>>In fact, the Russians disrespected Carter so much they invaded Afghanistan under his watch, as they knew he would sit by and do nothing, and that is just what Carter did. Nothing.<<
Victor -
I guess by "nothing" you mean he didn't do anything militarily. Seems you conservatives believe that if a president does anything that doesn't involve explosives it doesn't count.
What should Carter have done? Should he have sent 250,000 troops to Afghanistan to push back the Soviets? Remember that the Soviet Union had a large nuclear arsenal. Seems that responding to their aggression cautiously, as opposed to setting of World War III, made sense.
I notice Bush is treading very lightly with North Korea, and they only have a few nukes at most.
Bush likes to swagger a lot, but he's meek as a mouse if his opponent has The Bomb.
Bush is going to be the first president since Hoover to preside over an economy that yields a net loss of jobs during his term of office. In California, the Governor is being recalled because the state went from having a huge surplus to a 38 billion dollar deficit in three years. The federal government has also gone from a surplus to a deficit. So what's the difference?
Well, for one thing, the most recent California state budget goes a long way toward closing the budget gap. But the federal budget gap just keeps on widening.
Carter may not have been the best president ever, but he didn't lie to us. Bush is going to be recalled in '04, and he richly deserves it.
- Allen |
