June of 2004 and March of 2005? There was no mention of “neocons” or “Israel” or “lies” or “betrayal” in her first meeting with the President."

http://jb-williams.com/8-16-05.htm

Why Barely...why...WHY...WHY???

Why do you continue to avoid facts like they were the plague?

Without knowing the facts, you can't understand the issues.

Without understanding the issues, you can't form cogent, reasonable opinions.

When you can't form reasonable opinions, you come off sounding like a guy who'd say something like, "I would kill people if there weren't laws stopping me."

Ooops! You did recently say that, didn't you?

About the green tile...

Yes, the UN wants to change it, in fact they want to refurbish the entire UN building. The problem is that the UN also thinks we (i.e. the United States) should pay for it.

So hey, I kind of like the retro green tile. In fact, the entire building should be designated a historic site with no changes allowed. ;-)

CRB, I agree with the inconvenienced motorist who was quoted on 1010WINS this morning, "I think they should be relocated to the desert."

I think that's a great idea!

There are far too many distractions in NYC for diplomats to do serious business.

The only question is "Which desert?"

My vote's for the Kalahari, in sub-Saharan Africa.

Yeah, and watch for all those venomous snakes diplos!

> In fact, the entire building should be designated a historic site with no changes allowed.

Not even fumigating the stench of sulfur? ;-)

JMK, I used to share the view that the U.N. should find another home, but now I believe I see the merit in keeping them here. Remember one of the big "scandals" in the lead-up to the Iraq war was the revelation that Bush and Blair had been "spying" on U.N. diplos to gain a sense of how the votes were lining up? It might be worth the PITA to have them here where can keep an eye on them... so to speak.

Yeah, that's not a bad reason at all, Barry.

The UN is an even more stark example of why pure democracy is so terrible - a huge majority of that body is comprised of Third World tinhorn dictators - America-haters and Jew-haters all.

If such a body ever became (God forbid) a world governing body and employed "pure democracy" - Third World dictatorship would rule the day, by a wide margin.

Yes, I suppose it's better we "keep an eye on them" than not, but I still hold that body beneath contempt.

Keep our friends close, and our enemies closer (at Turtle Bay).
Nikita K pounding the desk with his shoe, Arafat speaking with pistol in belt, and Chavez doing a little book promotion.
The UN is like big unions and big religion--great intentions, looking out for the little guys, the poor, the oppressed, etc., and doing all that looking-out-for from their expensive, gold-plated, bureaucracy-ridden cathedrals.

I have not watched the UN today, so I can not comment on today's speeches.

However, I watched last night on C-SPAN, Bush's talk. I thought he was embarassing, as always. He was talking about promoting "democracy" all over the world, while at the same time he fights with senior senators of his own party, and even Colin Powell, to change the Geneva conventions and legalize torture. How do we expect anyone to take him seriously?

"He was talking about promoting "democracy" all over the world, while at the same time he fights with senior senators of his own party, and even Colin Powell, to change the Geneva conventions and legalize torture." (BW)
American citizens charged with serious crimes...and rightfully so.

Please!

Wise up enough to not make patently ridiculous statements that contradict indisputable facts.

Calling coercive techniques "torture" doesn't redefine them.

Sorry about that shockingly nasty bit of reality, but you need to know that.

Bush's speech at the UN was a call for those people in the Muslim world, especially in the Arab-Muslim world to rise up in revolt to take their own freedoms. It was not directed disaffected Americans, like yourself who refuse to equate "freedom" with Capitalism & individualism, with the "fend-for-yourself" Liberty that America's Founders all espoused.

No wonder you found it "embarassing."

Get you facts straight, BW.

If I have it wrong, so do McCain, Powell, Sonunu and many other republican and democratic senators. You, not me, needs a reality check JMK. This administration has simply crossed the line as it relates to treatment of POWs. All evidence points towards that direction.

Again, "coerive techniques" are not torture.

McCain has not argued that they are, only that "torture" should be defined more broadly.

I disagree with that view as well.

As I said, our police departments routinely use coercive techniques on American citizens accused of felony crimes.

It's allowed...it works and it's, as they say, "OK."

In fact, Court TV had a show they pulled from the air (called, I believe "The Interrogation") that went over the interrogations of five murderers, many of them kept up without sleep for over 48 hours, constantly harangued, lied to, misled, sometimes threatened.

If this were a legitimate issue, then there'd actually be people (actual Americans) objecting to these practices on the part of our police departments.

