jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (48 posts)

Carter on Romney:

  1. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    This surprised me. Jimma Cahtah says he'd be comfortable with Romney as POTUS, although he'd rather have a Democrat.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … minee.html

    1. profile image0
      Hubert Williamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jimmy Carter was comfortable with terroists holding American hostages.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Um, no he was not "comfortable" with it.  If the rescue mission had succeeded, he would have been a hero, just as if the mission to kill bin Laden had failed, Obama would have been blamed and deemed a failure.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not to mention a deal was made to wait until after the election by Reagan's people.

          1. lovemychris profile image78
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yup...October Surprise.

          2. Repairguy47 profile image61
            Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No there wasn't.

      2. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hello, Mr. Williams. It is nice to have you join in the discussion.

        May I take exception to your comment? I'm afraid your statement is a major distortion of the facts. President Carter was never “comfortable” during the hostage crisis. His extraordinary efforts to free the hostages have been recorded by historians including a failed rescue attempt. President Carter was still negotiating for their release on Reagan’s inauguration day. Some consider it is a national disgrace that Ronald Reagan obstructed Carter’s efforts, conducted back door negotiations on his own, and then delayed the release of the hostages until after he was sworn in.

        As reported by CBS News, “President Carter was preoccupied with the situation and perhaps did not pay enough attention to his re-election campaign, opting instead for a Rose Garden strategy… His opponent, Ronald Reagan, however, had created a network of informants within the government to give him advance warning of any changes in the hostage situation. Some accused him of exploiting the hostage crisis in his campaign.” (1)

        Thanks for contributing, Mr. Williams, but your recollection does not jibe with history.

        (1) http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-265244.html

      3. mikelong profile image83
        mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Tripe...

        1. profile image0
          Hubert Williamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If that is the extent of your knowledge, it hardly adds anything to the conversation.

    2. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And with that endorsement, Romney's chances drift even further away. Maybe Romney can get endorsements from the ACLU, Democrats he worked with closely to pass the health care law in Massachusetts, and even Barbra Streisand.

      I have a feeling Obama might even win by a bigger margin than in 2008. And then we'll have 4 years of right-wing zealots taking control of the GOP.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Or they will smarten up so they can win the next election.

        1. livelonger profile image88
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think that's possible with a relative moderate/RINO as their candidate.

          If they had nominated Santorum and saw him trounced by Obama, that would've been the wake-up call they needed. Now they're set for another 4 years of delusions...

          1. profile image69
            logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We shall see come November who is deluded.

            1. lovemychris profile image78
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The better asnwer is we'll see how well the 250 million dollar smear and lies campaign works. sad

            2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
              Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes you shall smile

  2. carol3san profile image60
    carol3sanposted 5 years ago

    So would I...BUT it is congress and the suprime court that I am worried about.

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think Obama will be reelected, but IF Romney is able to eek out a victory, I hope he will able to work with both sides.

      1. Jason Marovich profile image88
        Jason Marovichposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I listened to an interview with people that knew Romney when he was an active leader in the Mormon church.  As usual, it was a mixed assortment of opinions.  He was a great listener, and he was willing to help those with less, so they could earn good standing in the community.  But then, there were some who felt he was too rigid, unwilling to compromise on church business, as he saw it.

        What I was glad to hear, was that he didn't do anything outrageous or controversial during this period of his life, which says something about the character of the man, compared to so many other politicians with skeletons in their closets.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jason, I figure he had to be able to work with Dems as governor of a dark blue state.

          1. Jason Marovich profile image88
            Jason Marovichposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He did, and he would again, left to his own devices.  He faces enormous pressure from hard-line conservatives that he'll have to overcome if he wants to get elected President.  He needs to impress upon the American public the pros of being in the middle, rather than running from those beliefs.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    If Romney is elected and governs the way he wants to and not the way he thinks he has to in order to appease the extreme right, then he won't be much different from Obama.

  4. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I don't think so. I don't think Obama would have cut poor kids off dental and eye like Romney did.
    I don't think Obama would sign a bill allowing police to take any class at a state college to gain more pay..this includes cooking.
    I don't think Obama would say nothing about a cop who stood by and heard a girl be molested by his partner, and then lied and covered for him.
    And I don't think Obama would go along with the Republican establishment and promote a man to judge even though he was party to framing an innocent man for murder. They all know who was involved, imo...but much like Zimmerman's case...they protect their own. Mitt care about justice? Not in the least.

