JImmy Carter says US tortures

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You gotta love the people writing history here. Especially while being in the present!

Edited October 11, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[GaryC 7]

Geez, I cant think of anything more helpful than having the worst president in recent history, dancing around the globe bad-mouthing his own country.

The worst President in recent history currently occupies the big white building at 1600 Penn Ave.

If you really want to get down to it Carter is the root for the Islamic revolution and therefore the reason why Bush has done what he has done. What he did in Iran started this whole mess. You have the right to think Bush is a bad president but you have to admit that without Carter's stupidity in Iran we probably wouldn't have the problems we do today.

#######? What version of history are you reading???

The real history, not the revisionist BS you apparently read.

But again - discussing this subject in the absence of the 1953 coup would seem to be rather incomplete view of that history, and indeed - revisionist.

And you must also remember that the Shah was the rightful leader of the country at one time. All we did was to restore him to his place.

1940s: The Shah comes to power

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941 after the deposing of his father, Reza Shah, by an invasion of allied British and Soviet troops in 1941. Reza Shah, a military man, had been known for his determination to modernize Iran and his hostility to the clerical class (ulema). Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi held power until the 1979 revolution with a brief interruption in 1953; when he had faced an attempted revolution. In that year he briefly fled the country after a power-struggle had emerged between himself and his Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the country's oil fields and sought control of the armed forces. Through a military coup d'etat aided by a CIA and MI6 covert operation, codenamed Operation Ajax, Mossadegh was overthrown and arrested and the Shah returned to the throne.

Like his father Shah Pahlavi sought to modernize and westernize his country. He retained close relationships with the United States and several other western countries, and was frequently recognized by the American presidential administrations for his policies and steadfast opposition to Communism. Opposition to his government came from leftist, nationalist and religious groups who criticized it for violating the Iranian constitution, political corruption, and the savage political oppression of the SAVAK (secret police). Of ultimate importance to the opposition were the religious figures of the Ulema, or clergy, who had shown themselves to be a vocal political voice in Iran with the 19th century Tobacco Protests against a concession to a foreign interest. The clergy had a significant influence on the majority of Iranians who tended to be the religious, traditional and alienated from any process of Westernization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

Edited October 11, 2007 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Geez, I cant think of anything more helpful than having the worst president in recent history, dancing around the globe bad-mouthing his own country.

The worst President in recent history currently occupies the big white building at 1600 Penn Ave.

If you really want to get down to it Carter is the root for the Islamic revolution and therefore the reason why Bush has done what he has done. What he did in Iran started this whole mess. You have the right to think Bush is a bad president but you have to admit that without Carter's stupidity in Iran we probably wouldn't have the problems we do today.

#######? What version of history are you reading???

The real history, not the revisionist BS you apparently read.

Please give me the name(s) of which historians that you're paraphrasing from.

Do some reading Steven. Facts are the facts. Carter could have stopped the Shah from being deposed and the Islamic Revolution would not have happened.

Just point me to what historian that you've read who basically pins the blame on Carter? Or did you read this on WorldNet Daily?

[HAL 9000 96]

Jimmy Carter's Legacy of Failure

Trust me, 25+ years from now, Bush's legacy of failure will take a lot more room to summarize.

I won't say you're necessarily wrong, but I can't say you're necessarily right either.

Maybe in 25 years, the Bush Administration will be looked on poorly. But in 100 years or more? For all we know, George W. Bush may be seen as one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history. I know that seems unlikely, but think about past history. Look at Abraham Lincoln.

You're probably wondering what Lincoln has to do with this or how I could even compare Bush to him, right? Well, here's my point: When Lincoln was in office, he was despised by everyone. The entire country hated his guts. The man was considered the worst president in U.S. history and so thoroughly disliked, the citizens of this country really wanted nothing to do with him.

Not only that, but Lincoln broke many of this country's laws for his own use. For instance, he suspended habeas corpus. He also had many people arrested, convicted and thrown in prison without trial -- especially those who spoke out against him or appeared to be "trouble makers." So this man was anything but the "shining beacon of democracy" that we learned about in high school history class.

Now fast forward to modern times. We look at Lincoln and the current spin on him -- his character and his presidency -- is that he was a "great man and possibly the greatest president the United States has ever had." Interesting how time tends to "heal all wounds," isn't it?

