NationStates Jolt Archive

The key word here is "living," so for God's sake, don't say "Reagan," or "FDR," or whatever. Make sure it's a living ex-President. Sorry to be blunt, but many people here (present company included) often vote before reading what the poll means, so I thought I'd clear it up. That said, who do you think is the worst living ex-President of the U.S.A.?

Probably Carter. Even though he has done so much after he was President. He while President really dropped the ball on the whole Iran hostage thing.

Carter. Too naive for the job. He meant well, but this is a hard world that will screw you if you're too nice.

Eh. Personally, I'd go with Ford. While Carter wasn't the best President, as an ex-President, he's been doing great. Ford, however, was basically a replacement for Nixon, and while he functioned well in that position, he wasn't meant to do much else; and didn't, in my humble opinion. As for Carter, I think his Presidency wasn't all that good either, but like I said, overall his life I think has been more successful and meaningful than Ford's.

Of course, Bush and Clinton were both successful before, during and afther their respective presidencies.

Was Carter the guy who encouraged americans to cut down their oil consumption by appearing in speaches wearing a sweater? Is he also the guy who builds houses for homeless people in his retirement?

I think he would be the best president ever if he's the guy I'm thinking of.

Carter was a two-faced jackal. His foreign policy would have been a joke if it hadn't been so tragic. He had a double-standard when it came to 'human rights.' Anticommunist, pro-Western nations like Rhodesia, Nicaragua, Iran, Chile, Paraguay, and South Africa were demonized, vilified, and viciously derided over the human rights issue, but when it came to nations such as Red China, the U.S.S.R., Cambodia, Panama, and other communist nations, Carter was eerily quiet. If a President is truly interested in human rights, he should concern himself with human rights in all nations, not just friendly or unfriendly ones.

Sure, he screwed up when he was president, but he's done more since then. Thanks for getting North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons program. Wait, they lied so we'd quit bugging them? No freaking way!

Eh. Personally, I'd go with Ford. While Carter wasn't the best President, as an ex-President, he's been doing great. Ford, however, was basically a replacement for Nixon, and while he functioned well in that position, he wasn't meant to do much else; and didn't, in my humble opinion.

Well come to think about it, wasn't it Ford in the debates with Carter who said Poland wasn't behind the Iron Curtain or some thing to that effect, which turned the election around and won the election for Carter? I believe so. :D

I'm afraid I did not live through either the Carter or Ford years - and I don't really remember Bush beyond seeing some scenes of the Gulf War on television once as a child.

So I can only comment on what I know.

Was Carter the guy who encouraged americans to cut down their oil consumption by appearing in speaches wearing a sweater? Is he also the guy who builds houses for homeless people in his retirement?

I think he would be the best president ever if he's the guy I'm thinking of.

Carter was the sleazy piece of filth who backstabbed Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Iran (now a batshit, pro-terrorist, virulently anti-Western theocracy), and Nicaragua and handed them over to the communists on a silver platter. He also flushed our economy further down the toilet (it was already terrible as it was, under Ford), gutted our military, and did everything he could to advance the communist cause (SALT II, anyone?).

Jimmy Carter: Making up for lost time.....

He was basically a seat warmer in the oval office.....

Was Carter the guy who encouraged americans to cut down their oil consumption by appearing in speaches wearing a sweater? Is he also the guy who builds houses for homeless people in his retirement?

I think he would be the best president ever if he's the guy I'm thinking of.

He's also the guy who killed a rabbit because he thought it was after him.

The same guy who couldn't get the Iranian hostages out - either by military force or by reputation alone.

He seemed to be unaware that his SecDef was an incredible hawk (Harold Brown, the author of Presidential Directive 59, authorizing moving our whole nuclear strike capability to being aimed solely at the USSR command structure - resulting in the deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles to Europe, which Reagan would get credit for).

Told people to cut up their credit cards (a good idea), but it plunged the country into recession (bad execution).

