You can certainly have him... if you think that horrible economy, totally flawed foreign policy (with one minor exception), lousy message and mood of the country and having 'talks' with terrorists that lead to nothing (both during the Iran Hostage crisis and with Hamas) - then by all means have him.

Your problem is vehement hate for George Bush, mostly without rhyme or reason, but by all means... it's still not a socialist country... yet,so you're certainly free to say and feel the way you do. But I'm also an American and I think you're totally wrong and I don't want someone like Obama, so don't tell me what Americans want - you only know what you and Americans like you want... and the fac...

You can certainly have him... if you think that horrible economy, totally flawed foreign policy (with one minor exception), lousy message and mood of the country and having 'talks' with terrorists that lead to nothing (both during the Iran Hostage crisis and with Hamas) - then by all means have him.

Your problem is vehement hate for George Bush, mostly without rhyme or reason, but by all means... it's still not a socialist country... yet,so you're certainly free to say and feel the way you do. But I'm also an American and I think you're totally wrong and I don't want someone like Obama, so don't tell me what Americans want - you only know what you and Americans like you want... and the fact that Obama is only getting about half the votes of his own Democrats tells me that even your crowd doesn't know exactly what they want.

Your problem is blind allegiance to Bush with no rhyme or reason. When we had Carter we still defended Human Rights.

Totally flawed foreign policy? Is that what you call the Camp David accords that brokered a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel? Is that what you call creating diplomatic relations with China? Is that what you call negotiating SALT II with the Soviet Union - SALT II helped the U.S. to discourage the Soviets from arming their third generation ICBMs of SS-17, SS-19 and SS-18 types with many more MIRVs.

The economy faltered under Carter due to OPEC but at least Carter formulated a plan that today in contrast to W makes him appear like a genius.

I'm an American and think yo...

Your problem is blind allegiance to Bush with no rhyme or reason. When we had Carter we still defended Human Rights.

Totally flawed foreign policy? Is that what you call the Camp David accords that brokered a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel? Is that what you call creating diplomatic relations with China? Is that what you call negotiating SALT II with the Soviet Union - SALT II helped the U.S. to discourage the Soviets from arming their third generation ICBMs of SS-17, SS-19 and SS-18 types with many more MIRVs.

The economy faltered under Carter due to OPEC but at least Carter formulated a plan that today in contrast to W makes him appear like a genius.

I'm an American and think you are totally wrong on just about everything and I'll mention what I believe people want and back it up with statistics and polling, not just blind flag waving rhetoric.

The Democrats have drawn substantially more voters than the republicans during the primaries and have contributed significantly more. The Democratic primary shows that we had a good field compared to the pathetic field the republicans put up. The crowd wants change.

McBush provides no change.

Your problem is lack of seeing things without an agenda. You make these blanket statements without merit. I don't know how to explain to you so it would stick, but I DO NOT HAVE 'BLIND ALLEGIANCE' TO ANYONE. Is that clear enough? You base your comments on the facts that I do, but I don't.

The lasting peace between Israel & Egypt wasn't due to Carter, it was due to Begin & Saddat and the 2 countries involved. That should be pretty clear by you simply looking at all other attempts by people like Bush, Clinton etc. - nothing but a waste of time. If what you're saying was true - there would be agreements between the palestinians and Israel as well. There aren't and it's certainly NOT due...

Your problem is lack of seeing things without an agenda. You make these blanket statements without merit. I don't know how to explain to you so it would stick, but I DO NOT HAVE 'BLIND ALLEGIANCE' TO ANYONE. Is that clear enough? You base your comments on the facts that I do, but I don't.

The lasting peace between Israel & Egypt wasn't due to Carter, it was due to Begin & Saddat and the 2 countries involved. That should be pretty clear by you simply looking at all other attempts by people like Bush, Clinton etc. - nothing but a waste of time. If what you're saying was true - there would be agreements between the palestinians and Israel as well. There aren't and it's certainly NOT due lack of trying.

Now the US Hostages in Iran, that was definitely under Carter.

As for the US economy at the time, you can blame whoever you want, but if you're going to blame Bush for Iraq - you better blame Carter for the more than sorry state of US economy at the time.

