Posted on 05/23/2007 5:12:09 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
In this exclusive 10-part series, IBD takes a hard look at Jimmy Carter’s administration and compares it to that of George W. Bush, which Carter has called the worst ever.
Installments will cover the economy, foreign policy, human rights, dealing with dictators, fighting Communism and the Democratic leadership in general during times of war.
Next installment: Wednesday, May 23
Part One
Leadership: So Jimmy Carter calls the Bush administration "the worst in history." This from the man who wrecked the world's greatest economy and made a nuclear Iran and North Korea possible.
Part Two
Leadership: When it comes to economic performance, there's no contest: Apart from the early years of the Depression, Jimmy Carter's brief tenure as president was the worst in the 20th century.
Leadership: After being told over and over by President Jimmy Carter that America's ability to influence world events was "very limited," the Soviet Union believed him and invaded Afghanistan. And al-Qaida was born.
I used to think that Bush was doing OK. Not as good as I wanted but OK.
I was wrong.
After 911 he should have asked for a declaration of war.
We should have reinstituted the draft, not for the military, but for the Homeland Defense Force. Trained by the military but used to guard our airports and all strategic facilities. This could have been set up easily so that following basic and AIT, you could be assigned close to home. Service could also be combined with involuntary college training.
Invade Afghanistan? Yes. Invade Iraq? Yes. Do it like we did it? No! Rumsfeld was a disaster. He would not allow the military leaders to plan for the occupation. We did not invade Iraq with enough troops for a proper occupation.
Bush allowed Rumsfeld to much latitude. Bush is responsible for three years of doing exactly the same thing in Iraq and yet expecting the results to change. He is responsible for the Republicans losing Congress.
Immigration: Bush is allowing the filthy elite rich of Mexico to maintain that country as a third world hell hole. If people starve or die living there or trying to escape into America, he is responsible for not forcing Mexico’s leadership to start cleaning up their country. His lack of leadership is responsible for the poor little seperation of babies and their parents (Like that really happens.)
And my last subject (for tonight’s rant, not all of the things Bush has done wrong.) Bush trusted the damn demoncraps like only a simpleton would. He should have fired every Clinton appointee on day 1. Tenet at the CIA, Bush’s fault. All of those Clinton AGs not invetsigating crimes the clintons and demoncraps did (voter fraud, etc) is Bush’s fault for not cleaning house.
No, I do have one more thing. Sandy Berger should have been tried for treason for destroying evidence to influence the 911 Commission. Berger’s actions could prevent the 911 Commission, and ultimately we Americans, from learning the truth. This means that he is contributing to another 911 type of disaster by covering up what went wrong this time. I call Berger’s actions treason and I call Bush’s actions incompetent.
Good point about Clinton’s perfidy. Clinton is a smart guy and a master politician, but he completely squandered his presidency. His biggest failure was to adequately engage our enemies. Like Carter, his actions appear to have emboldened our enemies, and like Wilson, his actions are likely to exact a high price in men, materiel, and innocents in the future (an ounce of prevention, afterall, is worth a pound of cure). The further we get from the economic success enjoyed during his tenure, the worse Clinton will be perceived by historians.
I do not disagree with the sentiments of your post. Much of Bush’s problems are the result of his inability to thwart the incessant onslaught of his political enemies. The whole “new tone” in Washington failed. We do not need anymore compromise - our bicameral government is itself structured for compromise. We need leadership.
The blame there doesn't only lie on Bush. A large, perhaps the largest, share of it lies on Gore for his attempt to steal the White House via Florida. It cost Bush a normal transition. Without the confidence that Bush would win potential appointees were unwilling to quit their current jobs and move to DC whereas Gore could just keep the Clinton team in place. Once 911 happened all of Bush's energy was devoted to the WOT and little was left for reforming the executive branch. I don't give Bush a complete pass - he could and should have been pruning more ex-Rats in the nine months window fate granted him. Bush's policy towards Democrats is essentially Kucinich's policy towards the terrorists. However the GOP apparatus at large also is to blame as Bush's behavior was quite predictable for those who'd looked at how he governed in Texas. Some of his primary opponents mentioned this before the first primary votes were cast, but the whole party apparatus lined up behind him early on and silenced all such criticism.
Clinton was a disgusting thong-snapper and perjurer, but he was a wiley politician who didn't make Carteresque blunders.
T’anks for the ping, k-1T. Nothin’ like dissing Jihmah in the morning!
Socialists like Chavez are beginning to win the public relations wars. This started long before Bush.
There are myriad reasons to rank FDR as one of the worst, things like changing our way of governance, but imo fighting WWII isn't one of them.
IMO, Jefferson Davis was the first modern Democrat.
;O)
My point is FDR did nothing when Hitler violated the Versailles treaty in 1935. He could have sent a single Marine Regiment, and the German Army would have ran (and were in fact under orders to run). Hitler would have been put down like the mad dog he was. FDR did nothing when Hitler took over Austria in 1937. FDR tried to take credit for betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Similar events occured with Japan.