Well come to think about it, wasn't it Ford in the debates with Carter who said Poland wasn't behind the Iron Curtain or some thing to that effect, which turned the election around and won the election for Carter? I believe so. :D

Ford was stupid, and unfit for the job....but i enjoyed watching him fall down the steps of airforce one....:-D

1. Gave the Panama Canal Zone away. A PLA (Chinese Army) subsidiary runs the canal zone now. Communist China can cut off the Atlantic and Pacific fleets without firing a shot.

2. Supported and coddled Khomenei while he was beating the drums of war in France.

3. Ordered a fantastically complex raid to rescue the hostages in Tehran. Fly six helicopters from the Persian Gulf across Iran. A modified C-130 was supposed to land in a soccor stadium while commandos attacked in a foreign capital and transport the hostages through a crowded city to the soccor stadium and fly away.

4. Agreed to accept the Marianas (sp?) Boat Lift where Castro emptied out his prisons and put them to sea.

5. His post president successes are mainly the 1995 negotiations with North Korea. North Korea kept their nuclear plants, US taxpayers supply North Korea with Grade A coal and oil. North Koreans never stopped research and have recently shutdown power output from a nuclear plant. Busy with something else than making energy.

Ford was also terrible. He kept Soviet agent Kissinger as his Secretary of State (read Kissinger on the Couch by Phyllis Schlafley and Admiral Chester Ward and Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent by Frank Cappell), and was the first President to lose five nations to the enemy in one year alone (Angola, Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, and South Vietnam).

*shrugs*

I'm too young to remember/have been alive when most of these guys were in office, plus I don't even live in the country to feel the most effects.... (I didn't vote on the poll, don't worry) So I really don't know much about this shit.

1. Gave the Panama Canal Zone away. A PLA (Chinese Army) subsidiary runs the canal zone now. Communist China can cut off the Atlantic and Pacific fleets without firing a shot.

It gets worse: He paid them to take it! (He paid Marxist gangster Torrijos $400 million)

Hm.. I'm reading Kissinger's Diplomacy.

That is all.

Some one picked Clinton??? I mean I know he was getting it on with Monica. But as far as doing his job, he was the best President of all of the choices in the poll.

Everybody hates a winner! And there was a lot of partisan vitriol with Clinton.

It's a little unfair to criticize Ford for the loss of Angola, Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, and South Vietnam when he was commander in chief from 1972-74. Situations that led to the fall of those countries to Communism was in the works for 20 years.

Jimmy Carter by far.

I'll answer this thread in 2008. After the election.

Gerald Ford. Why? He sat on the Warren Commission.

Bush.

I think people are being very unfair to Carter.

Consider the question!

Carter was a horrible president. I'm not going to argue that.

However, he is (in my opinion) one of the most successful and useful Ex-presidents ever! Hell, he has done more good as an Ex-president than many Presidents have! :)

YAY CARTER! :D

The worst ex-president is Gerald Ford. WHy? Well, first of all, he was a horrible president. He couldn't even get himself elected! nevermind re-elected!

Second, what the hell has he done since? He played a lot of golf. That's about it. Boo Ford!

I picked Bush senior. He may not have done much explicitly bad, but he didn't really do anything good. He rode the reagan wave, but couldnt even get a second term. His victories were higher taxes, a war against Iraq(We did well, but war is war), and the final fall of communism(not that any president could have prevented it, even if they tried). Ford is close, but I am not exactly sure of what he did after his presidency.

CARTER!

http://stevescars.digitaloutsider.org/captain_obvious.jpg

I do have to admit, carter is one of the better ex-presidents we have, regardless of what he did during his administration.

Ford was stupid, and unfit for the job....but i enjoyed watching him fall down the steps of airforce one....:-D


Interestinigly enough, the airport in my home city is named after Ford.

Hmmm...naming an airport after a guy that fell down alot...good idea?

If a President is truly interested in human rights, he should concern himself with human rights in all nations, not just friendly or unfriendly ones.

Whoa .... deja vu .....

My second choice Carter, but in the end I say Bush. Carter isn't one of my favorites. He actually spend about as much money on Guatemala as Regan did on Nicaragua.

