Carter blasts Bush, Blair over Iraq war

[Abraxis Axis]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/19/carter.blair.ap/index.html

May 20, 2007

Britain's support for the war in Iraq was a "major tragedy" for the world, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Saturday, as he criticized Tony Blair's unwavering support for President Bush.

Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, Carter said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Carter also told an American newspaper that Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

Blair was in Baghdad Saturday morning for what will be his last trip to Iraq as British prime minister. Last week, Blair announced that he would step down June 27, making way for treasury chief Gordon Brown.

The war in Iraq has been the defining foreign policy issue of Blair's premiership, and the decision to join the U.S.-led invasion was an unpopular one at home. So far, nearly 150 British service personnel have died in Iraq.

Carter told the BBC that Britain's support made it more difficult for critics of the war, and that things could have been different if Britain spoke out against the 2003 invasion.

"I can't say it would have made a definitive difference, but it would certainly have assuaged the problems that arose lately," said Carter, who was U.S. president from 1977 to 1981 and has been a critic of the war.

"One of the defenses of the Bush administration, in the American public and on a worldwide basis -- and it's not been successful in my opinion -- has been that, OK, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us.

"And so I think the combination of Bush and Blair giving their support to this tragedy in Iraq has strengthened the effort, and has made opposition less effective and has prolonged the war and increased the tragedy that has resulted."

It's not the first time Carter has criticized Britain. Last year, he said he was disappointed with "the apparent subservience" of the British government to Washington on issues such as Iraq and last summer's Israel-Hezbollah conflict.
'Worst in history'

The criticism of Bush from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Georgia.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.

Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone.

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."

Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, described Carter's comments as unprecedented.

"This is the most forceful denunciation President Carter has ever made about an American president," Brinkley said. "When you call somebody the worst president, that's volatile. Those are fighting words."

[9sublime]

Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, Carter said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.


Now here's a real, honest president who knows whats going on, and doesn't mince his words.

[top gun]

Now here's a real, honest president who knows whats going on, and doesn't mince his words.

Good for Jimmy! And it's worth remembering that countries in the Middle East did everything that they could to try and make President Carter look bad and also disrupt the flow of oil to the United States.

So I'm sure if President Carter didn't really believe our current policy was tragic he would not be speaking out. If anything he'd have an ax to grind against the Middle East.

[jb_1430]

Carter is an idiot. He thinks the Presidents job is to win an international popularity contest. MARK

[9sublime]

Someone doesn't like people speaking about against Bush.

[jb_1430]

Someone doesn't like people speaking about against Bush.

Lots of Idiots are always speaking about against Bush. MARK

[Abraxis Axis]

As well alot of IDIOTS speak in favor of the Shrub

[vyo476]

As well alot of IDIOTS speak in favor of the Shrub

Most of the people who speak in favor of President Bush are idiots. I've occasionally defended him against what I saw as unjust accusations, but if I've said one positive thing about him or his presidency than I did so accidentally.

The man isn't as bad as some people say, but he sure as hell isn't very good either.

[9sublime]

What Carter has said here is absoloutley right. Especially in regards to Britain. It wasn't our war, and if we had been attacked by terrorists pre-twin towers I wonder how much America would have helped us out.

[Abraxis Axis]

spot on

[9sublime]

America wouldn't have helped us out because it wouldn't have been in their national interest. It would only have increased their chance of getting attacked by terrorists, cost money and risked important links (as I'll call them) with the Middle East. However, when its the other way round, Blair blindly jumps in and guess what happens:

We get half the world hating us.
We get our tubes blown up.
We loose lots of money.

[ArmChair General]

America wouldn't have helped us out because it wouldn't have been in their national interest.

thats just wrong.

If you guys got invaded at 8AM, we'd have you liberated by lunch.

[jb_1430]

What Carter has said here is absoloutley right. Especially in regards to Britain. It wasn't our war, and if we had been attacked by terrorists pre-twin towers I wonder how much America would have helped us out.

We would have lead the charge. Wouldnt have been able to sustain it for this long. The American people would have bailed a year or two earlier. MARK

[9sublime]

thats just wrong.

If you guys got invaded at 8AM, we'd have you liberated by lunch.

I'm talking pre-twin towers. You havent had a proper terrorist attack. You don't fear the terrorists that much. Most people don't know who Bin Laden is. Then, the tubes in Britain get blown up by some religious nutter. Britain declares war on Afghanistan. America wouldn't do anything, they wouldn't have risked it. The public wouldn't back it, because of the risks it carried for THEM, and back then Bush and Blair weren't bumboys.

[jb_1430]

I'm talking pre-twin towers. You havent had a proper terrorist attack. You don't fear the terrorists that much. Most people don't know who Bin Laden is. Then, the tubes in Britain get blown up by some religious nutter. Britain declares war on Afghanistan. America wouldn't do anything, they wouldn't have risked it. The public wouldn't back it, because of the risks it carried for THEM, and back then Bush and Blair weren't bumboys.