    Obama will not bomb Iran.
    Obama will not call Bibi before he makes a decision.

    And Romney says he would never apologize for America? Even for torture? Invading a foreign nation? Polluting the world? Nothing....? So, we are perfect, and never do anything wrong?

    pffffft! Bush 3. Only worse.

    1. profile image0
      FPackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hahahaha, "Bush 3."

      1. profile image0
        Hubert Williamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's one reason why I like Romney.

    2. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What will be your reaction when Obama does bomb Iran?

      1. lovemychris profile image78
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not going to happen. See--I can tell the future just like you can.

  5. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    He had no choice than to work with them, just as Obama had no choice as to work with the Tbags. Difference is--the Dems in Mass were willing...the R's in Congress are not.

    And that does not excuse his shifty Repub friends in law enforcement here. And his telling us he would always support a woman's right to choose....now to say he will repeal Roe v Wade.

    Wants to Bomb Iran....no one made him say that. I'm sorry---but to say he is middle is wrong. He is far right, through and through. And he scares the heck out of me. Nothing in those eyes. but $$$$$

    1. Jason Marovich profile image88
      Jason Marovichposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No one makes anyone say anything when they're on a campaign trail for an office they've never held.

  6. profile image0
    Hubert Williamsposted 5 years ago

    Quilligrapher, thank you for responding I know what historians record. I also know different historians record history as they see it. It is still my opinion that Mr Carter's negotiating showed those students of terrorism that America, under the leadership of Mr. Carter, had no strong leader and was free to do anything they wanted for as long as they wanted without fear of reprisal. Since that time, Iran has continued that belief and practice, while funding and supporting terrorist groups around the Middle East. With all due respect, the article you inserted even stated that perhaps out of fear of what the the next administration might do, they released the hostages. Even now, under Mr Obama, the terrorists know that they can get away with anything they want without fear of reprisal. Terrorist organizations and/or governments cannot be allowed to hold the people of the world hostage.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks again, Mr. Williams, for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate your saying different historians view history differently and, further, that President Carter was a poor negotiator. Unfortunately, you do not offer any examples by any historians that support your recollection of events or any examples that disagree with the events I brought to your attention. Hence, your conclusions appear to be just your unsupported opinions.

      However, I think you changed the subject and avoided the essence of my comments in the process. You suggested President Carter was soft on terrorist: Instead of showing us how he was comfortable with the hostage crisis, you criticize his ability as a negotiator. I supported my view that he was very uncomfortable and, in fact, he went to great lengths to free the hostages. You seem to deny that he tried and go on to criticize another president's administration without any mention of the intervening president who promised us he would bring justice to Osama Bid Laden but failed to deliver.

      Here are the words of a President I consider “soft” on terrorists:
      "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
      - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

      "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
      - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

      "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
      - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

      Furthermore, The Washington Post reported that the CIA unit dedicated to capturing bin Laden was shut down by President Bush in late 2005. (1)

      Are these also versions of history, Mr. Williams, you would like to deny?

      Finally, on May 1, 2011, another president delivered justice on behalf of the American people. Meanwhile, you are deceiving yourself, and us, when you say, "Even now, under Mr Obama, the terrorists know that they can get away with anything they want without fear of reprisal."
      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6543020_f248.jpg

      (1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00375.html

      1. profile image0
        Hubert Williamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Will this suffice for now? If Carter had made more than one attempt to rescue the hostages in over one year I don't believe that the problem would be as severe as it is right now. As you say, it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. Adding every historian, pundit, or newscaster's opinion to it will make it no more or less credible. Morley Safer, Hubert Williams, Wolf Blitzer, Sean Hannity or  you could state our different opinions to Starbucks and would still have to pay for the coffee. 

        Where is his answer about Iran? http://www.history.com/videos/jimmy-car … -terrorism
        Reagan's answer to Carter http://www.history.com/videos/jimmy-car … terrorists
        Are our interests protected after peaceful negotiations? http://www.history.com/videos/jimmy-car … on-defense

        Carter was soft on terrorism or those hostages and their families would not have suffered that long. If  I have to ask everybody what my opinion should be it would cease to be my opinion.

