[GetsTan]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0207-03.htm

Carter, isn't he the one that let our citizens launguish as hostages in Iran for well over a year? That is the way he WANTS to see our citizens treated. He'd probably also say the the beheadings were OK, too. That's it Peanut Brain, stand with the terrorists. Pathetic.

Actually if members of the Reagan Campaign hadn't visited Tehran and assured the Ayatollahs that if they held on to the hostages, and Reagan won the election, he would supply them with arms, which they did and he did, they might have been released sooner.

So while Carter actually refused to negociate with Terrorists, Reagan was negociating with them before he was even president, and he did plenty of negociating with them after he took office, too.

[giftbestcom]

I never realized he was so hands on, actually assigning specific pilots to specific aircraft................

Good, you’re showing us you’re never too old to learn something new. He cut heavy lift helicopter training from special forces, then assigned special forces to the operation, which required heavy lift helicopters.

[Noilemaillilm]

Actually if members of the Reagan Campaign hadn't visited Tehran and assured the Ayatollahs that if they held on to the hostages, and Reagan won the election, he would supply them with arms, which they did and he did, they might have been released sooner.

So while Carter actually refused to negociate with Terrorists, Reagan was negociating with them before he was even president, and he did plenty of negociating with them after he took office, too.

In fact, it was ronnie who gave the terrorists the idea that the US can be intimidated by terrorist acts. If he had been man enough to stand by the principles that he supposedly believed in, Bin Laden might never have thought committing terrorist acts agains the US could possibly have any positive outcome for him.

[Liskaspexia]

In fact, it was ronnie who gave the terrorists the idea that the US can be intimidated by terrorist acts. If he had been man enough to stand by the principles that he supposedly believed in, Bin Laden might never have thought committing terrorist acts agains the US could possibly have any positive outcome for him.

Thats a stretch. I think Clinton demonstrated more our weaknesses in that area, starting with not helping the Northern Alliance in 1998, and Yemen. But, Islamic Fundamentalism dosent exactly use reason.

[dietpillxanaxaxx]

In fact, it was ronnie who gave the terrorists the idea that the US can be intimidated by terrorist acts. If he had been man enough to stand by the principles that he supposedly believed in, Bin Laden might never have thought committing terrorist acts agains the US could possibly have any positive outcome for him.

How?

It seems to me that the US in general is responsible for giving that impression as it was relatively non-responsive to terrorism for over 20 years prior to 9/11. So, I'd include in the blame Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. The most notable exception I can think of is Reagan's bombing of Qaddafi's house, which evidently was still not enough to dissuade the likes of bin Laden.

[Anakattawl]

Fidei Defensor I don't agree that showing our might would have dissuaded Bin Laden. Just like I don't believe the death penalty deters murderers. We have done plenty of bombing and ousting of leaders and funding both sides of the Iraq/Iran war (see Ronnie's Iran contra scandal) to encourage the terrorists to plan an attack against us.

[fedelwfget]

You may not believe in the death penalty but nobody has ever, under any circumstances, killed again when the death penalty is properly applied. Just consider it a very late-term abortion. Those are OK aren't they?

[juyrett]

Nor when imprisoned for life.

Oops, they kill other prisoners....edit. ugh. sorry.\

Ew spad on the abortion reference.

[Phoneemer]

Wrong. Quite a few corrections officers have been severely hurt or killed by inmates in for life. Or don't they count?

[Soypopetype]

You're too quick.....I made a mistake. Quit making me nervous.

LOL! joking :P

[JamesTornC]

Nor when imprisoned for life.

Oops, they kill other prisoners....edit. ugh. sorry.\

Ew spad on the abortion reference.

You don't care about the guards? Figures. They're there to make sure you don't come face-to-face with a murderer. Getting spit on, having urine and feces thrown at them, the constant being challenged by inmates. Worrying about a shank under the rib cage. Day after day after day, for the rest of the dirtball's life, just so you can feel good about not carrying out the death penalty.

[geraint.faughn]

Well, so long as she doesn't have to think about it.

[Alulursuifold]

Carter's legacy is one of collossal failure, followed by redemption. I think he was a lousy President (for a whole host of reasons- the hostage crisis, economy in the shitter, etc..), but he redeemed himself by being a good person and helping his fellow man. He didn't just talk about helping the homeless, he went out and built them homes. I respect him for that.


BTW- Some say Carter was the worst POTUS ever! Having lived through 4 long, sad, inept years of his bumbling weak-kneed "leadership" (sic), I tend to agree. Sometimes great men make lousy leaders...

[ZZChristopher]

And sometimes lousy leaders become great men.

[Blotassefesek]

Fidei Defensor I don't agree that showing our might would have dissuaded Bin Laden. Just like I don't believe the death penalty deters murderers. We have done plenty of bombing and ousting of leaders and funding both sides of the Iraq/Iran war (see Ronnie's Iran contra scandal) to encourage the terrorists to plan an attack against us.