Those cops who interrogate felons are "on that wall" standing guard and protecting and trying to ensure all our safety - We NEED them on THAT WALL...We WANT them on THAT WALL," at least I think most of us probably do.

BW: "This administration has simply crossed the line as it relates to treatment of POWs. All evidence points towards that direction."

Glad to see that the left finally accepts that these people are POWs, not criminal suspects. That means that we must be at...um...war.

Anyway, now that we've settled that, I guess it'll be OK to put them in camps until the cessation of hostilities. We'll leave them alone, let them receive Red Cross packages -- they just can't leave until the war is over...whenever that might be.

And, since we won't be questioning them: No need for our guys to take any unnecessary risks on the battlefield...Ahmed Jihadi has the same value warm or cold at the end of the day.

Barry, you have delineated the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. Or maybe "we" have, in this dialectic. I see the institution as it is, just as you do, but I believe int he possibility of what it can be and what it can do, the purpose for which it was founded. I think it can be a forum for settling differences short of a war. And there have been numerous international peace-keeping forces that were the product of the UN and, I think, effective. It is better than just a place for East to face off against West or Capitalism versus Socialism or Christianity versus Islam. It can be a place for dialogue and cooperation. Mostly, we don't here about successful UN programs, and that is a shame. There are more things going on there than Security Council meetings and villification of the US.

Man, I do hate having Bush as president, though. Worst president ever. Chavez would never have been able to get away with that crap if anyone else had been president, but this clown made the world, and many in the US, lose respect for the office as well as for the man, and that is very bad. It's bad for the presidency and it is bad for Americans. That really pisses me off. As Shakespeare's Sister said: "Bush isn’t the devil. I’ve seen the devil’s work. He’s competent."

JMK just can't understand why we all can't get our "facts" straight. I mean, Rush Limbaugh gives him the "facts" at lunchtime, and we consistently fail to consider these "facts".

Bush had a photo-op with Cindy Sheehan and a bunch of other families that was one-sided and allowed no ugly questions to be raised. Cindy Sheehan wanted him to answer the ugly questions that he has ducked, you know, about lying to America, securing oil fields before ammo depots (not seeming all that concerned about the WMD's that were surely lying around!), enriching Halliburton while cutting military benefits, you know, the usual Bush corruption.

She really wanted him to answer her questions, but he was too much of a coward to go into anything that wasn't a prearranged, carefully managed and scripted photo-op.

JMK uses "facts" like his definition of torture, to try and Rove issues. Torture is defined by the Geneva Convention that we signed. It quite clearly states than even humiliation is off limits. JMK tries to confuse the issue, which is that war criminal Bush gave directives to specifically voilate the Geneva Convention.

Definitions of torture:

anguish: extreme mental distress

unbearable physical pain

agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"

torment: torment emotionally or mentally
distortion: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean

the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"

Well now, it would seem that EVERY definition except JMK's includes a mental component.

So JMK, are you really just a garden variety liar, a fool, or a retard?

Well sure, the UN can be all of those things. The dialog between the "pro-" and "anti-" UN sides is usually no more than a contrast between the ideal of the UN and its reality. One side says "The UN's fucked up," and the other sides says "It's important to have a global forum like the UN, to discuss and resolve differences, etc."

Well, both sides are right, of course. I just think the "idealistic" side too often turns a blind eye to the real-world failure of the body simply because they're enamored of the ideals behind its charter.

When they shitcanned the League of Nations back in the forties, it wasn't because they rejected the idea of a deliberative world body. On the contrary, they wanted to build one that actually worked. It's more in that spirit that I desire major, systemic reform in the UN.

The United Nations as a whole does do some good work in the world. But as far as the Security Council goes? I think it's been (at best) useless for more than a decade.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you would try to blame Chavez's little tirade on Bush, but I'm not at all sure how Bush allowed Chavez to "get away with" it. The General Assembly has a long and varied tradition of dictatorial outbursts as Fred pointed out above, and it's independent of the current occupant of the White House. Still, any occasion to slame the "worst president ever," I suppose....

It's official. Bush hate is so bad that actual dictators are loved. Has anyone actually read chavez' rap sheet recently?
DBK and Bailey, get a grip. You may not like W but that does not mean everything would be better if he was gone. chavez would have had that fit regardless who's in office. Iran was playing with nukes for 18 years from 2003. that makes it what, 1985. There is plenty of well deserved criticism for our president. But bush-hate destroys all that. congrats, guys.