Well, as many Americans that have died defending Britain and defeating their enemies, I would have to say %*#$ OFF ya limey Brit. MARK

[top gun]

Carter is an idiot. He thinks the Presidents job is to win an international popularity contest. MARK

I hate to hear you say that. President Carter is at the very least a very good human being. Even a very religious leader and winner of a Nobel Peace Prize.

You might want to consider that your bashing of President Carter is the EXACT same thing you complain about when it comes to Mr. Bush.

[9sublime]

Well, as many Americans that have died defending Britain and defeating their enemies, I would have to say F*#K OFF ya limey Brit. MARK

Well, I'll ignore the racism Mark, I don't have to sink to such levels on a debate, but I'll respond to this totally out of the blue and bizzare comment.

As for defending us, against what enemy? You tell me who you are defending us against? If it wasn't for us choosing to get involved in this war, we would never have been attacked by terrorists in the first place. You really believe without your help we would have fallen to 'terrorism' whatever that is?
You don't die defending us, your soldiers die as pawns trying to defend your governments reputation and some high ranking politicians jobs. I feel so sorry for the soldiers and their families, don't get me wrong, but we at home don't owe them anything. I didn't ask for America to defend my freedoms, and I certainly don't think people should be dying 'liberating' the middle east.

[ArmChair General]

Well, I'll ignore the racism Mark, I don't have to sink to such levels on a debate, but I'll respond to this totally out of the blue and bizzare comment.

As for defending us, against what enemy? You tell me who you are defending us against? If it wasn't for us choosing to get involved in this war, we would never have been attacked by terrorists in the first place. You really believe without your help we would have fallen to 'terrorism' whatever that is?
You don't die defending us, your soldiers die as pawns trying to defend your governments reputation and some high ranking politicians jobs. I feel so sorry for the soldiers and their families, don't get me wrong, but we at home don't owe them anything. I didn't ask for America to defend my freedoms, and I certainly don't think people should be dying 'liberating' the middle east.

If there was some sort of alternative reality and the UK asked for US military support, there really is no reason to believe that the US would not lend its help.

[top gun]

Well, I'll ignore the racism Mark, I don't have to sink to such levels on a debate, but I'll respond to this totally out of the blue and bizzare comment.

As for defending us, against what enemy? You tell me who you are defending us against? If it wasn't for us choosing to get involved in this war, we would never have been attacked by terrorists in the first place. You really believe without your help we would have fallen to 'terrorism' whatever that is?
You don't die defending us, your soldiers die as pawns trying to defend your governments reputation and some high ranking politicians jobs. I feel so sorry for the soldiers and their families, don't get me wrong, but we at home don't owe them anything. I didn't ask for America to defend my freedoms, and I certainly don't think people should be dying 'liberating' the middle east.

Don't take it personal my friend. There are those who would rather set the whole world on fire rather than admit that George W. Bush has made so many mistakes that the count has been lost.

And thank you for respecting our brave troops. They do their job in the most professional way and they follow their orders. No one can fault them for that. They've done the right things. It's those at the top who have let them down.

I truly believe the Republicans will continue to lose power and the Democrats will get a chance to change the course of things for the better.

[jb_1430]

I hate to hear you say that. President Carter is at the very least a very good human being. Even a very religious leader and winner of a Nobel Peace Prize.
You might want to consider that your bashing of President Carter is the EXACT same thing you complain about when it comes to Mr. Bush.

Yeah, him and Yasser Arafat, Im not impressed.
And I dont complain as you allege. MARK

[jb_1430]

Well, I'll ignore the racism Mark, I don't have to sink to such levels on a debate, but I'll respond to this totally out of the blue and bizzare comment.

As for defending us, against what enemy? You tell me who you are defending us against?

British isnt a race. And you must be young. A couple little dust ups called WWI and WWII. My family tree barely survived. Mark

[Dave]

Personally, I'd have to agree when the White House called Jimmy Carter irrelevant. It seems that way too many people are forgetting how Carter screwed up in Iran. Isn't this pretty much the pot calling the kettle black?

[9sublime]

British isnt a race. And you must be young. A couple little dust ups called WWI and WWII. My family tree barely survived. Mark

That was then, and I have great respect for your family, I'm sorry that they had to die defending the worlds freedom from Hitler.
I am no expert on WWII, but from the outside it seems your government came in late, because it had clear benefits to itself which it did not have before it declared war. I thank them for their involvement, but if the roles had been switched, and we had been attacked by terrorists first, then I think America would have come in late again.

As for you telling me to **** off and something about being a Brit, I'm not Welsh, I'm not Irish, only a wee bit Scottish, and they still piss me off. It really didn't offend me. If your going to have to resort to a slagging match rather than a debate, at least get the insults right.

[vyo476]

Personally, I'd have to agree when the White House called Jimmy Carter irrelevant. It seems that way too many people are forgetting how Carter screwed up in Iran. Isn't this pretty much the pot calling the kettle black?