Not a one of them can barbecue worth a damn, so screw the lot, I say!

Carter, because he pulled the rug out from under the Shah.

Carter, because he pulled the rug out from under the Shah.
How do you figure? The US supported the shah until '79. They didnt exactly move troops into iran, but thats hardly pulling the rug.

C A R T E R all the way.

Some one picked Clinton??? I mean I know he was getting it on with Monica. But as far as doing his job, he was the best President of all of the choices in the poll.

As a liberal Democrat, I'd have to say that is a load of bull. Bill Clinton was good for hyping Bill Clinton, but he was ineffective as President, incompetant as Commander-in-Chief, and horrific as Head of Party.

As a President, I can count on one hand with fingers to spare how many good acts he passed. More specifically, I can think of only one really great act passed on his watch: the marginal tax increases of 1993. Most everything else that was big was also wrongheaded: Don't Ask, Don't Tell (unconstitutionality aside, blatantly stupid use of military assets, as we are now learning), NAFTA (gutted the manufacturing and agricultural communities), Defense of Marriage Act (blatantly unconstitutional), etc.

As Commander in Chief, the man was staggeringly inept. His withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 was foolhardy (and moreover, wasn't a result of public pressure: the public was evenly split on whether we should withdraw from Somalia or take apart Mogadishu brick by brick in the wake of the Mog fiasco), his decisions in Bosnia-Herzegovinia and Kosovo to restrict our actions to air power were firstly ineffectual and prolonged the engagement, and secondly only furthered the impression that America was a nation that only fought at altitudes of 20,000 ft or more, an impression that led directly to 9/11), and his refusal to act in Rwanda and Burundi in '94 cost an estimated 800,000 Africans their lives (post-war UN reports stress that had even a single mechanized infantry regiment been present and fully-equipped, 80% of the casualties could have been avoided).

As Head of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton has more to do with the collapse of the Dems than any other man in America. This is not because he couldn't keep his pen out of any inkpot that came within 5 miles of him, although that didn't help. It's because he, with the help of the rest of the DLC cabal conceded the economic ground to the Republican Party: there is not now, nor will be in the forseeable future, any kind of debate upon precisely what needs to be debated most in this country, which is economic policy. There is no serious voice anymore in America for the working class, because both parties are willing to plunger-rape them in order to get contributions from corporations. The working class in America is just supposed to vote Democratic because, after all, the Dems at least lube the plunger.

George H. W. Bush who as vice president helped establish Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Under Reagan/Bush, Iraq was removed from the US list of terrorist nations (what were they thinking?).

Under Reagan/Bush, Iraq was given a huge boost in recognition by the US, when the US established diplomatic relations with Iraq.

Under Reagan/Bush, Iraq was given a multitude of toxic chemicals, that they used in their war with Iran.

Under Reagan/Bush, the US turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against her enemies.

Under Reagan/Bush, was the Iran/Contra scandal.

Under George H. W. Bush, Saddam thought he had a green light from the US to invade Kuwait after his discussions with Ambassador April Glaspie. How do you spell Gulf War?

George H. W. Bush encouraged Shiites to rebel against Saddam, but did not give them the support they thought they would get. Result was that many Shiites were slaughtered by Saddam during the uprising.

All of the above contributed to Gulf War Part Deux!!

I think that is enough for now.

In addition to Xenophobialand's list, here are 51 reasons why Carter was better than Clinton: http://people.ku.edu/~dadams/prez.htm

Prolly carter. The four given are not all that bad. Carter mainly got pegged by a bad situation, and the like, as such, I voted for him as the worst.

I rather have a liking for Ford, chiefly because he did a goodly amount to heal the wounds of watergate.

HW Bush was a realist. He did all sorts of useful things.

Clinton was very good at maintaining the status quo, which was a pretty good one.

So, just due to circumstances, Carter gets the vote.

Yay for Carter bashing!

