You seem to forget that Clinton got through 8 years of presidency without serious foreign policy blunders. And don't mention Somalia. The U.S. public were not ready for a larger commitment there. I think the record has shown that when push comes to shove, presidents from both sides have shown that they have what it takes to intervene in worthy conflicts.

But off course, I'm European, so what I say really doesn't matter. I'll tell you why, though, that most Europeans prefer Kerry over Bush. And it's not because Bush didn't listen to them over Iraq. Hell, I am for the war in Iraq. It's simply because U.S. - EU relations were better before Bush, and most Europeans would like to see them improve again.

Then again. Bush would be no great disaster, were he to get 4 more years.

Morten

You speak as if all Democrats are the same. They're not.  I would have been fine with a Lieberman presidency for instance.

Clinton and Kerry are not similar at all. They have enough ideological issues in common to put them in the same party but their foreign policy outlooks are quite different.  Hence why I used Carter as the example, not Clinton.

Of ocurse, Clinton was pretty inept in foreign policy. I am quite certain that had a different man been in the white house that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We would have taken those attacks on our embassies much more seriously.

First, i saw the title and then had to laugh!  I was there for Carter, and while the best of intented men, was a complete fool!

Of ocurse, Clinton was pretty inept in foreign policy. I am quite certain that had a different man been in the white house that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We would have taken those attacks on our embassies much more seriously.

And this says it all.  That is why the Europeans loved Clinton.  He made the US look like buffoons, so they could self inflate their own impotent ego!  is it any wonder Blair glommed on to Bush so readily?  The English are not washed up yet, just in their zenith of empire.  yet they do not want to look like Buffoons as the French and germans do.  Clinton is their love fest for the simple reason that he was so inept, and there fore made everyone (nation) look so much stronger and better.

And, no I dont doubt that 9/11 would not have happened if we had a foreign policy president in the 90s.

Interesting you bring up Jimmy Carter. I haven't heard what he has to say about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but I would be surpised if he did not want to eliminate them as summarily as possible. If he didn't, then I'd have to vote for Nader. Truth is, there are very few Americans I would not prefer to Bush. Heck, look at me, I'm voting for Kerry -- which pretty well proves my point.

As to your serious point about dovishness: Yes, I am a dove. There are things worse than war, but I will always ask some very hard questions before I support a war, and I will not be swayed by two standing groups of pro-war supporters:
* leaders who, from time immemorial, have known that war against an exterior enemy is the best way to deal with legitimate internal dissent, and
* personalities that seek the emotional satisfaction of winning a fight and exerting one's will

Before I support a war, I want to know:
* Is this really the best method, stragegically speaking, of attaining our goal?
* Is the goal worth American lives and the innocent lives which will necessarily be ended or otherwise ruined?
* Is there sufficient American support to ensure that we can use the necessary resources to get the job done properly?
* How will this war help Americans in general?
* How will this war probably impact on American power, prestige, and political standing?

Very, very few wars pass when using this criteria... and it is noteworthy that every time the potential for war exisits, the hawks raise the specter of the single, most dramatic example of a war in the last 100 years that does: World War II and Chamberlain. If you are a hawk, you gotta worship the ground Lord Chamberlain walked on, because his legend has swayed many a mind.

The Carter-Kerry comparison denigrates Carter a lot more than Kerry.... like Dr. Guy said, Carter was a well-intentioned and decent man, but he wasn't prepared for the White House(much like Herbert Hoover). He did some good things while in office too... but yes, it was a mess I am forced to confess.

That being said, I think if two airlines hit the WTC in 1980 flown by Iranian hijackers.... Carter would have had the same reaction as nearly any other president would have.

Carter has spoken out on Osama, and he has said that Osmas anger is understandable because of the USA's foreign policy in the Middle East for the past 6 decades. Understandable? Murdering innocent people is understandable? This from the same guy who said that the UN sanctions were working (he said this before the war, when inspectors had just been kicked out of IRaq AGAIN). Screw Carter, I remember the long gas lines that wrapped aroung the block, I remember the ultra high unemployment rates, and I remember that in 1979 people wanted an actor for President (which was unheard of) more than they wanted this idiot.

Jimmy Carter almost destroyed this country. Pray that Kerry doesn't do the same.

That being said, I think if two airlines hit the WTC in 1980 flown by Iranian hijackers.... Carter would have had the same reaction as nearly any other president would have.

I think that's a huge assumption. Do you think Reagan or Bush would have handled the hostage crisis like Carter did? No.  I think Carter would have dithered with the Taliban and here in 2004 the best we would hope for is sanctions against a Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

The argument that Democrats are soft on foreign affairs is a creation of the conservative media machine. It has been in place since the Truman era with McCarthy and MacArthur painting him as soft on communism. It continued in the Kennedy era where he went against his own judgement in giving the go ahead for the Bay of Pigs so that he would not seem soft on communism. It continued in escalating the number advisors in Vietnam. The last Democrat to escape judgement from the right was LBJ and he made some of the most disasterous decisions of the century, only slightly behind Bush Sr's decision to stop short of Baghdad and turn a blind eye as Saddam controlled his population with chemical weapons.

