Carter: Bush's Impact 'Worst in History'
By Associated Press
2 hours ago


Former President Jimmy Carter listens to a student's question ...
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Former President Carter says President 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.

I can't say it has been the worst but my knowledge of presidents is a little sketchy. I have some issues with many presidents so as to say that this was the worst is a relative matter. I certainly hope that Bush is forced to accept some responsibility for his destabilization of the Middle East.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

There is no American presidencies comparable to the current one. But there are some Roman emperors who share company with Bush the Lame.

You wouldn't say that if he had a "D" behind his name.

Sorry...but you're gonna have to throw some facts behind this obviously biased, and empty statement. As was said in the other "Jimmah is a Doofus" thread, Bush was re-elected. How does this make him worse that the Peanut Farmer, when the Peanut Farmer was almost SWEPT in the elections?

Sorry, but comparing Jimmy not getting re-elected to Bush getting re-elected is comparing apples to Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

If Bush would have faced Reagan, he would have been crushed just as decisively as Carter was. Reagan was able to capture the imagination of the American people and remind them of why they should be proud to be Americans. Of course there was also the fact that Reagan and his supporters were actively working to make sure the hostages weren't released until after the election. (Remember that, all you folks who like to throw the word "treason" around?)

Bush was up against Kerry, a stilted, intellectual whose main appeal was that he wasn't Bush. Had he a fraction of the charisma that Reagan had, he would have won.

__________________
Catz: "And, the ever-sage Volvo Driver:"

If we are to talk margin of victory as a basis for comparison then if Carter was the worst due to an overwhelming majority who wanted anyone but Carter, what conclusions can be drawn by how narrow Bush's victory the first time around?

[quote]You didn't know me during the LBJ presidency, did you?

Carters trying to hand off the crown.

Carter didn't say "domestic" he said "international."

Interesting that he would try to make another category but there haven't been many worse than Bush in international affairs and Carter for domestic affairs.

Bush does have a criminal for a brother while Carter just had a goofy one.

I like how you carefully forgot that the second time around, Bushie-weenie-lumpkins ware re-elected with the support of 51% of the voting public. That was the first instance of a presidential candidate winning a clear majority in 16 years, when his father, George part one, won the election riding a 53.4% majority.

Notice that it means that Bill Clinton didn't receive a majority of the votes in either of his campaigns for president. (This was largely due to the great efforts of Ross Perot, but that doesn't act to discount the results or to render them meaningless or an exception.)

__________________
"I want...to kill...all...white people."
--Barack Obama, out of context.