Well, part of the reason why he did nothing was the depression era weakness of the US, but he also was responsible for restarting the depression in 1933, and continuing to manipulate the economy causing disruption from 1933 to 1940.
FDR was uniquely responsible for the entire period from 1933 to 1945. He bears a great deal of the responsiblity for permitting Germany and Japan to arm and use their military before December 7th 1941. He also bears responsiblity for the diplomatic bungling that pushed Italy into the Axis camp.
It took six months to stage the invasion of Kuwait in the Gulf War when we had a base right next door in Saudi Arabia. How long do you think it would have taken to stage the one Marine regiment invasion of Europe 55 years earlier? How welcome do you think they would have actually been among the European appeasers of the day?
I personally think that FDR was pretty damn close to the personification of evil when it came to the way he treated the Constitution, but you seem to want to imbue him with God-like powers while at the same time attributing a strenth to 1930s America that just wasn't there, sir.
What was so bad about Andy Jackson? My knowledge of presidents is a bit dim going that far back. Something to do with Nicholas Biddle, whom I know of only because he edited the Lewis and Clark expedition field notes, and the creation of central banking. I think Jackson called Biddle a “Den of thieves and vipers” or something like that. Was the indian issue the “trail of tears”?
FDR had a Marine Regiment that he mystically wished to Guatemala, but that was at the behest of the United Fruit Company.
He actually needed no permission from the European Allies because Germany has sea coasts. Certainly The US could have taken council with France/Belgium/Britain/Italy, the successful allies of WWI, and gotten an agreement to permit the US transportation to the Rhineland. If not, an indirect approach (perhaps you have heard of that?) to shut down a German port city until the Wehrmach was withdrawn from the Rhineland.
The war in Cuba and the Phillipines in 1898 was against Spain, a European power (though a third rate one). And what was WWI but an intervention in European affairs?
In control theory it helps if one thinks of leads and lags in addition to control authority. A small force NOW can have as much effect as a larger force later. Better to force a fight before the enemy is ready, rather than waiting until he is ready.
My mistake. The Marine Regiment was in Nicaragua, and had been there for a while. They were coming out of Central America, and after a bit of training would have been ready for employment in the Europe.
No, Congressional approval is not necessary for Marine actions short of war.
Guatemala and United Fruit certainly have no bearing on Europe and in any case shipping a regiment across the Gulf of Mexico to a country that even today couldn't gin up an army that could beat the Maine National Guard is hardly an example comparable to invading Germany.
He actually needed no permission from the European Allies because Germany has sea coasts. Certainly The US could have taken council with France/Belgium/Britain/Italy, the successful allies of WWI, and gotten an agreement to permit the US transportation to the Rhineland. If not, an indirect approach (perhaps you have heard of that?) to shut down a German port city until the Wehrmach was withdrawn from the Rhineland.
From whom was FDR supposed to obtain his war powers for a unilateral invasion of Europe. You're delusional, but most attempts at this sort of mental revisionism are delusional. The world would be a different place if only Eleanor Roosevelt could fly.
The war in Cuba and the Phillipines in 1898 was against Spain, a European power (though a third rate one). And what was WWI but an intervention in European affairs?
Yes, it's pretty obvious the the Spanish-American War was against Spain, even I have no trouble remembering that part. But notice that no matter how weak Spain was (a mere shell, really) we didn't have either the will or the capacity to invade the Spanish homeland.
As for your assertion that WWI was an intervention, you couldn't be more wrong. Germany had been carrying on unrestricted submarine warfare against the European Allies, mainly Great Britain, which resulted in the deaths of several hundred Americans. The U.S. tried to put an end to this diplomatically and succeeded for a time. When Germany decided to resume full scale unrestricted submarine warfare the U.S. declared war.
WWI was a response just like Afghanistan and Iraq, not an intervention.
In control theory it helps if one thinks of leads and lags in addition to control authority. A small force NOW can have as much effect as a larger force later. Better to force a fight before the enemy is ready, rather than waiting until he is ready.
True and Churchill made a few similar statements, but that has nothing to do with the U.S.'s ability to project power into mainland Europe in the mid 1930s.
Sending Marines to the Rhineland would have been a response to German breaking the terms of its peace agreement.
Of course some don’t want to do that. I freely admit that post war knowledge of the other side’s papers strenthens my views, in a way that was not available to FDR.
Courtesy Wikipedia:
In March 1935, Adolf Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by reintroducing conscription in Germany and rebuilding the armed forces. This included a new Navy (Kriegsmarine), the first full armoured divisions (Panzerwaffe) and an Air Force (Luftwaffe). For the first time since the war, Germany’s armed forces were as strong as those of France.
In March 1936, Hitler violated the Treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.
In March 1938, Hitler violated the Treaty by annexing Austria in the Anschluss.
In March 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia.
In September 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by invading Poland thus initiating World War II in Europe.
Tell me something I didn’t know, Donny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.