Rachel, this idiotic "Bush hate" meme is bullshit, and you lower yourself by appealing to Limbaugh-like talking points. You do exactly what you criticize the Bush critics for when you use that crap. You poison any possibility of reasoned discussion. Feel free to discuss issues with me, not bullshit pop-winger-psychology-talking points. That crap may not be beneath you, but it's beneath me.

Now, as to the real discussion, I see your point, Barry, but I don't think I (maybe some do, but not me) miss the failures of the UN as well. I just think the anti-UN side misses the reality of the good and successful programs that really do go on at the UN because they are blinded by the failures of the realpolitik-type stuff.

I ain't no Pollyanna, ya know.

Bush is a criminal and a traitor. He is trying to subvert the Constitution and carry out a fascist agenda that is un-American.

He is a liar, who should be impeached and imprisoned.

His crime isn't lying about a BJ, it is lying about WMDs, lying America into losing 2,600 more lives and $300 billion, much of which was simply stolen by Halliburton and CEO Cheney. His crime is a frontal assault on civil liberties and the consitution.

He is a traitor.

All of the hatred is well-deserved. He isn't just a rube who is trying hard and means will. He is part of a long-planned and well polished scheme to subvert America into fascism.

DBK wrote:

"Man, I do hate having Bush as president, though. Worst president ever. "

Ditto!!

Rachel wrote:

"DBK and Bailey, get a grip. You may not like W but that does not mean everything would be better if he was gone.

Wrong. The reason that the vast majority of the country does not like W is simple. He has been destructive to things that were working fine before. He is undoubtedly the worst president ever (so far at least).

Rachel,
You and JMK are in a small minority. Barry is out of that group as he has openly denounced Bush (to his credit).

I don't like Bush either. Voted against him twice. But anyone who thinks he's the "worst president ever" needs to open a goddamn history book.

Educate me then, Greg.

see 'Carter, James (Jimmy)', for starters.

see 'Carter, James (Jimmy)', for starters.

Hey Fred,
Give me a break. Jimmy Carter is a highly intelligent and educated person and a NOBEL PRIZE winner.

Bush has been completely disastrous in anything he has done as a president. And trust me, he will never get a nobel prize (sometimes I wonder if he knows how to read and write). Cheers.

> Jimmy Carter is a highly intelligent and educated person and a NOBEL PRIZE winner.

Yeah, and he was a shitty president. ;-)

"JMK just can't understand why we all can't get our "facts" straight..."
NOT torture under ANY definition.

Police Departments throughout America use coercive techniques in their interrogations of felony suspects routinely.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to "illegal combatants."

Spies, sabateurs and illegal combatants (those who fight without a uniform) can be executed on sight and most are...and because those groups are not covered under the Geneva Convention, the summary execution of same does not violate that document.

Jimmy Carter remains tied for the second worst President ever.

James Buchanan was almost without question the worst, with policies that all but assured the Civil War at a time when it could've easily been averted.

Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) was a distant second, in almost a dead heat with Carter.

Carter's legacy is this - a devout and inane belief that government should be both (A) a force for profound social change and economic equality, AND (B) a diviner of that "economic justice" - making sure the "fortunate" don't glom too much at the expense of the "unfortunate."

That is belief that is in direct opposition to everything America's Founders espoused, held dear and codified into our law (the Constitution).

The result of Jimmy Carter's misguided four year run was (1) Stagflation - double digit unemployment (compared to today's 4.7%), double digit inflation (compared to today's (2.8%), double digit interest rates (twice today's) and a failing economy in every regard AND (2) a disastrous foreign policy that withdrew American support for the Third World leaders it helped install (Iran's Shah, Chile's Pinochet, etc)...a disatrous foreign policy that haunts us to this day.

Worse yet, Jimmy Carter is a dreamer and avid supporter of that ideological unicorn called "a One World Socialist Government," in his words, "a world without wars, starvation and conflict....an interconnected world where we all are invested in each other."

Greg & Fred are both right on this issue.

Rachel,
You and JMK are in a small minority. Barry is out of that group as he has openly denounced Bush (to his credit). (Barry)
BUT...

...one problem I don't have with him is his rightful and necessary prosecution of the WoT - the war against the forces of globalized Pan-Islamic Jihad.

This war had been relentlessly waged against us since 1993 and ignored until 9-11-2001.

That is a sad historical fact.

If you want to blame Bush for continuing to ignore the war for eight months, that's fine, but the previous administration ignored it for EIGHT LONG YEARS!