So all I'm saying is... it's entirely possible that, given the passage of enough time (a century or more), George W. Bush might be looked upon as a fantastic president by those who are far enough removed from our time and his presidency. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant; I doubt those living back in the 1860s would've ever imagined that Lincoln would be seen today as he is either.

Apples to apples, the legacy Lincoln is credited with is the preservation of the USA, not the confirmation to its citizens of something gone wrong, as is the case with Mr. Bush, Jr.

As for the wounds Mr. Bush has created... modern communications and a more educated citizen base (hopefully), will in my opinion label him as much more than the worst president- something to the tune of someone to try to forget as a shameful aspect of a very quirky period in American history. Unfortunately that American Foreign policy during this time frame has been cemented as one of the most chaotic and despotic in recent history.

[Caladan 19]

Whether we had the 'right' to or not, Gary, it still lead to a lot of resentment that lead to the theocratic takeover. I am not quite sure how Carter was supposed to prevent an internal Iranian revolution.

Lincoln is remembered for his achievements, and his role in ensuring the United States came out of the Civil War as one nation. He helped solidify the American republic; I hope Bush is forgotten for I fear if he is remembered by history, it will be at the title of a chapter called 'Decline of the American Republic.' If he's forgotten, then we fixed the problems.

I am increasingly convinced that the right hates Carter because he is publicly Christian, very devout, and doesn't agree with their policies.

[Peikko 1,575]

For Bush to have any hope of being a president who made a difference on the grand scale, he'll have to make some huge leaps between now and the end of his term. Or, are you really suggesting that the Iraq conflict is something bigger than it actually is? I for one can't see that even should the conflict in Iraq come to a reasonable conclusion, that Middle Eastern terrorist organisations are going to just go, "oh well, let's give up now"

Honestly, I don't think ridding the world of Saddam Hussain is a big enough legacy. Mind you, I guess he might be remembered for starting the biggest blood bath in the Middle East in modern times if he really is set on having a go at Iran as well.

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to throw any stones in the pond, but:

And you must also remember that the Shah was the rightful leader of the country at one time. All we did was to restore him to his place.

So was Saddam Hussein...

[GaryC 7]

Whether we had the 'right' to or not, Gary, it still lead to a lot of resentment that lead to the theocratic takeover. I am not quite sure how Carter was supposed to prevent an internal Iranian revolution.

Lincoln is remembered for his achievements, and his role in ensuring the United States came out of the Civil War as one nation. He helped solidify the American republic; I hope Bush is forgotten for I fear if he is remembered by history, it will be at the title of a chapter called 'Decline of the American Republic.' If he's forgotten, then we fixed the problems.

I am increasingly convinced that the right hates Carter because he is publicly Christian, very devout, and doesn't agree with their policies.

So because the end result of what Lincoln did was a good thing then he was a great president? Are you saying the end justifies the means?

This has everything to do with your point of view. If you think the war on terror is a good thing then you have one point of view. If you think it's a bad thing then you have another POV. There are many other POV's besides those two and that leads us to the discussion at hand.

And to suggest that my dislike for Carter has anything to do with religion is just dumb. The man is an idiot regardless of his religious views. Iran is just one of the failed legacies of Carter. Google Carter and failed policies and you will get the idea.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And you must also remember that the Shah was the rightful leader of the country at one time. All we did was to restore him to his place.

Not a very good argument for democracy when we interfere in another country's internal affairs to substitute a more or less representative government for a dictator. That argument doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do some reading Steven. Facts are the facts. Carter could have stopped the Shah from being deposed and the Islamic Revolution would not have happened.

Again without reference to the political climate at the time. Gary you were around in 1979. Was the country as a whole really willing to engage in a unilateral war in the years after Vietnam. I have to say - I'm highly sceptical of that...

Edited October 11, 2007 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You gotta love the people writing history here. Especially while being in the present!

One must have read history to comment on it. Speaking of 'comments' - where's yours?

We should all follow your example and ditch the substance of the argument and base our opinions solely on who we apparently like. Your 'high road' looks remarkably low to me.

[no name 1]

Aren't you rather playing with the terms now? The fact is, he didn't approve of it or he would have been fine about it spreading into Northern States as well. Regardless, his legacy is that he was responsible for the end of slavery, or are you going to argue that is was infact nothing to do with Lincoln at all?