And the guy's name is McCain, regardless of how you feel about the guy. As for the elections - we'll just have to wait and see. Your side already picked new players to run Congress & Senate - that certainly did a lot of good to everyone. Just a precursor of what'll happen if a similar is done at the White House level.

With that said - I'm certainly not for Republicans. I think it's ridiculous that they had an opportunity to truly show something positive and didn't do squat, in terms of illegal immigration, medicare reform and many other things they had a chance to improve, if not fix. They didn't - so I have no sympathy for them.

Anyway, we'll see what we will see. Personally, I totally dread the concept of JC - the sequel...

You are incapable of giving any Democrat credit for anything. Carter was/is a superior mediator that has not been matched by anyone since. I give credit where credit is due -> Jimmy Carter, in addition to Anwar Saddat and Menachem Begin (Saddat more than Begin).

As we have debated before, Carter acknowledged that he could have destroyed Iran if he wanted to, resulting in the loss of many innocent lives. As it turned out the hostages were released alive. That sounds like a better result. I can only imagine the carnage, collateral damage, and additional loss of world standing if W were in office at the time. Additionally, I can imagine how truly sorry of economic state we would have been in i...

You are incapable of giving any Democrat credit for anything. Carter was/is a superior mediator that has not been matched by anyone since. I give credit where credit is due -> Jimmy Carter, in addition to Anwar Saddat and Menachem Begin (Saddat more than Begin).

As we have debated before, Carter acknowledged that he could have destroyed Iran if he wanted to, resulting in the loss of many innocent lives. As it turned out the hostages were released alive. That sounds like a better result. I can only imagine the carnage, collateral damage, and additional loss of world standing if W were in office at the time. Additionally, I can imagine how truly sorry of economic state we would have been in if the incompetent George W. Bush were in office under the trying times of Jimmy Carter's administration. I wonder if we would have ever recovered.

If you think the republicans suck, and I think the republicans suck, then who is voting for McBush?

Of course I'm willing to give credit where it's due. You're partially right - the hostages were released unharmed. What you've conveniently omitted is that they were released unharmed due to the fact that Reagan was going to deal with the issue very decisively and if they weren't released - one of the captors, mr. ah-I-wasn't-there wouldn't be running Iran right now, most likely. It's definitely due to Reagan, NOT Carter that they were let go, on the very day Reagan took over, because your master negotiator, despite attempts under the table for over a year, failed military rescue attempt, to name a few things that Carter did attempt - resulted in NOTHING. So, let's be fair and honest her...

Of course I'm willing to give credit where it's due. You're partially right - the hostages were released unharmed. What you've conveniently omitted is that they were released unharmed due to the fact that Reagan was going to deal with the issue very decisively and if they weren't released - one of the captors, mr. ah-I-wasn't-there wouldn't be running Iran right now, most likely. It's definitely due to Reagan, NOT Carter that they were let go, on the very day Reagan took over, because your master negotiator, despite attempts under the table for over a year, failed military rescue attempt, to name a few things that Carter did attempt - resulted in NOTHING. So, let's be fair and honest here.

As to your comment about Saddat 'more so' than Begin - it takes 2 to tango... if Begin didn't want to play ball, regardless of Saddat's 'more so' or Carter's Southern charm - nothing would've occurred, ala Clinton and his Southern charm, doing his best with arafat & Barak (the other one). So, I think both Saddat & Begin certainly can be credited by doing something meaningful & positive. Carter completely squandered his potential legacy in this with his idiotic rhetoric about Israel of late and just as idiotic meeting with hamas.

And in terms of economy, if you put your agenda aside for a moment and do take a look at history of US economy - you'd see that the times weren't good at all (read: recession environment) by the end of Clinton's 2nd term. The facts are there - the economy wasn't good at all. Then 9/11 hit, which was a major blow, as intended by the cave creatures, to the US economy and Bush's tax cuts got things turned around and rather fast. However bad the economy was at any time during bush - it wasn't anywhere near as bad as under Carter and keep in mind that there was no event anywhere near the magnitude of 9/11 under Carter.