I'd prefer a real Conservative, like Pat Buchanan, but from my vantage, "the lesser of the two evils" in 2000 was Bush and "the lesser of two evils" in 2004 was, once again, Bush, sad as that fact is.

Barry has even more disagreements with Bush than I do, though also many of the same (mainly the border issue and reckless spending - especailly discretionary social spending).

One major difference between Barry and I is that I would happily support a Zell Miller, while I'm guessing that Barry would not.

Barry'd most likely, from what I've gleaned, strongly support a Guiliani and I believe at least mildly support a McCain and I'm tepid (though warming) on Guiliani (I laud his stance on the WoT) and revile McCain.

That said, I believe that Barry, like myself, often finds himself having to choose between either "the lesser of two evils" or a third Party candidate with almost no chance of winning.

An enchanting difference between Barry and myself and, say, myself and you, is that I can at least calmly and rationally discuss mutual disagreements with Barry.

Enough said.

Barry wrote:
"Yeah, and he (Carter) was a shitty president. ;-)

You are entitled to your opininion. But I am sure that you agree with me that Bush is much much much much much much much much worse.

JMK wrote:

My main problem with G W is that he's NOT Conservative enough

You finally start making good points. Bush does not understand what conservative or liberal really means. Proof? Look at his spending record. He simply listens to what Cheney and his surrounding radical neocon group tell him to do.

Bush is in reality apolitical, and as I wrote above, I have doubts if he knows how to read and write. How would you expect him to know the difference between conservatives and lieberals? You are asking too much from the guy...

> But I am sure that you agree with me that Bush is much much much much much much much much worse.

Sorry to disappoint. ;-)

Are you saying that Carter was worse than Bush? Do you feel ok tonight? :)

> Are you saying that Carter was worse than Bush?
Yes.
> Do you feel ok tonight?

Well I am drunk... but I have a sneaking suspicion that if you were to ask me the same question sober, I'd have an identical response. ;-)

Well I am drunk.

Pfewwwww...Now your answer makes sense. I will ask you again the same question tomorrow.

Bush is far from "apolitical," and he's actually the intellectual superior of AlGore, though that's not saying all that much.

Gore did worse in school than Bush did, even flunked out of Divinity School....DIVINITY School!!!

Bush is a Marvin Olasky follower.

Olasky, a Jew who converted to Christianity and from orthodox Liberalism to political Conservatism and wrote, among other things, the brilliant work, The Tragedy of American Compassion,

http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/089526725X/sr=1-4/qid=1158921056/ref=sr_1_4/103-3539468-2619845?ie=UTF8&s=books

which, in painstaking detail, outlines how America's pre-FDR American welfare system of private charities worked better than government social programs ever have.

It was Olasky who coined the term "Compassionate Conservatism."

My preference would be for someone like a Patrick J Buchanan, or a Zell Miller, both would assiduously follow the same Supply-Side route that Bush has - Bush's low tax agenda has resulted in a faster than expected turn around from an inherited crippling recession (brought on by the "Tech Bubble Bust of the spring 2000) and a halving of the war deficit over the past two years.

They would also prosecute the WoT in much the same way, with perhaps even greater expansion of police and Intelligence powers...and all without the increased social spending (the burdensome NCLB Act, the prescription drug boondoggle) and with closing off our southern border.

Carter was an inept President. He continued the disatrous Keynesian policies enacted by LBJ, Nixon and Ford.

Those policies brought about Stagflation: Double digit interest rates (today's are around 6%), double digit unemployment (today's rate is 4.7% counted the same way it was during Carter's tenure), double digit inflation (today's inflation rate is 2.8%), a falling Dow (today's DOW is rocking, at over 11,500) and anemic GDP growth (today's is over 5%/year).

Carter's inept foreign policy withdrew our support for pro-American foreign leaders like the Shah of Iran, who'd brutally repressed the pan-Islamist extremism we witness today.

Carter was a horrific President on two fronts - the economy and foreign policy.

As far from Buchanan and Miller, Bush is, he's still rightfully and finally engaged us in this ultimate clash - Western civilization versus 7th Century barbarism/pan-Islamic extremism.

Carter is even reviled by fellow so-called "Liberals/progressives!"