It's not very likely that Bush will be remembered for anything. The chances are that even the Iraq debacle will have faded into historical nothingness in 100 years time. So, what are you suggesting the Bush legacy will be anyway?

I am saying that the very things Bush will be remembered as the worst president by some here are the very things Lincoln, who is regarded as one of the best, also did.

Lincoln claimed there were WMD? I had no idea Lincoln invaded (2) countries either, cheated in elections, wiretapped (on the telegraph, perhaps?) or wanted to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Hmph, learn something new in VJ-written history^TM every day!

Edited October 11, 2007 by devilette

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Point is I think that Lincoln had a demonstrable historical legacy - he abolished slavery which was a milestone in this country's development. How he did it might be questionable - and certainly would have been at the time; but in terms of history its the result people remember, not so much the 'how'.

In that respect its hard to see the 'result' of the work of the current lot.

[HAL 9000 96]

Anyway, back to the topic...

Carter says the USA is involved in torture.

Renditions have been witnessed in third countries, people have disappeared only to reappear where not expected, and yet the White House remains adamant that the USA does not torture...

BUSH may be telling the truth, after all... in fact, this is particularly why there is a rendition program to begin with... someone else will do the torture on our behalf. Ahh... nice to have allies.

Speaking of whom... the Turkish ambassador just got recalled from Washington!!! Holy cow!!! And this is not Turkey the present country, mind you, but something having to do with the Ottoman Empire, part of the Axis Powers of WWI... NOT one of our allies back then... unless present Foreign Policy blunders supersede historical fact, then I'm sure if Mr. Bush devalues Armenian genocide in light of continued Turkish support in the blunder that is Iraq and may unfortunately and not so surprisingly, turn out to be the next blunder in Iran, that enough ignorants will continue to support him in spite of this being pure stupidity.

Honestly... this poor excuse for a politician should focus on some of the more innovative American ideas that make this country great, like his promise to actively develop alternative fuel sources like Hydrogen and in colonizing the Moon. He did have, at least, one legitimate term in office...

[DeadPoolX 9]

Aren't you rather playing with the terms now? The fact is, he didn't approve of it or he would have been fine about it spreading into Northern States as well. Regardless, his legacy is that he was responsible for the end of slavery, or are you going to argue that is was infact nothing to do with Lincoln at all?

It's not very likely that Bush will be remembered for anything. The chances are that even the Iraq debacle will have faded into historical nothingness in 100 years time. So, what are you suggesting the Bush legacy will be anyway?

No, I'm not "playing with terms" at all. It's unfortunate, but the American public has been brainwashed into thinking Lincoln (among other public figures) are "one way or the other" regardless of how they actually were or what the circumstances may have been at the time.

Lincoln, as I wrote before, didn't really give a damn about slavery. Many of those living in the North didn't either -- it didn't directly affect them or their way of life. There was, however, a relatively small contingent of outspoken groups who were rabidly against slavery and they made themselves very well known. As it is today, those who're loudest become best known. In other words, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Because of this, Lincoln decided to "play up" to these members of society, hoping that siding with them, he'd gain enough votes to win. In actuality, the main reason he won was because the Democratic ticket was split at the time, so it was fairly easy for him -- as a Republican -- to win the presidency. This didn't sit well with many in either the North or the South, however, since most hadn't even voted for Lincoln. In fact, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot for in most Southern states. So naturally, those citizens felt as if they had been cheated.

Lincoln's main objective during the American Civil War was not to end slavery. That is a fallacy which many high school history classes have taught. He wanted to preserve the Union, plain and simple. If that meant keeping slavery, he'd do it. All he cared about was making sure the United States remained intact and didn't dissolve.

So you might now ask, "If that's the case, why did he write and deliver the Emancipation Proclamation," right? He did it as more of an act of defiance against the rebellious Confederate States of America than anything else. Lincoln wasn't stupid; he knew it wouldn't really free anyone and it didn't. The slaves in the South weren't given freedom by this declaration. After all, a statement made by the President of the United States held no power in the Confederate States of America. It was only after the war did any slave become free.

So there you have it. Lincoln was a master politician. He knew what to use and when to use it to his advantage. He understood the game and how to play it. He wasn't crusading for "human rights" or anything so noble. He just didn't want to go down in the history books as the "president who let the U.S. fall apart on his watch." It's not a whole lot more complicated than that.