How different would America be had isolationist Wilkie beat Roosevelt? He would not have stood up to Japan in their policy to invade China, nor would he have took part in Lend Lease to keep the Brits in WWII. A neutral US in WWII would have meant that Britain would have come to an agreement for cessasion of hostilites and allowed Hitler to focus on the Eastern front.

How different would it have been were Nixon in the White House during the Cuban missile crisis. IMO he would have listened to LeMay's advise to bomb the facilities, further escalating the situation.

With Ford in the White House, would the Ayatollah never come to power in Iraq? For the most part Carter was very successful in foreign affairs. President's Bush Sr and Clinton both used his diplomatic skills to diffuse situations overseas. He got Egypt and Israel, bitter enemies to come to the peace table. Carter's problem, like Hoover was in delegation of responsibility.

Do you think Reagan or Bush would have handled the hostage crisis like Carter did?

Well, Reagan at least had a very different take on dealing with hostage situations.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a little bit of skullduggery in the early to mid-80's involving selling arms to Iran(while at the same time selling arms to Iraq) to profer the release of other American hostages in Lebanon with the profits of that enterprise being funneled into a war in Nicaragua against a government that had as some of its core values the abolition of torture, political assassination and the death penalty, the protection of democratic liberties and equality for women.

Is that the type of hostage negotiation you prefer?

No. I think Carter would have dithered with the Taliban and here in 2004 the best we would hope for is sanctions against a Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

I have serious doubts about that... because there is huge difference between rattling the sabre over hostages and going to war after a devastating attack on American soil.

he has said that Osmas anger is understandable because of the USA's foreign policy in the Middle East for the past 6 decades. Understandable? Murdering innocent people is understandable?

I have no knowledge of this other than your statement, but notice your own logical jump -- YOU assume that to understand anger means understanding murder. That is a vast logical jump.

Personally, I am very interested in the reasons why the extremists in the Middle East are angry, and I am interested in the extent to which these people are motivated by worldly as opposed to purely theological goals. Understanding such things can go a long ways to dealing with populations and leaders in the area, which are not currently on Al Qaeda's side, but could conceivably become part of the problem.

My interest in this matter has nothing to do with my passion for bringing the individuals who did this down.

As I say, everything I know of Carter's current views comes from this thread, but could he mean the same thing I am saying? Or does he really mean that their reasons for being angry are good enough that they should be appeased rather than eliminated? That distinction might make for a poor sound bite, but it makes all the difference in the world as to the consequences of your policy.

Reply #10 By: Don Bemont - 10/30/2004 3:19:11 PM he has said that Osmas anger is understandable because of the USA's foreign policy in the Middle East for the past 6 decades. Understandable? Murdering innocent people is understandable? I have no knowledge of this other than your statement, but notice your own logical jump -- YOU assume that to understand anger means understanding murder. That is a vast logical jump.

Evidently you have no logic. He asked a question he did not make a statement or an assumption. You however make one when you assume that an american makes that jump in logic. When you talk about things like this, that is where most americans mind goes.

Murdering innocent people is understandable?

Personaly I don't care "why" they're angry. Short of us going over there and running a 767 into a building, there is NOTHING that justifies them runinning one into one of our buildings!

Reply #10 By: Don Bemont - 10/30/2004 3:19:11 PM he has said that Osmas anger is understandable because of the USA's foreign policy in the Middle East for the past 6 decades. Understandable? Murdering innocent people is understandable? I have no knowledge of this other than your statement, but notice your own logical jump -- YOU assume that to understand anger means understanding murder. That is a vast logical jump.

Evidently you have no logic. He asked a question he did not make a statement.

Murdering innocent people is understandable?

Personaly I don't care "why" they're angry. Short of us going over there and running a 767 into a building, there is NOTHING that justifies them runinning one into one of our buildings!

Yeah, President Clinton had no foreign policy blunders. Except Somalia. Except Haiti. Except...well, everywhere he sent the US Military in "Peacekeeping" Roles, for which they are not trained or suited.

While Clinton managed to avoid foreign policy blunders that would make the headlines, its more what he did NOT do, rather than what he did. Passing up repeated chances to take out Bin Laden CERTAINLY qualifies. As is constantly ignoring threats and indicators that Terrorists planned to strike the US again, after the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

Calling Bill Clinton's foreign affairs slate clean is about like saying that the St. Louis Cardinals put up a good show in the world series.

I regard Jimmy Carter as the WORST president in recent (i.e. since World War 2) history. His only real competition there would be LBJ, but definitely takes the "crown".

Anyone that can honestly say that they'd vote for him again simply isn't paying any attention. Of course, the same thing could be said about people that vote for a certain Senator from Massachusetts...

Let's put it this way... if I wanted to... I could explain how the Carter Administration was in part responsible for 9/11