Jimmy's problem in Iran was that he wasn't aggressive enough (and the one time he tried to be it failed more miserably than any other operation in the history of our nation and that is saying a lot).

I suppose you could make an argument that that is GW's problem with Iraq (Armchair's made that point already and, unsettling as it is, you can't dispute that his brutal ideas would probably work a lot better than what we're doing now) but I'd tend to think that Jimmy doesn't follow the same lines of reasoning as a "war nerds" like Armchair.

[top gun]

jb_1430;9102]Yeah, him and Yasser Arafat, Im not impressed.

At the time Yasser Arafat was part of the peace process. Carter & Clinton both had Israel and the Palestinians talking and at a truce for a time. The international community puts a high value on peace initiatives. As they should.

And I dont complain as you allege. MARK

Really... I'm sorry I must be misreading things like this...

Originally Posted by jb_1430
Carter is an idiot. He thinks the Presidents job is to win an international popularity contest. MARK

[top gun]

Jimmy's problem in Iran was that he wasn't aggressive enough (and the one time he tried to be it failed more miserably than any other operation in the history of our nation and that is saying a lot).

I suppose you could make an argument that that is GW's problem with Iraq (Armchair's made that point already and, unsettling as it is, you can't dispute that his brutal ideas would probably work a lot better than what we're doing now) but I'd tend to think that Jimmy doesn't follow the same lines of reasoning as a "war nerds" like Armchair.

We all need to remember that President Carter authorized a "rescue mission". He could have went off half cocked and invaded Iran but to do that... invade a foreign country with large scale troops... the hostages would SURLY have been killed. The safety of those boys was Carter's only concern. Not some who's is bigger pissing contest... and the hostages ultimately survived.

President Carter didn't formulate the the plan to basically covertly try and steal the hostages back the military did. Carter didn't fly the helicopters or start the sandstorm that all attributed to the rescue attempt failing... he merely tried to save lives. Being in that position I think he has the knowledge to be very credible on our current situation.

[Castle]

Personally, I'd have to agree when the White House called Jimmy Carter irrelevant. It seems that way too many people are forgetting how Carter screwed up in Iran. Isn't this pretty much the pot calling the kettle black?
I have never seen a better example of the pot calling the kettle black!
There is plenty of room to criticize the Bush administration but Carter is dead LAST of people that have the credibility to do it. Anyone remember 21% interest rates? Double digit inflation? Long gas lines? How about that wet noodle he called a foreign policy. The former Soviet Union bent him over at will and his handling of the Iran hostages was pathetic at best. In a nutshell, Carter was completely inept as president.

I'll stay away from his obvious issues with Jews for now.

-Castle

[vyo476]

We all need to remember that President Carter authorized a "rescue mission". He could have went off half cocked and invaded Iran but to do that... invade a foreign country with large scale troops... the hostages would SURLY have been killed. The safety of those boys was Carter's only concern. Not some who's is bigger pissing contest... and the hostages ultimately survived.

President Carter didn't formulate the the plan to basically covertly try and steal the hostages back the military did. Carter didn't fly the helicopters or start the sandstorm that all attributed to the rescue attempt failing... he merely tried to save lives. Being in that position I think he has the knowledge to be very credible on our current situation.

He authorized "a" rescue mission. Just one. No backup plan. That was a mistake. He couldn't have invaded Iran - it would have been a complete disaster and everyone with half a brain knew it. The hostages did survive - because Khomeini was terrified of Ronald Reagan.

Carter didn't come up with the plan, but as President and Commander-in-Chief it was still his responsibility. Think about it - people blame George Bush for how badly Iraq is going even though he has nothing to do with the implementation of policy. If the policy itself is flawed...then he is still no different from Carter in this regard.

[Dave]

We all need to remember that President Carter authorized a "rescue mission". He could have went off half cocked and invaded Iran but to do that... invade a foreign country with large scale troops... the hostages would SURLY have been killed. The safety of those boys was Carter's only concern. Not some who's is bigger pissing contest... and the hostages ultimately survived.

President Carter didn't formulate the the plan to basically covertly try and steal the hostages back the military did. Carter didn't fly the helicopters or start the sandstorm that all attributed to the rescue attempt failing... he merely tried to save lives. Being in that position I think he has the knowledge to be very credible on our current situation.

My problem with Carter isn't the botched rescue attempt. Its that the embassy was still operational at the time the hostages were taken. I would strongly recommend reading "Guests of the Ayatollah" by Mark Bowden to anybody interested in the subject. The diplomats in the embassy saw it coming. The CIA officers in the embassy saw it coming. The only person that didn't see that something bad was about to happen was Jimmy Carter. The personell should have been pulled out before this ever happened.

[drippinhun]

Carter's actions resulted in all our hostages surviving. That's about as successful an outcome one could hope for. As far as the economic situation, anyone who understands what caused those issues that blossomed during his administration would know that Carter did the correct thing by letting Volker's medicine take place.

ow, please get back and discuss Carter's points instead of childishly trying to minimize his opinion by ignorantly trashing his record which is not the issue.