At the time, his policies really seemed to suck...however, had America continued Carter's energy policies, we probably would not be importing 50% of our oil today and we probably would have far cheaper renewable energy.

As far as Iran goes, previous U.S. policy of supporting unpopular dictators simply because they were Anticommunist bit him in the @$$ when the Iranians revolted against one of those unpopular dictators. I wasn't around back then, but I do study history, and I don't think he had any realistic choice to control the situation other than invading Iran to remove the new theocracy, which would have brought a whole new set of problems.

Edit: I voted for Bush I. Though I expect Bush II will be far worse, Bush I should have removed Hussein when such a move would at least have had some semblance of international (including Arab) support. Not to mention that, as another poster pointed out, that Hussein thought that he had the US green light to invade Kuwait...

In addition to Xenophobialand's list, here are 51 reasons why Carter was better than Clinton: http://people.ku.edu/~dadams/prez.htm

Well, mind you I didn't necessarily say that I preferred one or the other, or that Clinton was necessarily the worst (honestly, I think that honor goes to Ford). But I do get tired of hearing Dems say that Clinton was the cat's meow, when in fact he was the guy who took the Democratic Party out into the sticks and executed it.

Carter was the sleazy piece of filth who backstabbed Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Iran (now a batshit, pro-terrorist, virulently anti-Western theocracy), and Nicaragua and handed them over to the communists on a silver platter. He also flushed our economy further down the toilet (it was already terrible as it was, under Ford), gutted our military, and did everything he could to advance the communist cause (SALT II, anyone?).


You obviously dont know what your talking about.

Your not giving fair criticism of the mans work, your spouting hate and crap.
Anyone will tell you that the recession during Carters administartion had been buidling for years before the man even took office.

Iran was a batshit pro-terrorist, anti west nation before he took office as well.

Was he a fantastic president?

Maybe not....but however effective he may have been, you cannot take away what the man has accomplished with his life.
Housing the homeless, negotiating peace between multiple nations, even to the point of preventing nations from warring.
The man won a Nobel Peace Prize for gods sake!

You can spew all the hate and filth you need to, but Jimmy Carter is a great man.

Was Carter the guy who encouraged americans to cut down their oil consumption by appearing in speaches wearing a sweater? Is he also the guy who builds houses for homeless people in his retirement?

I think he would be the best president ever if he's the guy I'm thinking of.
He's also the guy who screwed up on the Iran hostages and civil rights in communist nations issues. Basically, he is a left-wing tool.
He is too much of a nice guy to be an effective world leader.

and did everything he could to advance the communist cause (SALT II, anyone?).
How are efforts to avert nuclear destruction "pro-communist"?

why does everybody hate Jimmy Carter he was just unlucky with the iranian revolution and all

How are efforts to avert nuclear destruction "pro-communist"?

SALT II stalled when the USSR attacked Afghanistan.

Jamillian']why does everybody hate Jimmy Carter he was just unlucky with the iranian revolution and all

Because Carter did jack when it came to the Iranian Hostage Crisis. And the one time he tried to use force, he canceled it and it caused American Service men their lives, including a friend of my father's.

Here's where I'm confused. Are we judging them on their perfomance as President or as ex presidents? if the former, Carter was definitly the worst, if the latter, it doesn't matter because once they're out of power, they don't matter.

I'm going by the office and not what they do out of it. Carter is by far the worst president in the History of the United States.

Well, mind you I didn't necessarily say that I preferred one or the other, or that Clinton was necessarily the worst (honestly, I think that honor goes to Ford). But I do get tired of hearing Dems say that Clinton was the cat's meow, when in fact he was the guy who took the Democratic Party out into the sticks and executed it.


True. But I also tire of the Carter bashing. Carter wasn't the greatest, but he gets bashed a lot more than Clinton. I'll also add that Carter has done a whole hell of a lot better as an ex-president than Clinton.

Jamillian']why does everybody hate Jimmy Carter he was just unlucky with the iranian revolution and all
Oh, I see. It's just luck. Well then, it shouldn't matter who is President then, should it?

