New Developments III

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Postby criddic3 » Sat May 19, 2007 8:10 pm

I'm not terribly surprised. Mr. Carter has denounced the foriegn policy of every Republican since he left office. Since that means all, except for Clinton's (that I know of), he's really just soft on foreign affairs. I know he's supposed to be this great diplomat who won a Nobel, but this guy just doesn't like tough foreign policies. You know what that got us during his presidency? Yeah, you know.

Apparently Carter also has used his influence in the past to try to get other nations to back away from our policies. In the run up to the Gulf War, he tried his tactics against the first President Bush, which hurt the cordial relationship between the two (according to Bush, in a documentary show I watched -- wish I could remember the program, something about U.S. Presidents I think). Anyway, he's not exactly revered as a stand-up ex-president among some.

I applaud his charitable works, yes, but his failed attempts at dilpomacy aren't exactly worth comparing favorably. Especially to President Reagan's Cold War policies, which worked beautifully. Carter's new statements would have much more credibility if he hadn't also ranted against two former Republican administrations.

At least Damien gets some kind of boost from a former President calling Bush "the Worst." :p
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Sat May 19, 2007 4:11 pm

Carter Blasts Bush


Wups. Damien posted this almost simultaneously. ???
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Sat May 19, 2007 4:08 pm

CARTER SAYS BUSH'S PRESIDENCY HAS BEEN 'WORST IN HISTORY' FOR U.S. IMPACT AROUND THE WORLD

(AP) Little Rock, Ark.

Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.

Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone.

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."

Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, described Carter's comments as unprecedented.

"This is the most forceful denunciation President Carter has ever made about an American president," Brinkley said. "When you call somebody the worst president, that's volatile. Those are fighting words."

Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Sat May 19, 2007 8:55 am

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>3,408</span>

BAGHDAD — The U.S. military announced Friday that five more American soldiers were killed in fighting in south Baghdad and Diyala province, as Iraqi officials reported fighting in the insurgent stronghold of Baqouba. The U.S. military denied the Iraqi report.

Three of the Americans were killed Friday when a roadside bomb destroyed their vehicle in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, the military said. Two others were killed and nine U.S. soldiers were wounded during separate attacks Thursday in southern Baghdad.

Their deaths raised to at least 3,408 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press tally. At least 58 U.S. troops have been killed this month.

In Baqouba, capital of Diyala, police and witnesses said fighting erupted about 7 a.m. when insurgents attacked U.S. and Iraqi military positions in the city 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

The spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Minister, Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, said Iraqi units “backed by multinational forces and U.S. helicopters stormed the terrorist dens” in Baqouba, where fighting has escalated in recent weeks.

“These operations will be continued in Baqouba as part of our operations to cleanse the city,” Khalaf said.

An Iraqi army major said at least six insurgents were killed and both U.S. and Iraqi for forces were involved in the fighting. He spoke on condition of anonymity for his personal security.

However, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said the U.S. command in Baqouba had investigated the report and “we have no indication that anything like that happened” in the city.

The AP asked for U.S. military comment on the fighting, and the spokesman responded about 12 hours later.

Many parts of Baqouba, a major agricultural and commercial center, have been under the influence of al-Qaida and other Sunni insurgent groups for months, and conflicting accounts of violence in the area often circulate.

Travel to the area is dangerous, and independent investigations are impossible.

In New York, ABC News announced that two of its Iraqi staffers were slain late Thursday in Baghdad while driving home from work.

Cameraman Alaa Uldeen Aziz, 33, and soundman Saif Laith Yousuf, 26, were stopped by two cars full of gunmen and forced to get out of their vehicle, ABC said. The two staffers were unaccounted for overnight, and their deaths were confirmed in the morning.

“They are really our eyes and ears in Iraq,” ABC Baghdad correspondent Terry McCarthy said on “Good Morning America.” “Many places in Baghdad are just too dangerous for foreigners to go now, so we have Iraqi camera crews who very bravely go out. ... Without them, we are blind, we cannot see what’s going on.”

