The Welcom that President Bush was going to give Clinton.

[AirForceRocks]

I thought that President Bush's remarks were gracious and appropriate, as they should have been. I also didn't see anything at all out of line with President Carter's remarks about President Reagan's death.

I believe that Jimmy Carter was one of the most moral men to live in the White House, but I think he was a lousy President.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by shortbun
Dawn-
If you read the articles-I've just read several- Carter said he
would make no formal statement after his Sunday School class
on sunday. The remarks he had already made were made prior
and in his class attended by about 300 people.
George HW Bush sent Jimmy Carter abroad to watch questionable
elections and consulted him about diplomacy on more than a
few occassions. You clearly want to color his reputation with your
opinions and not facts. I'm way over you and your debate techniques; techniques being a questionable word to describe
your posts. Wasn't it you in another post who objected to
bashing? What is it you have just done here?

Look, Carter is definately a great statesman and diplomat. I, too, didn't find anything ungracious about his Reagan remarks. However, the activities you cite are post-Presidency Carter. I think most historians would rank Carter as one of the worst of the 43 Presidents we've had. That in no way takes away from the good work he has done since being voted out of office.

 

[peachgirl]

Let me see here, and your sole purpose in life is to praise Republicans. Do I have my facts right?

Did I say that???

I never said that Dawn should make it her sole purpose in life to praise Democrats. I said she NEVER did anything but bash them.

The argument with Dawn wasn't over President Carter's effectiveness as President. It was her ridiculous interpretation of Carter's remarks about President Reagan. How what he said could be thought of as petty is beyond me.

While I am Democrat, I don't believe that every Republican is evil and awful. I'm certainly not so close minded that I automatically hate because there's a R beside their name. While I may disagree with many of their positions, that doesn't mean that everything they do and everything they are is horrid.


For instance...George Bush Sr....couldn't disagree with him more as to his politics, but I admire him greatly as a man.

So, no, you don't have your facts right.

 

[shmoogrrrl]

DawnCt,

Thanks! I just snarfed my Fruit Loops all over the screen!

VERY funny.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Look, Carter is definately a great statesman and diplomat. I, too, didn't find anything ungracious about his Reagan remarks. However, the activities you cite are post-Presidency Carter. I think most historians would rank Carter as one of the worst of the 43 Presidents we've had. That in no way takes away from the good work he has done since being voted out of office.

I don't know what Carter did or didn't say where President Reagan is concerned. He seemed like a descent man to me. Agreed though, that he wasn't up there as far as presidents go.

I also want to say that I liked the speech that Bush gave. I can't imagine that anyone would expect him to read that speech that Dawn gave us a link to. I don't believe she expected he'd read that either. Personally, I don't think Clinton was that bad of a president (though I didn't vote for him).

I do however fully believe that Ronald Reagan started talks to have our hostages released the day after he was elected! I don't think any of it was post President Carter's term in office. I also think Reagan was just as much the stateman when he appointed Carter as the special envoy to welcome home the hostages.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Did I say that???

I never said that Dawn should make it her sole purpose in life to praise Democrats. I said she NEVER did anything but bash them.

The argument with Dawn wasn't over President Carter's effectiveness as President. It was her ridiculous interpretation of Carter's remarks about President Reagan. How what he said could be thought of as petty is beyond me.

While I am Democrat, I don't believe that every Republican is evil and awful. I'm certainly not so close minded that I automatically hate because there's a R beside their name. While I may disagree with many of their positions, that doesn't mean that everything they do and everything they are is horrid.


For instance...George Bush Sr....couldn't disagree with him more as to his politics, but I admire him greatly as a man.

So, no, you don't have your facts right.

Name me two things a Republican president did, while in office, that you approve of?

 

[year2late]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I believe that Jimmy Carter was one of the most moral men to live in the White House, but I think he was a lousy President.

ITA.

 

[N.Bailey]

.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I don't know what Carter did or didn't say where President Reagan is concerned. He seemed like a descent man to me. Agreed though, that he wasn't up there as far as presidents go.

I also want to say that I liked the speech that Bush gave. I can't imagine that anyone would expect him to read that speech that Dawn gave us a link to. I don't believe she expected he'd read that either. Personally, I don't think Clinton was that bad of a president (though I didn't vote for him).

I do however fully believe that Ronald Reagan started talks to have our hostages released the day after he was elected! I don't think any of it was post President Carter's term in office. I also think Reagan was just as much the stateman when he appointed Carter as the special envoy to welcome home the hostages.

Who would Reagan have been speaking with. That would have been a bit out of bounds , don't you think? If Reagan was engaging in foreign policy acts before taking office? Unless he was asked to by the Carter administration to get involved.

The post=presidency activities to which I was referring were his in involvements in peace negotiations and election monitoring. Again, a great humanitarian, statesman and diplomat. Lousy president.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Who would Reagan have been speaking with. That would have been a bit out of bounds , don't you think? If Reagan was engaging in foreign policy acts before taking office? Unless he was asked to by the Carter administration to get involved.