It's what he failed to do and failed to accomplish when the US people were taken hostage. Something that was accomplished by the mere threat of the swearing in of Ronald Reagan. An implied ass-kicking.

Carter is a very nice man, and very well intentioned. He's just naive beyond all possible belief for a man of his age.

I have to vote Mr "No new taxes for me" George H W Bush. In four years his son will take his place in my heart as the worst ex. Two real disappointments. at least father & son will have something to share.

Because Carter did jack when it came to the Iranian Hostage Crisis. And the one time he tried to use force, he canceled it and it caused American Service men their lives, including a friend of my father's.
How did the cancellation cause "American Service men their lives"?

I'm going by the office and not what they do out of it. Carter is by far the worst president in the History of the United States.
Surely Lyndon Johnson has got to be worse. Vietnam war, gun control, bad welfare programmes?

How did the cancellation cause "American Service men their lives"?

Read up on the incident known as Desert 1!

In addition to Xenophobialand's list, here are 51 reasons why Carter was better than Clinton: http://people.ku.edu/~dadams/prez.htm


I love PJ O'Rourke

Surely Lyndon Johnson has got to be worse. Vietnam war, gun control, bad welfare programmes?
Yes, Lyndon Johnson was worse. But for some reason, he wasn't on the list for this poll.

But you can blame the Vietnam War on McNamara.

Yes, Lyndon Johnson was worse. But for some reason, he wasn't on the list for this poll.

But you can blame the Vietnam War on McNamara.

To a point you can but he wasn't solely responsible for that. LBJ did alot of micromanaging of selected targets, making it worse than it should've.

However, I think Carter was still the worst President of today.

And the one time he tried to use force, he canceled it and it caused American Service men their lives, including a friend of my father's.
How can you lay blame on Carter for the deaths of "American Service men", if he cancelled the use of force?

How can you lay blame on Carter for the deaths of "American Service men", if he cancelled the use of force?

Ever heard of Desert 1? Carter cancelled an operation to rescue the hostages. Because of this cancellation, it threw everything into confusion and a helicopter collided with a C-130. This killed several American lives, including a friend of my dad's.

So yes, Carter is to blame for this incident. It was also Tehran that cost him his presidency because Carter did crap to get them released.

Ever heard of Desert 1? Carter cancelled an operation to rescue the hostages. Because of this cancellation, it threw everything into confusion and a helicopter collided with a C-130. This killed several American lives, including a friend of my dad's. So yes, Carter is to blame for this incident. .
Was Carter flying the helicopter? Did the crew panic because the mission was cancelled? How can you possibly blame Carter for the accident?

It was also Tehran that cost him his presidency because Carter did crap to get them released.
He tried many different avenues to get the hostages released.

He tried many different avenues to get the hostages released.
To illustrate his naivete, and to show you how non-credible he was as a Commander-in-Chief, he even threatened the Iranians with the use of force if they didn't release the hostages. They called his bluff.

Reagan wasn't even President yet (not even sworn in yet), but had announced that the Iranians were going to get their asses handed to them. The hostages were released before Reagan could finish being sworn in.

There are some times when the use of force is necessary. There are also times when your enemies must absolutely believe that you will use whatever means you have at your disposal to hurt them. If they do not believe that you mean to hurt them when you make the threat, they'll always force you to prove it. A wuss must ALWAYS prove it, because no one will believe him. And when Carter's bluff was called, he folded, because he couldn't do it.

To illustrate his naivete, and to show you how non-credible he was as a Commander-in-Chief, he even threatened the Iranians with the use of force if they didn't release the hostages. They called his bluff.

Reagan wasn't even President yet (not even sworn in yet), but had announced that the Iranians were going to get their asses handed to them. The hostages were released before Reagan could finish being sworn in.

There are some times when the use of force is necessary. There are also times when your enemies must absolutely believe that you will use whatever means you have at your disposal to hurt them. If they do not believe that you mean to hurt them when you make the threat, they'll always force you to prove it. A wuss must ALWAYS prove it, because no one will believe him. And when Carter's bluff was called, he folded, because he couldn't do it.