Journalists have been frequently targeted by violence in Iraq. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said 104 journalists and 39 media support workers have been killed and 48 journalists have been abducted since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, making it the deadliest conflict for the media in CPJ’s 25-year history. The numbers include those killed in the latest attack.

Of the 104 journalists killed, 82 were Iraqi, as were 38 of the 39 media support staff killed, according to CPJ.

At least 45 Iraqis were killed or found dead Friday. They included bullet-riddled bodies of 25 people believed the victims of sectarian death squads, police said. All but one was found in west Baghdad, where most of the Sunni population lives.

That suggests that Shiite death squads are active again despite the U.S.-led security crackdown which began Feb. 14.

The U.S. military also announced it arrested six suspected insurgents Friday in northeast Iraq for membership in a cell that imports weapons from neighboring Iran and sends Iraqis to Iran for training.

U.S. and Iranian officials are to hold talks here May 28 to discuss the security situation in Iraq. The U.S. is expected to press Iran to stop arming Iraqi extremists.

Elsewhere, officials announced they were lifting a round-the-clock curfew imposed on the northern city of Mosul after a massive insurgent attack Wednesday. The militants used five suicide vehicle bombs, mortars and small arms fire to destroy two bridges and attack a police station.

A total of 27 Iraqis were killed, the U.S. said.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Postby criddic3 » Mon May 14, 2007 9:25 pm

--Damien wrote:
--criddic3 wrote:The truth is that our enemy and theirs will likely just wait out a deadline and then hit hard once we leave,

Want to specify exactly who our enemy is? I know it will be hard for you to do it because you're busy having erotic daydreams about Worst President Ever . . .

The enemy is Al-Qaida, Iran and opposing inside forces within the Iraqi community itself. From what I've read, such insurgent forces from within Iraqi circles has become less as time has gone on, since they dislike Al-Qaida as much as we do and have apparently begun fighting them in top-focus areas.

"The Worst President Ever in Damien's Opinion" does not give me a woody and it isn't funny to bait me in such a way. Stop acting like a child and discuss or not. Whichever you choose, I will not respond to that stupidity with anything but contempt.




Edited By Big Magilla on 1269318855
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Sun May 13, 2007 9:19 am

criddic3 wrote:So far, despite some new progress (with our help), they don't seem to be ready for primetime against the terrorists that plague Iraq.

More progress in Iraq. And with our help:


BREAKING NEWS
Al-Qaida group says it is holding U.S. troops

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 44 minutes ago


BAGHDAD - An al-Qaida group claimed Sunday it was holding three Americans as thousands of U.S. soldiers searched for their three missing colleagues who disappeared after their patrol came under attack in an explosion that killed four other American soldiers and an Iraqi army translator.

The Islamic State in Iraq, an al-Qaida front group, said it had captured several soldiers in the attack, but offered no proof to back up its claim, posted on an Islamic Web site.


------------------------------------------

(And Criddic STILL won't say what progress is being made in Iraq due to the surge. Ya think... maybe... he doesn't KNOW?)
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Sun May 13, 2007 1:54 am

Goody, a new playground!

More from the "liberal" media:


CBS Fired Antiwar Batiste -- But CBS Consultant O'Hanlon Advocated For Surge
May 11, 2007 -- 12:28 PM EST
Talkingpointsmemo.com



As MSNBC reported late yesterday, retired General John Batiste has been fired as an analyst for CBS News because he appeared in a VoteVets ad slamming President Bush and advocating for withdrawal from Iraq.

I just checked in with CBS for an explanation, and the network gave me this statement:

"General Batiste inadvertently violated our standards by appearing in the advertisement. Therefore, we and the General mutually agreed to end his consultant's arrangement with CBS News."

When I asked CBS spokesperson Sandy Genelius to clarify which standards she was talking about, Genelius told me that CBS had "internal" standards that dictated against this sort of advocacy, which she defined as "expressing a public opinion that is coming from an advocacy point of view." She added: "You are not allowed to take a public position on an issue." Think Progress got a similar explanation from Genelius today.