This is what American “Progressive” (Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University (New York) James Petras) says about Jimmy Carter;

”The two faces of (American) imperial power include the iron fist military intervention and the "soft sell" of electoral frauds, intimidating diplomacy and democratic blackmail. Jimmy Carter is "the quiet American" of Graham Greene fame, who legitimates voter fraud, blesses corrupt elections, certifies murderous rulers, encourages elections, in which the opposition is funded by the US state and semi-public foundations, and the incumbent progressive regime suffers repeated violent disruption of the economy.”
Carter Certifies a Stolen Election: Dominican Republic 1990

”In 1993, I spent several hours interviewing Juan Bosch, the Dominican Republic's most notable democratic political leader. He told me that in the aftermath of the presidential elections of 1990, which he legally won, his opponent, the rightist, pro-US Juan Balaguer, engaged in massive theft, witnessed by poll watchers. Jimmy Carter headed the mission "monitoring" the election. Bosch presented Carter with a wealth of documents and testimony, witnesses and photos of Balaguer supporters dumping ballots in the river. Carter acknowledged the corruption and fraud, but urged Bosch to accept the results "to avoid a civil war". Bosch accused Carter of covering up to gain a US client. He led a march of 500,000 in protest. Carter certified Balaguer as the product of a "free election" and left. Balaguer proceeded to repress, pillage and privatize basic services.”
Haiti I: Carter the Smiling Blackmailer

”In 1990, Bertrand Aristide, a very popular former priest was leading in the polls with over 70% against a US-backed former World Bank functionary, Marc Bazin with barely 15% of popular support. Jimmy Carter, the self-styled neutral electoral monitor, set up a meeting with Aristide in which he demanded that Aristide withdraw from the elections in favor of the unpopular US candidate in order to avoid a "bloodbath". Carter did everything in his power to frighten Aristide and deny the populace its right to choose its president. Carter must have known in advance from his contacts with President Bush (Senior) that Washington was intent on preventing Haiti from taking an independent road. Eight months after Aristide's accession to the Presidency, a coup, backed by the US took place. Aristide was ousted and replaced and Carter's preferred candidate, Marc Bazin, was appointed Prime Minister, backed by a paramilitary terrorist group called FRAPH that instituted a "bloodbath" killing more than 4,000 Haitians. Carter and Bush, the quiet diplomat and the President with the iron fist worked in tandem, when the first failed, the latter stepped in.”
American Empire, I’m American and pro-American, so I would support that. Sadly he does not.

JMK: "The result of Jimmy Carter's misguided four year run was (1) Stagflation - double digit unemployment (compared to today's 4.7%), double digit inflation (compared to today's (2.8%), double digit interest rates (twice today's) and a failing economy in every regard AND (2) a disastrous foreign policy that withdrew American support for the Third World leaders it helped install (Iran's Shah, Chile's Pinochet, etc)...a disatrous foreign policy that haunts us to this day."

Just to be fair, the unemployment rate was in double digits (10.2%, I believe) in 1982 or so--it never topped 10% under Carter. And Pinochet ruled Chile until 1990, well after Carter was gone. Perhaps you meant Somoza.

That said, Carter was the worst--or at the most inept, President. What went right under his Presidency? Nothing really jumps out at you. What David Dinkins was to Mayors, Carter was to Presidents.

Right the "Keynesian recession" that brought us Stagflation didn't end until 1983!

From January of 1981 Ronald Reagan began instituing changes, including getting rid of Paul Volker in favor of Alan Greenspan, moving us from the failed policies of Keynesianism to the Supply-Side policies that have brought us uinprecedented prosperity over the past near quarter century!

Clinton was as much a Supply-Sider as was G H W Bush and Reagan before him. Clinton called himself a "pro-business Democrat."

We haven't had either a Liberal, or a Keyneisan in power in this country for over a quarter century.

Keynesianism, as practiced by LBJ, Nixon ("We're all Keynesians now"), Ford and Carter created that Stagflation. It was Supoply-Side economics that brought us out of it.

Carter's foreign policy removed U.S. support for all such pro-American tyrants, from the Shah of Iran to Pinochet, to Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza Debayle.

He didn't replace these people with anti-American tyrants and I never implied that he did. He merely withdrew U.S. support, which was, in and of itself, a disastrous policy shift for the U.S.

The Shah of Iran's departure brought the pan-Islamist extremism we're dealing with today to resurgence.

The comparison of CVarter to David Dinkins is a very apt one.

Dinkins' tenure as Mayor of NYC was real good for fire duty.

Of course New York was still in the throes of the "Crack Epidemic," but there was very little intervention back then.

On the other hand, there was one hell of a donnybrook "Battle of the Badges" between the NYPD & the FDNY back then, as Ray Kelly moved to take over all "non-fire emergencies" from building collapses to people pinned or trapped in motor vehicles.