You can wonder all you want, but it wasn't Carter that got the economy back on track.

As for voting for McCain, it's like in any po

Ah, Recordsage, you speak for so few people. Carter squandered his legacy? His name will always be on the list of Nobel Laureates while W's will be printed on comical toilet paper.

People always have fuzzy memories and resort to romantic images of the past. You have done the same with your John Wayne recount of Ronald Reagan in his campaign against Carter in 1980. There is absolutely no documentation of Reagan threatening to act decisively against the Iranians in the hostage crisis if he were to be elected. You have made that up entirely out of thin air. Go do a google search for the transcript of the Carter-Reagan debate and you will see that he refuses to even speculate on what he would d...

Ah, Recordsage, you speak for so few people. Carter squandered his legacy? His name will always be on the list of Nobel Laureates while W's will be printed on comical toilet paper.

People always have fuzzy memories and resort to romantic images of the past. You have done the same with your John Wayne recount of Ronald Reagan in his campaign against Carter in 1980. There is absolutely no documentation of Reagan threatening to act decisively against the Iranians in the hostage crisis if he were to be elected. You have made that up entirely out of thin air. Go do a google search for the transcript of the Carter-Reagan debate and you will see that he refuses to even speculate on what he would do if elected President as it would be improper to disrupt any current negotiations of a sitting President (and he confirms that he has said that repeatedly, over 50 times, on his campaign).

However, many still believe that the Reagan camp sabotaged the negotiations by negotiating behind Carter's back offering the Iranians a better deal. I'm willing to entertain that still since the Reagan camp negotiated with terrorists in the Iran-Contra scandal to try and free hostages held by Hezzbollah.

Now to your ridiculous assertion that Begin would have as much to lose as Sadat in going to a peace conference. Begin had nothing to lose. What would the Israeli's lose in getting peace? Sadat had everything to lose and there is direct proof in his loss of life by assassination. Can't even believe you try and make it look like it was an equal proposition. I credit them both but obviously Sadat more.

I am noticing your revisionist rhetoric on the Clinton years. Almost every conservative stated that W inherited a recession when in fact there was positive GDP, just as we are experiencing right now and republicans are frothing at the mouth that there is no recession. It's hilarious.

You keep reading things wrong. I didn't say Begin had 'more to lose' - I just said that without Begin & Saddat deciding to play ball - nothing would've happened. You're the one imagining stuff, although I thought I spelled it out relatively clearly.

Show me the evidence that Reagan 'sabotaged', I realize you sleep with October surprise slogan hanging over your bed, but that doesn't make for factual story. The fact of the matter was that they did release the hostages on the first day of Reagan Presidency and if Reagan did negotiate prior to taking office - more kudos to him, obviously he was able to do more than Carter, as the results clearly pointed out. But that's pure speculation, sin...

You keep reading things wrong. I didn't say Begin had 'more to lose' - I just said that without Begin & Saddat deciding to play ball - nothing would've happened. You're the one imagining stuff, although I thought I spelled it out relatively clearly.

Show me the evidence that Reagan 'sabotaged', I realize you sleep with October surprise slogan hanging over your bed, but that doesn't make for factual story. The fact of the matter was that they did release the hostages on the first day of Reagan Presidency and if Reagan did negotiate prior to taking office - more kudos to him, obviously he was able to do more than Carter, as the results clearly pointed out. But that's pure speculation, since there is no evidence. However, if you think about it, even without saying anything, but knowing Reagan's stand on things. They knew the guy won't play the appeasement game... and they made the right call at the time to save their hides.

BTW, the Iran contra occurred later... you're mixing the 52 Americans held by Iran (which is what I was talking about) with 6 held by hezbolah.

As for people I speak for - I don't. I speak for myself.

You didn't say it but you imply some how that there was equal sacrifice. If you are not saying that then you have no arguement with my comment that Sadat should receive more credit because he [Sadat] obviously had more to lose. I understand that both had to sign their name on the document, that's obvious.

Your Reagan statements are purely assumptions using a backward looking crystal ball. You are just guessing, simple as that.