"Speak softly and carry a big stick" - most definately the most effective way to deal with these instances.

Clinton annoyed me to no end.

I think Ford was one of the best presidents we had. 1976 was the best year in American history. Post war happiness, Bicentennial, 18 drinking age, etc.

Carter was a two-faced jackal. His foreign policy would have been a joke if it hadn't been so tragic. He had a double-standard when it came to 'human rights.' Anticommunist, pro-Western nations like Rhodesia, Nicaragua, Iran, Chile, Paraguay, and South Africa were demonized, vilified, and viciously derided over the human rights issue, but when it came to nations such as Red China, the U.S.S.R., Cambodia, Panama, and other communist nations, Carter was eerily quiet. If a President is truly interested in human rights, he should concern himself with human rights in all nations, not just friendly or unfriendly ones.Why does it seem that everyone hates communism? A lot of anti-communist (i.e. capitalist) nations have fewer civil rights than communist and socialist nations. On the other hand, communist nations have fewer economic freedoms. It balances out. Therefore why does everyone ignore the civil rights violations and yell bloody murder at the economic rights violations?

Okay, a capitalist nation can exist with very good civil rights. But increasing economic freedom leads to an absence of minimum wage laws, which leads to human rights abuses. Therefore extreme anti-communist nations cannot exist with very good civil rights, unless they're anarchies. And I don't know that many.

To illustrate his naivete, and to show you how non-credible he was as a Commander-in-Chief, he even threatened the Iranians with the use of force if they didn't release the hostages. They called his bluff.

Reagan wasn't even President yet (not even sworn in yet), but had announced that the Iranians were going to get their asses handed to them. The hostages were released before Reagan could finish being sworn in.

There are some times when the use of force is necessary. There are also times when your enemies must absolutely believe that you will use whatever means you have at your disposal to hurt them. If they do not believe that you mean to hurt them when you make the threat, they'll always force you to prove it. A wuss must ALWAYS prove it, because no one will believe him. And when Carter's bluff was called, he folded, because he couldn't do it.
It was a delicate situation. Carter was determined to save the hostages lives, and for that he demonstrated his compassion. That is why Carter was trying the surgical removal of the hostages rather than going in with guns ablazing, which more than likely would have ended with the death of the hostages.

To blame Carter for the helicopter crash is just plain nonsense.

George Bush because he had a son....lol.

CH,

His CANCELLATION of the plan to use the military to rescue them caused Confusion, thus resulted in the crash that killed people.

WL is right. They showed a split screen of the hostages being released as Reagan was being sworn in.

A lot of anti-communist (i.e. capitalist) nations have fewer civil rights than communist and socialist nations. On the other hand, communist nations have fewer economic freedoms. It balances out.
Can you name any of these capitalist nations that have less civil rights than communist nations? Name a communist nation that has a free press, radio and television.

How Carter isn't "winning" in a landslide victory I'll never know.

How Carter isn't "winning" in a landslide victory I'll never know.

See the number of votes that Bush is getting? Remember that this is a more liberal forum.

To illustrate his naivete, and to show you how non-credible he was as a Commander-in-Chief, he even threatened the Iranians with the use of force if they didn't release the hostages. They called his bluff.

Reagan wasn't even President yet (not even sworn in yet), but had announced that the Iranians were going to get their asses handed to them. The hostages were released before Reagan could finish being sworn in.

There are some times when the use of force is necessary. There are also times when your enemies must absolutely believe that you will use whatever means you have at your disposal to hurt them. If they do not believe that you mean to hurt them when you make the threat, they'll always force you to prove it. A wuss must ALWAYS prove it, because no one will believe him. And when Carter's bluff was called, he folded, because he couldn't do it.

You are aware of the fact that Reagan campaign workers negotiated with Khomeini to delay the release of the hostages until Reagan was sworn in, right? Technically, Carter did secure release of the hostages; he just never got the credit because Reagan's cronies secured a massive PR coup through, if not illegal, then highly unethical means.