The post=presidency activities to which I was referring were his in involvements in peace negotiations and election monitoring. Again, a great humanitarian, statesman and diplomat. Lousy president.

Why don't you call Fox News because they too believe that Reagan was involved right away and that the hostages were released because they were fearful of what Reagan might do.

Edit: Does the timing alone not tell you something?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
Why don't you call Fox News because they too believe that Reagan was involved right away and that the hostages were released because they were fearful of what Reagan might do.

I didn't know an inantimate entity could believe something. Nevertheless, there are a myriad of theories as to why the hostages were released on Inaguration Day. I just find it somewhat doubtful Reagan was engaging in backroom negotiations without the knowledge of the Carter Administration.

I'd be interested in the data supporting "Fox News'" theory

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I didn't know an inantimate entity could believe something. Nevertheless, there are a myriad of theories as to why the hostages were released on Inaguration Day. I just find it somewhat doubtful Reagan was engaging in backroom negotiations without the knowledge of the Carter Administration.

I'd be interested in the data supporting "Fox News'" theory

I in no way think that Carter didn't know about these talks. I feel very passionalty that Carter wanted nothing more than to have these hostages released. Perhaps they worked together, I don't know. But, I know Reagan played a very powerful roll in their release. Maybe that's why Carter played a huge roll in their release? For what, over 400 days it was is mission in life! Maybe tonight, for the 1st time in my life, I see that they might have both been responsible??

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I didn't know an inantimate entity could believe something. Nevertheless, there are a myriad of theories as to why the hostages were released on Inaguration Day. I just find it somewhat doubtful Reagan was engaging in backroom negotiations without the knowledge of the Carter Administration.

I'd be interested in the data supporting "Fox News'" theory

I've had a few shots too many tonight. I don't drink much (my husband brought this home to surpise me). If you do some Google searches, I'm certain you'll get the hits you want to see.

 

[Bobbles]

I may have my "facts" a little confused on the hostage situation in Iran during the Carter Administraion, but wasn't there a rescue attempt made?

Hostage situations were new back then and we weren't quite prepared to go to war over these issues.

We will not negotiate with terrorists, correct?

Don't forget the capture and holding for 11 months, the crew of the USS Pueblo by North Korea in 1968.

What was done then?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
Why don't you call Fox News because they too believe that Reagan was involved right away and that the hostages were released because they were fearful of what Reagan might do.

Edit: Does the timing alone not tell you something?

LOL! The hostages were released just minutes after President Reagan finished taking the oath of office. There was no fear of what he would do ... he had been in office less than 1 hour before they were released.

Their release was timed to coincide with the presidential transition; it was simply intended as a slap in the face to former President Carter. That's all the timing says.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I in no way think that Carter didn't know about these talks. I feel very passionalty that Carter wanted nothing more than to have these hostages released. Perhaps they worked together, I don't know. But, I know Reagan played a very powerful roll in their release. Maybe that's why Carter played a huge roll in their release? For what, over 400 days it was is mission in life! Maybe tonight, for the 1st time in my life, I see that they might have both been responsible??

While I believe President Reagan did some very admirable and noteworthy things while in office, securing the release of the Iranian hostages is not one I would list under his accomplishments. I think the key phrase in your post is this: "I don't know."

I seriously doubt that President Reagan was involved in hostage negotiations during his campaign or during the brief transition period after the election.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Back to the topic at hand ... given the gracious way President Bush spoke during this ceremony, I find this article on Scrappleface quite unfunny. Maybe it is time to let some things go.

 

[Galahad]

I think that history will be much more kind to the presidencies of both GWB and Clinton that their respective opposition could possibly believe now. I'm getting so weary of the political crap that the White House portrait ceremony was such a great breath of fresh air. I really hope the whole political class was paying attention to what was being lauded about President Reagan and learn something from it.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
LOL! The hostages were released just minutes after President Reagan finished taking the oath of office. There was no fear of what he would do ... he had been in office less than 1 hour before they were released.

Their release was timed to coincide with the presidential transition; it was simply intended as a slap in the face to former President Carter. That's all the timing says.

We really don't know what the Iranians were thinking, however, Candidate Reagan talked tough during the campaign, so perhaps they surmised something. I also agree that it was intended as a slap in the face fo Carter. President Reagan didn't bite however. He sent President Carter to greet the hostages.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Galahad
I think that history will be much more kind to the presidencies of both GWB and Clinton that their respective opposition could possibly believe now. I'm getting so weary of the political crap that the White House portrait ceremony was such a great breath of fresh air. I really hope the whole political class was paying attention to what was being lauded about President Reagan and learn something from it.

I so completely agree ! I watched the president's speech and was most impressed by it. He was gracious and well spoken and I have nothing but praise for his behavior. I found myself relaxing and enjoying listening to him, and longing for others to "get the point" that even politics can be conducted in a civil manner. Anyone trying to make political hay out of his speech has missed the point completely.