JMK wrote:

disastrous foreign policy (of Carter) that withdrew American support for the Third World leaders it helped install (Iran's Shah, Chile's Pinochet, etc)

Just for the record. Pinochet was one of the worst criminals and mass murderers in history, not much different than Pol Pot, Stalin, and the likes. I dont know if Carter withdrew support from him, but if he did, thats another thing to his credit. Carter is one of the greatest Americans in recent history, despite some errors during his administration.

> ...Carter is one of the greatest Americans in recent history...

LOL! All right, now you're drunk.

List Carter's top 3 "great" accomplishments, please.

Well, Volcker was Fed Chief till mid-1987, and had been re-appointed by Reagan earlier in the decade...plus Tall Paul is seen by many as the one who broke the back of inflation by painfully jacking up interest rates in 1979-1980.

And, yes, seriously, Carter shoulders a great deal of the blame in some sense for the Islamic crazies dominating the faith these days, thanks to his dipshit bumbling regarding Iran and the Shah in 1977-1978-1979.

Top 3 Jimmy Carter Accomplishments:
1. He lost fair and square in November 1980

2. He left office without a fight in January 1981

3. He never murdered anyone for no real reason

In the interest of fairness, I'll give JC props for legalizing homebrewing.

Carter is a man of high integrity and intelligence. He made a mistake in the way he handled the hostage crisis then, but that can not be compared with the disastrous/catastrophic mistakes of Bush. Only in July and August of 2006, 6,600 civilians died in Iraq. This is a direct result of the war that Bush started. Bush is the worst president in history.

Actually Pinochet, unlike Pol Pot and Stalin was pro-American.

He even had a great American and a real Nobel Prize winner (Milton Friedman earned his Nobel Prize in economics, and didn't merely wina popularity contest as Carter did) as his economics czar.

Under Friedman, Chile's economy became the jewel of South America and Friedman advanced the view that economic liberty (" the most vital liberty of all") can be had even without political freedom.

Moreover, many, if not most of the people who "disappeared" or were otherwise "never heard from again," were the result of private militias, often hirted as "security forces" by. Western companies.

At any rate, the Pinochet regime eradicated Communists or "communistas," as they call them...I'm down with that.

I don't think even Pinochet despised communists, collectivists and socialists as much as I do...at least not much more.

I call collectivism - "political cancer." It shoudl eb dealt with in much the same way.

Hey JMK,
Read some history. You are defending one of the worst dictators history. Dictators are bad no matter what their origin: left or right. I can't believe that you are defending that monster who was no different than Pol Pot or Stalin.

Yeah, I wouldn't be going on and on showing the love for such a creep. Lets face it, supporting people like Pinochet and Somoza and the Shah was done for geopolitical reasons, to keep the Soviets in check, not because we thought they were the greatest things around. The (Jeane) Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which was totally legit during the Cold War, applied in these instances.

LOL! Carter was president for FOUR YEARS following Nixon/Ford for EIGHT YEARS, followed by Reagan/Bush I for TWELVE YEARS ... and he is too blame for EVERYTHING!

That's right, CARTER allowed muslims to run wild, not Reagan who responded to terrorists bombing our Marine barracks by obeying them and leaving the country.

CARTER ruined the economy, which was GREAT when he took it over, and then he trashed it, and then Reagan made it GREAT again!

CARTER inherited a peaceful world and the worldwide admiration of all countries, and trashed it, and only now has President Chimpboy returned us to the peace, prosperity, and world respect that Carter squanders, RIGHT JMK? RIGHT?

Oh yeah, and in all of this Clinton gets EIGHT years, in which, HE BLEW UP THE PERFECT ECONOMY that he was handed by the Republicans!

Sure, to rational people who don't wear tinfoil hats it certainly seemed like Clinton presided over the BEST ECONOMY in history, and even ridded the country of the HUGE DEFICIT run up by Reagan/Bush, since squandered by Chimpboy. But no no no! It was all a mirage! Really Clinton destroyed the economy and MADE BUSH spend us into the largest deficit in history! He made Bush lie and subvert fighting terrorism into a Corporate Easter Egg Hunt.

If you can't blame Clinton, blame Carter!

If a Republican was president, then it was the Democratic CONGRESS, presidents have NO POWER! If the Republican congress screwed up, BLAME IT ON CLINTON, he was president!