We learned from the 9/11 Commission that (1) Osama bin Laden felt emboldened by past displays of US weakness, e.g., turning tail and running from Mogadishu; and (2) there was some dissension amongst the al Qaeda leadership about the wisdom of carrying out the 9/11 attacks for fear that it would actually bring about effective retaliation. So, this shows that they do think in logical terms about the expected success of a mission and its potential negative effects. Like any movement with political designs, their continued existence is important to them and that will factor into their decision-making.

[Master_B]

Thats a stretch. I think Clinton demonstrated more our weaknesses in that area, starting with not helping the Northern Alliance in 1998, and Yemen. But, Islamic Fundamentalism dosent exactly use reason.

So you think "not helping" sends a stronger message than actively negotiating with and actually arming terrorists? I think it's pretty obvious that there is a huge difference between the two and pretending not to see it says more about your own personal loyalties than it does about the facts under discussion.

Before reagan and since reagan this country has held to the principle that it is wrong to negotiate with terrorists. Reagan gave weapons to terrorists in exchange for the release of american hostages. His henchmen broke US laws in order to deliver those weapons and divert the profits to the contra terrorists in nicaragua. And now many of those same criminal accomplices are members of the w administration and things have come full circle. The men who showed the terrorists that this country can be intimidated into committing immoral and illegal acts are once again at work for the white house.

"Americans will never make concessions to terrorists- to do so would only invite more terrorism- once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilised people must pay."
Ronald Reagan, June 18 1985

[mikajuise]

Legislative intent comes from the legislators that draft a law, not the guy who signs it.

Yes ... but I didn't say legislative intent, did I?

I think that with the Senate voting 95-1 in favor of FISA (as opposed to the strict party-line voting and last minute arm twisting of more recent Congresses), both Carter and Congress shared the same intent - to put into place a law that would address the abuses of warrantless electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens conducted under previous administrations.

I'd look for what the Senators and Congressmen said during the debates on FISA, but the Congressional Record online (GPO Access as well as THOMAS) doesn't go back that far ... and finding & plowing through paper copies (or microfilm?) would simply take too much time.

But based solely on what Carter said at the time, I think it's safe to say that his statements represent the executive intent of FISA. And I think that is very pertinent to the hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[HedoShoodovex]

So you think "not helping" sends a stronger message than actively negotiating with and actually arming terrorists? I think it's pretty obvious that there is a huge difference between the two and pretending not to see it says more about your own personal loyalties than it does about the facts under discussion.

Before reagan and since reagan this country has held to the principle that it is wrong to negotiate with terrorists. Reagan gave weapons to terrorists in exchange for the release of american hostages. His henchmen broke US laws in order to deliver those weapons and divert the profits to the contra terrorists in nicaragua. And now many of those same criminal accomplices are members of the w administration and things have come full circle. The men who showed the terrorists that this country can be intimidated into committing immoral and illegal acts are once again at work for the white house.

"Americans will never make concessions to terrorists- to do so would only invite more terrorism- once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilised people must pay."
Ronald Reagan, June 18 1985

I think that the people to took hostages in Iran are different than AlQaeda. I dont agree with what Reagan did, but he can hardly be blamed for terrorists thinking they can attack us. There is a long line of inconsistency on that point. We do what is convinient based on the circumstances of the situation.

[Obenuearema]

I think that the people to took hostages in Iran are different than AlQaeda. I dont agree with what Reagan did, but he can hardly be blamed for terrorists thinking they can attack us. There is a long line of inconsistency on that point. We do what is convinient based on the circumstances of the situation.

Different how? Extremist Islamic terrorists are Extremist Islamic terrorists. America doesn't (or didn't) negotiate with terrorists. We certainly don't (didn't) arm them as a method of appeasement in response to a threat. I'm not blaming reagan for terrorists thinking they can attack us. His underhanded dealings convinced them that they can intimidate us into negotiating with them in response to their attacks. Because that is what he did. If they didn't think we might cave in to their demands, they would have less reason to attack.

If what we do on this issue is based merely on convenience, we not only betray the values many of us think this country stands for, it also knocks out all the excuses your hero has for invasion, occupation, limitations on our civil rights and expansion of presidential power. After all, he's always claiming we have to believe him and let him do whatever he wants because he's doing the right thing. If it's merely a matter of "what is convenient" he has no right to do any of it because then there's no value difference between fighting the terrorists and giving them guns.

Just let people find out those illegal wiretaps were only a matter of "what is convenient" and it'll be 20 years before another republican sets foot in the whitehouse. I could certainly live with that but I'm not sure this road of situational ethics is one you want to follow given your support for the man who supposedly won the last election on the issue of moral values.