Worst living ex-president? Bush of course. And in the year 2009, the answer will be Bushes.

You are aware of the fact that Reagan campaign workers negotiated with Khomeini to delay the release of the hostages until Reagan was sworn in, right? Technically, Carter did secure release of the hostages; he just never got the credit because Reagan's cronies secured a massive PR coup through, if not illegal, then highly unethical means.

Care to provide proof of such an assertion?

CH,

His CANCELLATION of the plan to use the military to rescue them caused Confusion, thus resulted in the crash that killed people.
Number 1, Jimmy Carter didn't cancel the mission.

Number 2, you really know squat about this mission or you wouldn't be so loose with your condemnation of the heroic mission these soldiers tried to execute?

Number 3, these guys were attempting a very daring mission that required a lot of training, but a mechanical failure of one of the choppers required the cancellation of the mission, and unfortunately disaster struck.

Number 4, George Bush wants to be known as the "compassionate conservative", but since the Afghan and Iraqi wars, has he shown anywhere near as much class, as demonstrated by Jimmy Carter as per the account below in quotes (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0401/hostage.html)?

.......The bodies of the eight men were eventually returned to the United States, and a memorial service was held at Arlington National Cemetery.

Memories of that ceremony are still vivid for many of the rescue team. Weaver, who was an escort officer, still recalls when President Carter visited the families prior to the service. After talking with a Marine family, the president made his way to the family Weaver was escorting.

“He came up to the family, then he looked down at those two little boys, and he just got down on his knees and wrapped his arms around them,” Weaver said. “Tears were streaming down his cheeks. Here’s the president of the United States, on his knees, crying, holding these boys. That burned right in there,” he said pointing to his chest.

Perhaps if you read the WHOLE story, you just might learn something? Blaming Carter, reeks of partisan politics and discredits the heroic actions of those that gave their lives for YOUR country.

Number 1, Jimmy Carter didn't cancel the mission.

Number 1: Yes he did.

Number 2, you really know squat about this mission or you wouldn't be so loose with your condemnation of the heroic mission these soldiers tried to execute?

Number 2: Corneliu and I know more about that mission than you think. How do we know? Our father is in the military during that time frame. Both of our parents were actually. So we know a bit more than a normal CITIZEN will.

Number 3, these guys were attempting a very daring mission that required a lot of training, but a mechanical failure of one of the choppers required the cancellation of the mission, and unfortunately disaster struck.

Unfortunately for you, I know how it was supposed to have gone. Carter did cancel the mission unless you have full proof that he didn't. You don't! The CIC said he could do the mission even down helicopters. The President said NO so yes he did cancel the mission. As for the plan, I have the simple version of it infront of me. I could type it up here for you if you want it!

Number 4, George Bush wants to be known as the "compassionate conservative", but since the Afghan and Iraqi wars, has he shown anywhere near as much class, as demonstrated by Jimmy Carter as per the account below in quotes (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0401/hostage.html)?

.......The bodies of the eight men were eventually returned to the United States, and a memorial service was held at Arlington National Cemetery.

Memories of that ceremony are still vivid for many of the rescue team. Weaver, who was an escort officer, still recalls when President Carter visited the families prior to the service. After talking with a Marine family, the president made his way to the family Weaver was escorting.

“He came up to the family, then he looked down at those two little boys, and he just got down on his knees and wrapped his arms around them,” Weaver said. “Tears were streaming down his cheeks. Here’s the president of the United States, on his knees, crying, holding these boys. That burned right in there,” he said pointing to his chest.

He better have considering he was directly responsible for their deaths. Again, I have the plan of action that he himself cancelled. The plan was relatively simple but thanks to Carter Budget cuts, we couldn't do even a simple rescue mission.

Perhaps if you read the WHOLE story, you just might learn something? Blaming Carter, reeks of partisan politics and discredits the heroic actions of those that gave their lives for YOUR country.