        1. mikelong profile image83
          mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And regarding Iran...

          Now, I am sure you are well aware (right?) what Iran was like before Britain/the Allies took over in the early 20th century....

          Britain, for its economic and strategic political gains only (not because it cared about the Iranian people) set up a government that it thought it could control....

          Until Mossadeq...

          Iranians make decisions for themselves.....and how does the "West" respond?

          Do you know who Kermit Roosevelt was, and what he was involved in in Iran?

          Iranians do...even though the overwhelming majority of Americans (including yourself, I'd wager) do...

          Our own terrorists within the Iranian military stage a coup.....  Sounds familiar...this pattern has been duplicated over and over with American funds and supplies...

          The Shah is put in power (because we in the West value democracy)...and his absolute rule ensures that Western oil companies continue to extract Iranian wealth while throwing scraps in return to the Iranian people.  "Oh, but under the Shah there was reform...there was revitalization.."

          True....there was also the need to make sure traditional Iranian elites were completely marginalized from seats of power....

          A trust was broken, and in 1979 we saw the response to the original aggression...which had taken place nearly a century before..

          Were the Iranians justified in '79?

          Were the Americans justified in the '50's when they worked to topple the Iranian government? 

          I know many Iranians, and they travel back and forth from Tehran every year. They don't like how their country is run. They also, however, don't trust the United States and Europe. On both sides they have been used and abused, and now they, the Iranians I know, are doing whatever they can to build their own individual and group strength so that they can resist both extremes (American hegemony or orthodox interpretations of Islam).

          They realize, though, that if they had not been living on top of a sea of oil they would not be in this mess.....

          I wonder if you were an Iranian back in the '50's, what you would have thought of the coup in your country... Who would you have seen as "terrorists" and how that would alter your entire stream of thought....

  7. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Do you have some evidence to back up your claim?

    So, what is Romney's/the GOP's plan for Pakistan?  They, after all, are a far bigger generator/supporter of terrorism than Iran........and they are financing their work with our debt-dollars....directly through foreign aid, and indirectly through the CIA, Saudi Arabia (with money from our oil usage) and China (the producer of our cheap goods).

    Nuclear Pakistan.....with the ISI and their trained proxies next door....the Taliban...  What is Romney's plan? 

    We need specifics....not vague references to "Middle East" terrorists...........

    1. profile image0
      Hubert Williamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you are directing your comment to me, I believe that your should ask Mr. Romney what his plans are. He doesn't send me memos about his activities. As far as my feelings on Pakistan, I believe that they should lose some, if not most, of our financial support because they not straight forward with their dealings as an ally. Do you not believe that there are terrorists in the middle east? Do you believe that they are just blowing up rag dolls and playing a little rough on the playground. You have a lot of questions that you need to ask the candidates. As far as solutions on my part, I thought I was pretty clear that negotiating with terrorists who would rather see us dead, or exterminated as they said, is useless rhetoric. Many innocent lives are lost in the process. How many fewer lives would be lost in a confrontation. Most innocent lives lost in the region now are the result of bombs delivered by Islamic extremists looking for virgins after they die.

  8. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    The "Middle East" is a vague geographic reference that many people use to generalize-homogenize diverse cultures, political/economic systems, beliefs and identities.

    Are there people we could call "terrorists" in this vast vagueness we call the "Middle East"?

    Yes. Absolutely. I also believe that there are people who should be called "terrorists" who the "West" (another vague, generalized, falsely homogenizing term) support...

    But terrorists exist everywhere......and the United States is one of those breeding grounds...

    Or are you trying to pass off that we are at more risk, in the United States, from foreign (and this word is supposed to show a lack of connection to the U.S....even though that such separations do not exist) sources are a greater risk than those from within?

    Does Romney have to send you memos?

    No...

    But your claims about what the terrorists are thinking is supposed to then communicate what, that you have their memos?

    Really?

    In terms of Pakistan, I think that you are in over your head when it comes to giving policy advice.

    As for those "Islamic Extremists" you are referring to, keep in mind that many are young people......very young people...and you will find that they also are coming from poor families....families who then receive money, in many cases..