I envision JMK sitting alone, swatting at imaginary flies, mumbling over and over "Clinton did it, yeah, oh it was good, well Bush did that, or maybe Reagan, but the bad stuff, Carter! Clinton! They were bad. Democrats are bad. Republicans good. (cackle cackle)"

I think Clinton was fairly good President.

But Carter? Raging double-digit inflation, high unemployment, stagnant wages, high interest rates, a new economic plan every few months, gas lines, doing little to stop the Soviets' march into Afghanistan, Africa and Central America, unilaterally cutting missile programs without any quid pro quo from Moscow, alienating allies with his wishy-washiness, and 52 hostages held by a foreign government for 14+ months.

As Reagan so perfectly said in his 1980 acceptance speech:
Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, "Well done?" Can anyone compare the state of our economy when the Carter Administration took office with where we are today and say, "Keep up the good work?" Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, "Let's have four more years of this?"

I'm with fred on this one.

Clinton's record speaks for itself. So does Carter's. Nothing more need be said.

"You are defending one of the worst dictators history. Dictators are bad no matter what their origin: left or right. I can't believe that you are defending that monster who was no different than Pol Pot or Stalin."

No, we were defending our interests around the world.

The primary "interest" of America is its business interests.

Pro-American dictators are far superior to Marxist tyrants and yes, they're preffered by 9 of 10 rabid anti-Communists like myself.

Propping up the Shah of Iran, supporting the likes of Pinochet and both Somoza and the Contras in Nicaragua were good for U.S. interets, not supporting them has proven a very costly mistake.

"CARTER ruined the economy, which was GREAT when he took it over, and then he trashed it..." (BH)
was to blame for the final implosion of Keynesianism - the inane doctrine that goes, "government spending is good."

The "blame" isn't personal, as it wasn't his fault that Keynesianism CAN'T work.

The seeds of stagflation were begun in the wanton, reckless spending of LBJ's administration. They merely came to full fruition during Carter's ill-fated tenure.

Reagan brought in Supply-Side economics - and there hasn't been a Keynesian in the Oval Office since.

Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr - Supply-Siders all and that's why the economy has been great for most of the past quarter century.

"CARTER inherited a peaceful world..." (BH)

There is no peaceful world and never has been.

America has enemies....perhaps 70% of the world's gvernments detest America, mostly out of shear envy.

Of course, over 70% of the world's nations are also tyrannical dicatorships that revile America for its ham-handed attempts at spreading democracy.

America's enemies define its greatness - when evil tyrants from Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revile a country, that country is indeed great!

Ideologies are also known by their enemies - when vile people from Marx to Hitler to Stalin to Soros, to Moore despise Supply-Side/market-based economies, then that ideology must also indeed be great.

Likewise, who have been the most stalwart enemies of Keynesianism?

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Arthur Laffer, Newt Gingrich, Jude Wanniski, Milton Friedman, Pat Buchanan? Indeed they all have been. When great people like that are all alligned against an ideology (Keynesianism), then it, most likely, is wrong.

Reagan made a single mistake (Lebanon) early on in pan-Islam's war against the West.

He did NOT ignore a nearly decade long prolonged and persistent war, the kind waged against America and American interests from 1993 to 2001.

I've faulted Reagan for that single mistake, and I fault Carter for what he did - removing America's support for the Shah of Iran, an act that began the era of pan-Islamic jihad against the West, just as I blame Clinton for what he did - ignoring over a dozen atacks on America and American interests during his tenure.

Aside from ignoring the burgeoning problem of Islamo-fascist terrorism and his SEC tinkering with both IPO regs and margin rates that led to the "Tech Bubble," an economic mirage that never should've existed in the first place, while allowing corporate scandals to go on unchecked (Tyco, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc), Bill Clinton was OK.

I've said this many, many times before.

He worked far better with Newt Gingrich than he did with the Democratic Congress he had during his first two years.

Bill Clinton was a pro-business Supply-Sider who joined with the Gingrich Congress and its "Contract" to dismantle the race/gender preferences that were affirmative action, reform welfare and he was, unlike most Democrats, tough on crime. Hell, he refused to grant a stay of execution to a teenaged murderer who'd been classified "mentally handicapped" by some ACLU-type lawyers.

In many regards, Clinton was a good old boy and a man after my own heart - a guy who saw the end game of politics as personal profit (nothing wrong with that from my view) and a guy who who saw business as the life's blood of the economy.

Reagan made one major blunder, Clinton made two, but they were both rollicking Supply-Sider good guys.