But I've dug up something pretty interesting. On December 31, 2006 (via Nexis), the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon appeared on CBS as a "CBS News Consultant" -- the same type of arrangement Batiste had. O'Hanlon, however, has repeatedly "advocated" in favor of the "surge."

Here's an Op ed by O'Hanlon in The Washington Post called "A Skeptic's Case For The Surge":

"President Bush's plan for a surge of American troops in Iraq has run into a brick wall of congressional opposition. Critics rightly argue that it may well be too little, way too late. But for a skeptical Congress and nation, it is still the right thing to try -- as long as we do not count on it succeeding and we start working on backup plans even as we grant Bush his request...

"Rather than deny funding for Bush's initiatives, Congress should provide it now -- but only for fiscal 2007 (meaning through September). By that point, or even the August congressional recess, we should know if the surge is showing promise. If it does, Congress could consider continuing its support....

"If the surge fails, we will need a whole new paradigm for Iraq policy, and it is hardly too soon for Congress to start fleshing out our choices. But for now, Congress should also give the president the money and support that he requests."


Here's O'Hanlon advocating that we should keep supporting the surge on April 24:

"National pride should not of course keep us in a war we have indeed lost. But we should give the surge a chance, and consider a number of 'Plan Bs' if it fails, before giving up this important fight to this heinous foe in this crucial part of the world."

Writing Op eds is not quite the same as appearing in an ad, of course. But clearly, by CBS's own definition, O'Hanlon has committed "advocacy" -- he publicly advocated in favor of one policy position over another. Has he been fired by CBS? Doesn't seem like it. According to Nexis, he was on the CBS Evening News on April 28 -- after both of his pieces advocating for the surge were published.

I've contacted CBS again for comment; I'll keep you posted.

Update: Okay, I've got an even more clear cut example. Here's O'Hanlon advocating for the surge at a panel discussion on December 21, 2006:

"O'Hanlon supported the overall strategy elaborated by the AEI team. However, he disagreed that it was possible to indefinitely maintain 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. O'Hanlon expressed a concern that protracted tours in Iraq, which constitute the foundation of the AEI team's sustained strategy, could 'break' the U.S. military. O'Hanlon argued, the United States should view 2007 as a critical year and try a new, more vigorous approach instead of committing to Iraq unconditionally. If the new approach fails and the situation does not improve within a year, then the United States should resort to a 'plan B.'"

Ten days later, on Dec. 31 (according to Nexis), O'Hanlon appeared on CBS as a "CBS News Consultant."

Update II: Joe Klein on another dimension to all this:

"It's outrageous that CBS fired General Batiste for speaking out against the war. My reporting--flawed as it may be, since I'm a member of the mainstream media--indicates that the leaders of the uniformed military are closer to Batiste's position than to O'Hanlon's."

---------------------------------------

Another commentator who advocated for the surge... and CBS didn't fire him.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Sat May 12, 2007 11:49 pm

criddic3 wrote:The truth is that our enemy and theirs will likely just wait out a deadline and then hit hard once we leave,

Want to specify exactly who our enemy is? I know it will be hard for you to do it because you're busy having erotic daydreams about Worst President Ever . . .
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Postby criddic3 » Sat May 12, 2007 11:20 pm

I'll begin by responding the Sonic's last post about Iraq Parliament's possible agreement with Democrats. I still think such an idea is terrible. Also, we've been getting mixed signals from Iraqi law people for a long time. I think, if true, this could be a reaction to the controversy over a planned recess over there.

The truth is that our enemy and theirs will likely just wait out a deadline and then hit hard once we leave, taking over power and creating a new place for terrorists to launch attacks. If they think they can fight these people on their own, which I doubt, then they should show us. So far, despite some new progress (with our help), they don't seem to be ready for primetime against the terrorists that plague Iraq.

Otherwise, our Congress and their Parliament need to come to grips with the reality that such a plan is inviting more hardships -- NOT less.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12554
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Sat May 12, 2007 2:17 pm

I won't tell you to play nice this time, because I know you won't, but here's to another great year and a half of discussions. May we make 1000 before the year is out. :)
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 2 guests