SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real done.

It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:35:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"nobody" wrote in message
...
Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real done.

It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.


How many billions will it cost per year to make Iraq a democracy if it
it even possible?

In rec.food.cooking Tarver Engineering wrote:

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real done.

It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.

Do you have any cites for that claim?

In article , nobody
wrote:

Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything real
done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm during that
time period.

I agreed totally with what you say. And if Presidencies were judged by
their "steering" then Carter's quarterback rating will be near-
perfect. He just didn't have any receivers worth a twit. And those who
say he was an impotent President probably needed a little viagra
themselves. You know pot calling kettle noir, etc.

"Stark Raven" wrote in message
...
In article , nobody
wrote:

Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real
done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help
steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered
it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to
Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at
the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm
during that
time period.

I agreed totally with what you say. And if Presidencies were judged by
their "steering" then Carter's quarterback rating will be near-
perfect. He just didn't have any receivers worth a twit.

Part of his job was to pick competent help. Just another of his many
failures.

And those who
say he was an impotent President probably needed a little viagra
themselves. You know pot calling kettle noir, etc.

I doubt Viagra would have helped him in the way it helps you. His impotence
was a result of personality and philosophy.

Jarg

Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
political campaign.

Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even his
strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability to make
decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most intelligent president
of the 20th century. But he was also one in which making no decision
was often considered a viable option. Circumstances which were unacceptable
to the voters of 1980.

The problem in Iraq may well be that even after all the dots were
connected, these did not lead to the expected outcome. Consider that Saddam
had used a particularly nasty nerve gas to kill several thousand Kurdish
citizens, and that the research by Iraq in chemical and biological weapons
was well known - even to the UN. And that lacking any such weapons, there
would have been little reason to keep UN Inspectors out of the country for
four years.

And also note that the popular media plays up the WMD subject (and at
least once every hour on NPR) but has little to say about the thousands of
graves which have been unearthed. Or that the entire population in a
number of towns were discovered to be exterminated.

(Jerry Johnson) wrote in
om:

Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
political campaign.

Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even
his strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability
to make decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most
intelligent president of the 20th century. But he was also one in
which making no decision was often considered a viable option.
Circumstances which were unacceptable to the voters of 1980.

The problem with being intelligent is seeing many options. Stupid
people can make quick decisions because they can be fooled into
accepting simple dictums like "Saddam is evil" or "45 minutes to use
of WMDs". A thoughtful and considerate President of the Untied
States (from one who lives next door) was a refreshing and welcome
change; we liked Carter, we still do. He's welcome at my house any
day.

And just for the record, it would still be a welcome change if it
were to happen again, but they say lightning doesn't strike the same
place twice. Too bad.

:-)))

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 6 Feb 2004 13:17:10 -0800, (Jerry Johnson)
wrote:

Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
political campaign.

Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even his
strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability to make
decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most intelligent president
of the 20th century. But he was also one in which making no decision
was often considered a viable option. Circumstances which were unacceptable
to the voters of 1980.

The problem in Iraq may well be that even after all the dots were
connected, these did not lead to the expected outcome. Consider that Saddam
had used a particularly nasty nerve gas to kill several thousand Kurdish
citizens, and that the research by Iraq in chemical and biological weapons
was well known - even to the UN. And that lacking any such weapons, there
would have been little reason to keep UN Inspectors out of the country for
four years.

And also note that the popular media plays up the WMD subject (and at
least once every hour on NPR) but has little to say about the thousands of
graves which have been unearthed. Or that the entire population in a
number of towns were discovered to be exterminated.


Now what country will Bush invade to SAVE the people of that nation
from living under a terrible leader?

North Korea?

Zimbawe?

Any of half a dozen other nations in Africa?

john wrote in
:

Now what country will Bush invade to SAVE the people of that
nation from living under a terrible leader?

North Korea?

Zimbawe?

Florida? :-)

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003