    This is not religion....it is a war... The CIA alone, during its operations in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion, published countless Qurans for distribution. We, Americans, promoted Islamic radicalization and the creation of the complex tunnel-base networks lining the Afghan-Pakistani border...those "training camps"....they were part of an American policy to counter "Godless" Russia.

    These are extensions of our own networks... We may even need them in the future...

    Keeping Russia's southern frontier and China's far east unstable benefits the U.S.

    Is there still a drive in the "West" to deprive Russia of "warm water" access?

    What about the ongoing dispute in Kashmir?

    Dig deeper......there is more going on here than you think....

    But, if you want to discuss terrorism.....why don't we look at our "School of the Americas"....and see what our graduates have been up to in "Latin" America (another vague, falsely homogenizing term)....

    Take a look at the leadership of the "Mexican Cartels" (as if the American Cartels aren't any different, or even worse) and see if you can't link it back to Fort Benning, Georgia.....

    I don't have questions for Romney.....I already know what/who he represents...

    I know, however, that most people are not thinking about these issues with the depth of analysis that is required....even though they like talking about these topics....

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Tripe.

    2. profile image0
      Hubert Williamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Let me see if I understand what your are saying. It all seems so vague and homogenized. You are blaming and holding Mitt Romney responsible for poor Islamic children for strapping bombs to themselves and walking into th middle of large wedding receptions and other large gatherings and blowing themselves up. And you call my comment tripe.
      Americans did help Afghanistan defend itself against foreign invaders. Then they started hiding terrorists that attacked our country. America went after them. If terrorists in that region seem vague to you perhaps you should go to a wedding in Jordan or shopping in Tehran. How about a nice camping trip outside Kabul? Don't forget to tell everybody that you are an American just looking for the good life in the Middle East region of the world. I am sure that you will be received well and many celebrations will be held in your honor. Visit this one of many sites then tell me how vague terrorism is. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ . When you write back, don't tell me that it is the fault of Mitt Romney.

      1. mikelong profile image83
        mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is what I call tripe...

        Thanks for showing another example for the "audience" (referring to your use of "he"...as if anyone else is paying attention to anything you are saying..).

        If you can't see the fallacy in using terms like the "Middle East"...the "West" and "Latin America" then you have much deeper issues to resolve...

        Let us delve deeper into the creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan, (while you're at it you can look up the Sykes-Picot Agreement and learn about its failed outcome) and then we can discuss the "foreigners" and who was doing what and when.

        Freedom isn't free.....especially when you are living in a former colony....(and unfortunately the colonialism does not end when the direct rule does).

        The United States benefits from waging religious wars in Central Asia...this is just how it goes. True, in Uzbekistan, for example, Islamic extremists are being pressured, but they were our tools to begin with...  We just want them to do what we tell them to do...

        But life doesn't work that way... 

        And, again, if you want to discuss "terrorism", why are you unwilling to look at the training camps in your own country, financed directly by your tax-debt dollars?

        Is what goes on in Fort Benning too much for you to handle?

  9. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Obviously....

    It is too apparent and specific to be real.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      More tripe.

  10. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    NSDD 166

  11. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Read up on our ol-buddy Hekmatyar.....

    Since we're tripe fishing....you can also bone up on some of these beauties:

    http://www.soaw.org/

    http://www.derechos.org/soa/

    http://chomsky.info/articles/20110204.htm

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And even more tripe.

  12. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Thank you for demonstrating the physical representation of "brain drain" syndrome. This is making a great case-study.

    Reading about it in the books doesn't do enough justice.

    In terms of tripe, you've caught enough to feed your family for a week!

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And then the tripeiest? Is that a word?

      1. mikelong profile image83
        mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know....did you get the memos from the guys at Websters?  Did they say Obama was too weak on lexicon abuses?

      2. profile image0
        Hubert Williamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Tripe and homogenized seem to be his favorite words.

  13. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Reagan: "No negotiation with terrorists of any kind.."

    -Except if we are training and backing them....of course, then we don't call them terrorists...do we?

    The "partner" of today is then the "terrorist" of tomorrow....

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur … 09775.html

    http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-speci … e-cartels/

    This is just Mexico, mind you.....  It gets worse...

 
working