Perhaps if you listen to the people that actually lived it and had friends die in it, you'll be singing a different tune. My parents knew full well the state of the military under Carter. Carter did nothing for us. Another reason why the military has been voting republican.

I am surprised that George Sr is ranked as thye worst of the options, his son George Jr is very popular but IMHO the son isn't fit to lick his father's boot straps.

Number 1: Yes he did.

You didn't read the story (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0401/hostage.html).

Number 2: Corneliu and I know more about that mission than you think. How do we know? Our father is in the military during that time frame. Both of our parents were actually. So we know a bit more than a normal CITIZEN will.
You didn't read the story (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0401/hostage.html). It is an account of one of the crew members, and your opinions wrong as they may be, mean squat?

Unfortunately for you, I know how it was supposed to have gone. Carter did cancel the mission unless you have full proof that he didn't. You don't! The CIC said he could do the mission even down helicopters. The President said NO so yes he did cancel the mission. As for the plan, I have the simple version of it infront of me. I could type it up here for you if you want it!
Unfortunately, you and Corneliu are Bush/Republican apologists, and can't see the trees for the forest. You can keep your plans, and I will rely on the account by the serviceman. Thanks anyways.

He better have considering he was directly responsible for their deaths. Again, I have the plan of action that he himself cancelled. The plan was relatively simple but thanks to Carter Budget cuts, we couldn't do even a simple rescue mission.
Carter was directly responsible for these guys deaths, even though it was due to a malfunction? Read the story about how much preparation went into this mission and quit giving us your partisan politics.

Perhaps if you listen to the people that actually lived it and had friends die in it, you'll be singing a different tune. My parents knew full well the state of the military under Carter. Carter did nothing for us. Another reason why the military has been voting republican.
This guy tells the story, and guess what.....it is different from yours, and yeah, his friends died, not your dad's friends. You guys need to quit manufacturing the "truth"?

You told me to read about Desert One and I did, and when I come back with a story about one of the crew members accounts, you try to discredit his story (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0401/hostage.html) and in the process, you discredit yourself.

You didn't read the story (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0401/hostage.html).

Why should I read it when my parents lived through it?

You didn't read the story (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0401/hostage.html). It is an account of one of the crew members, and your opinions wrong as they may be, mean squat?

Prove them wrong!

Unfortunately, you and Corneliu are Bush/Republican apologists, and can't see the trees for the forest. You can keep your plans, and I will rely on the account by the serviceman. Thanks anyways.

Your a Canadian so why should I listen to you anyway? Btw, my parents are and were servicemen/women.

Carter was directly responsible for these guys deaths, even though it was due to a malfunction? Read the story about how much preparation went into this mission and quit giving us your partisan politics.

Carter cancelled the mission that caused confusion that caused the crash. Again, want me to post what my father remembers of the incident?

This guy tells the story, and guess what.....it is different from yours, and yeah, his friends died, not your dad's friends. You guys need to quit manufacturing the "truth"?

You told me to read about Desert One and I did, and when I come back with a story about one of the crew members accounts, you try to discredit his story and in the process, you discredit yourself.

I never tried to discredit anyone. I'm not doubting it was mechanical but juding by what Carter did to the military.......

CH,

In addendum to my previous post. The thing my sister is talking about is an interview of my father regarding The Tehran Hostage Crisis that i had to do for my history class.

FYI, I got a 94 on it.

Your a Canadian so why should I listen to you anyway?
Ahhhh ultimate logic reigns supreme. :eek:

Ahhhh ultimate logic reigns supreme. :eek:

LOL!! Well, call it a fit of tiredness. I haven't been getting much sleep. Been thinking about my gf. BTW: my gf is *gasp* liberal.

I am surprised that George Sr is ranked as thye worst of the options, his son George Jr is very popular but IMHO the son isn't fit to lick his father's boot straps.
In another 3 1/2 years, both Bushs will lead a poll like this, with George Jr. getting the highest number of votes?

Worst living ex-president? Bush of course. And in the year 2009, the answer will be Bushes.
What if Bush senior dies by 2009?