SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
political campaign.

Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even his
strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability to make
decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most intelligent president
of the 20th century. But he was also one in which making no decision
was often considered a viable option. Circumstances which were unacceptable
to the voters of 1980.

The problem in Iraq may well be that even after all the dots were
connected, these did not lead to the expected outcome. Consider that Saddam
had used a particularly nasty nerve gas to kill several thousand Kurdish
citizens, and that the research by Iraq in chemical and biological weapons
was well known - even to the UN. And that lacking any such weapons, there
would have been little reason to keep UN Inspectors out of the country for
four years.

And also note that the popular media plays up the WMD subject (and at
least once every hour on NPR) but has little to say about the thousands of
graves which have been unearthed. Or that the entire population in a
number of towns were discovered to be exterminated.

(Jerry Johnson) wrote in
om:

Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
political campaign.

Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even
his strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability
to make decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most
intelligent president of the 20th century. But he was also one in
which making no decision was often considered a viable option.
Circumstances which were unacceptable to the voters of 1980.

The problem with being intelligent is seeing many options. Stupid
people can make quick decisions because they can be fooled into
accepting simple dictums like "Saddam is evil" or "45 minutes to use
of WMDs". A thoughtful and considerate President of the Untied
States (from one who lives next door) was a refreshing and welcome
change; we liked Carter, we still do. He's welcome at my house any
day.

And just for the record, it would still be a welcome change if it
were to happen again, but they say lightning doesn't strike the same
place twice. Too bad.

:-)))

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:35:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"nobody" wrote in message
...
Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real done.

It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.


How many billions will it cost per year to make Iraq a democracy if it
it even possible?

On 6 Feb 2004 13:17:10 -0800, (Jerry Johnson)
wrote:

Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
political campaign.

Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even his
strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability to make
decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most intelligent president
of the 20th century. But he was also one in which making no decision
was often considered a viable option. Circumstances which were unacceptable
to the voters of 1980.

The problem in Iraq may well be that even after all the dots were
connected, these did not lead to the expected outcome. Consider that Saddam
had used a particularly nasty nerve gas to kill several thousand Kurdish
citizens, and that the research by Iraq in chemical and biological weapons
was well known - even to the UN. And that lacking any such weapons, there
would have been little reason to keep UN Inspectors out of the country for
four years.

And also note that the popular media plays up the WMD subject (and at
least once every hour on NPR) but has little to say about the thousands of
graves which have been unearthed. Or that the entire population in a
number of towns were discovered to be exterminated.


Now what country will Bush invade to SAVE the people of that nation
from living under a terrible leader?

North Korea?

Zimbawe?

Any of half a dozen other nations in Africa?

john wrote in
:

Now what country will Bush invade to SAVE the people of that
nation from living under a terrible leader?

North Korea?

Zimbawe?

Florida? :-)

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...

"Jarg" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
not
judge his presidency kindly.

Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...

Actually, it was the Israeli seeling Pentagon arms from their $3 billion a
year in freebies that enabled Irqn-Contra.

In article , nobody
wrote:

Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything real
done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm during that
time period.

I agreed totally with what you say. And if Presidencies were judged by
their "steering" then Carter's quarterback rating will be near-
perfect. He just didn't have any receivers worth a twit. And those who
say he was an impotent President probably needed a little viagra
themselves. You know pot calling kettle noir, etc.

"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...

"Jarg" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
not
judge his presidency kindly.

Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...

Which betrayal would that be? The hostages were released on Reagan's
inauguration day. Coincidence. I doubt it. The Iranians knew Reagan would
take real action. That is only one demonstration of Carter's weaknesses.

Carter was,
and is, a well informed and opinionated man, who took a lot of positive,
daring decisions and who was very well informed (he disposed over the
intellectual skills required for the job) about world affairs - unlike
later
presidents such as Bill Clinton, who failed to see the warning signals on
the deployment of nuclear capabilitiy (testing that is) by the Pakistani
junta - which had just kicked out the democratically elected govt. in
Pakistan - and George Bush, who turned coup-leader Musharaf into one of
his
top allies in his war for democracy and freedom, and in his quest to find
Osama in his cave, as well as in the so-called 'war on terror' against
terrorists, against people who hate freedom, against people who hate
America
or hate people who love freedom, and against anyone who is "not with us" -
such as the countries of the so-called 'axis of evil'.

Carter was no doubt intelligent, may have had a grasp of the issues, but
nonetheless was an inept leader.

Meanwhile of course,
Dr. Kahn and his nuclear buddies in the pakistani military - not in the
least Gen. Musharaf himself - have been the biggest perpetrators of
WMD-proliferation in the history of mankind, exporting all kinds of
nuclear
and other WMD technology to countries like North-Korea. Apparently, the
whole WMD proliferation issue was not about Iraq, as Saddam did not have
any
WMD, but instead the whole problem was with Pakistan, Bush's close ally in
the war on terror, which has been exporting the stuff to "axis of evil"
countries like Iran and N-Korea...

Which has nothing to do with Carter's failed presidency.


So how is it that Carter was such a failure, and that W. Bush is such a
success in the strive for a more human/humane/humanistic and peaceful
world
and in America's strive for "world peace", solidarity, 'compassion',
freedom
and prosperity ???

As far as I can see, GWB is nothing else than the wrong answer for the
wrong\

Perhaps you aren't seeing clearly then.

questions.
At least Jimmy Carter got the questions right.


So what? He was an awful leader.

Jarg

"Stark Raven" wrote in message
...
In article , nobody
wrote:

Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real
done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help
steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered
it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to
Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at
the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm
during that
time period.

I agreed totally with what you say. And if Presidencies were judged by
their "steering" then Carter's quarterback rating will be near-
perfect. He just didn't have any receivers worth a twit.

Part of his job was to pick competent help. Just another of his many
failures.

And those who
say he was an impotent President probably needed a little viagra
themselves. You know pot calling kettle noir, etc.

I doubt Viagra would have helped him in the way it helps you. His impotence
was a result of personality and philosophy.

Jarg

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:03:45 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:

"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...

"Jarg" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
not
judge his presidency kindly.

Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...

Which betrayal would that be? The hostages were released on Reagan's
inauguration day. Coincidence. I doubt it. The Iranians knew Reagan would
take real action. That is only one demonstration of Carter's weaknesses.

snipped

Why were they released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.