Carter was an inept, bumbler during his term and things just went from bad to worse for that star-crossed little yutz.

BUT, his tenure sure did drive a stake through the heart of Keynesianism and Big Government Liberalism though...so I can give him some inadvertent credit for that.

JMK wrote:

No, we were defending our interests around the world.

I thought that you (and your friend W) were for democracy...Sorry I misunderstood.

I think that supporting fascists and criminals like Pinochet and Somoza is NEVER good for democracies (no matter what). Sorry, but I really believe in democracy. To me Stalin, Pol Pot, Pincohet, Somoza, etc are all the same.

"Defending democracy" is a euphemism for furthering American interests.

Surely you're aware of THAT.

When we claim we want to "democratize" a country, what we're really saying is that we want to open it up to McDonalds, Wendys, porn and pocorn.

We see that as "democratizing" or "Americanizing " that country.

It's good for business.

Ya think the folks in, say, the Congo, give a damn about our quality of life?

Of course not and we shouldn't care about theirs except as pertains to them buying American "stuff."

If democracy were really important to YOU you'd have been applauding the ouster of Saddam Hussein and should've espoused what we're doing now - "democratizing" and "nation building."

I was down for the ouster of Saddam. After that, I pretty much lost interest. Too bad the administration didn't.

No, we've long supported tyrannical thugs who supported us and dealt with us in a quid pro quo arrangement, including the likes of Somoza, Sukarno and Pinochet.

That didn't make them "good people," it made them "our thugs."

They were still, in every sense dictators, an odd word springing from the pig-latin root dick-tater, with "dick" meaning penis and "tater" meaning a fried potato, combined to form the term "potato penis," which may well have been one of the earliest derogatory terms for tyrant, as in, "What do you wanna be, some kind of potato penis?"

As I said, "America's enemies define its greatness - when evil tyrants from Hugo Chavez, to Saddam Hussein, to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Bashar al-Assad revile a country, that country is indeed great!

Ideologies are also known by their enemies - when vile people from Marx to Hitler to Stalin to Soros, to Moore despise Supply-Side/market-based economies, then that ideology must also indeed be great."

"Defending democracy" is a euphemism for furthering American interests.

Thats your euphemism, not mine. It seems that you dont really believe in democracy (unfortunately). Sorry, but I do.

If democracy were really important to YOU you'd have been applauding the ouster of Saddam Hussein and should've espoused what we're doing now - "democratizing" and "nation building."

Saddam was a horrible guy, but that country is much worse now than it was under Saddam. It is now in a destructive civil war. If you follow carefully the news, they now report that even torture by Iraqi authorities is worse than it was under Saddam. Not to mention the tens of thousands of civilians that died and keep dying. Iraq is a destroyed country with no chance for recovery at this point. It was one of the worst disasters in history and we should get out immediately.

Please don't get all weepy over words BW....words like "freedom" and "democracy."

The fact is that "freedom" a/k/a LIBERTY must be earned and its one of the reasons things look pretty bleak for the people of the Mideast, right now. They're so used to living under tyranny that it's hard for many of them to even imagine, let alone want the kind of "fend-for-yourself" freedom that we're offering them.

Same with democracy.

Most of the world doesn't have it because most of the world doesn't seem ready for it.

Simple as that.

The primary reason Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power was that he was an enemy of America and a threat to U.S. interests in that region.

Saddam Hussein served the same purpose that Marshall Tito did in the former Yugoslavia - he kept the lid on sectarian violence via breathtakingly brutal tactics.

Iraq now has a duly elected government and they've asked the U.S. to stay on. That government has been taking increasing responsibility for its police and military affairs and that's a good sign.

We DO need to be able to leave Iraq at some point soon (hopefully within the next year), so we can turn our military attentions to Iran and Syria...this thing (this WoT) is very far....incredibly far from over.

The question facing America right now is, "Do the Democrats have the will to fight this war?"

I think not.

That's why it's been left up to the GOP, with all their flaws to carry that fight.

I have a feeling that come 2008, Guiliani will be leading the fight and "taking it to the terrorists."

I know he'll piss me off plenty, but at least he knows we're in a war and that counts for a lot, from my view.

I don't know what JMK said, but I bet he was wearing knee-pads and sucking on his life-sized anatomically correct George W action figure while he typed it.

Well OK, I admit that he would have trouble typing doing that, so it was probably behind him stimulating his anus, which is where most of his "thoughts" seem to come from anyway.

...yikes!