I don't have proof about the negotiations. I do recall how the republicans stopped every attempt at investigating the matter however. If they had nothing to hide why not have your name cleared? It's a mute point now since the main player William Casey died before any...

You didn't say it but you imply some how that there was equal sacrifice. If you are not saying that then you have no arguement with my comment that Sadat should receive more credit because he [Sadat] obviously had more to lose. I understand that both had to sign their name on the document, that's obvious.

Your Reagan statements are purely assumptions using a backward looking crystal ball. You are just guessing, simple as that.

I don't have proof about the negotiations. I do recall how the republicans stopped every attempt at investigating the matter however. If they had nothing to hide why not have your name cleared? It's a mute point now since the main player William Casey died before any investigations.

Furthermore, no need to attempt to correct me. I have my understanding of history correct. I did not mix the two incidents. If you go back and actually read what I wrote it says this, "I am willing to believe that the Reagan camp went behind Carter's back to negotiate to have the U.S. hostages held by Iran held longer, till after the election, because they would get a better deal from Reagan. I believe this because we know that the Reagan camp was more than willing to negotiate with terrorists when they negotiated with Hezbollah to have hostages realeased [which was in 1986 not 1979]."

Thank you for admitting [by omission] that Reagan never mentioned anything in his campaigns about being militarily aggressive towards Iran regarding the hostage issue. That was simply revisionist romanticism on your part.

Israel kicked everyone's butt in all wars up to that time, if the agreement wasn't in place - it wouldn't have made that much difference. It was a good step forward for Egypt as well as Israel and both leaders are to be commended for getting it done and sticking to it over the years. As to who had more to 'lose' - those are your backward looking guessing, obviously you don't know.

As for Reagan - you're wrong. I remember very clearly why I was totally for him, even though I couldn't vote yet, since I was in the USA for 2 years at the time. It wasn't because he was a Republican, nor because he was a conservative nor any other reasons... I only cared for the fact that he was staunchly ant...

Israel kicked everyone's butt in all wars up to that time, if the agreement wasn't in place - it wouldn't have made that much difference. It was a good step forward for Egypt as well as Israel and both leaders are to be commended for getting it done and sticking to it over the years. As to who had more to 'lose' - those are your backward looking guessing, obviously you don't know.

As for Reagan - you're wrong. I remember very clearly why I was totally for him, even though I couldn't vote yet, since I was in the USA for 2 years at the time. It wasn't because he was a Republican, nor because he was a conservative nor any other reasons... I only cared for the fact that he was staunchly anti-Soviet Union and that was the single and most important reason for me. His talks before the elections were very clear and morale of the country was certainly elevated after he took office. You can knock it all you want - those were the facts I actually lived through and clearly remember. There was no question that he was going to do something to get our hostages out. Your comments about him making some deals with the terrorists (who were nothing more than students) is certainly a major stretch, you have zero evidence of such and personally I think it's total BS. And the fact that the hostages were released on the very day of Reagan taking office is certainly no coincidence. If there was some deal, as you suggest, why not play it as if he negotiated their release shortly after he took office? That would make sense. Or have them be released a month beforehand, election was over by then anyway? It makes no sense to orchestrate it to happen on the day of him coming to office. They knew he wasn't going to play the victim in this situation, just as he didn't with quadafi or even the Russians with the SDI initiative, which pretty much did them in in the end. No question that he was a hawk and he had results. Anyway, we'll agree to disagree and leave it there.

Recordsage, you need to read my statements carefully, Reagan's negotiations in 1986 were with terrorists. The fact that they would willingly negotiate with terrorists in 1986 convinces me that they would have had no qualms about negotiating behind Carter's back in 1979 with the Iranians. I don't know too many other ways to restate this in English for you.

If you are being honest you would admit that both Carter and Reagan were going to do something to get the hostages out. In fact the Carter administration had another plan using C130 aircraft with booster rockets so they could land and take off from a soccer field in Tehran but they held off on the plan because they thought it would not be ...

Recordsage, you need to read my statements carefully, Reagan's negotiations in 1986 were with terrorists. The fact that they would willingly negotiate with terrorists in 1986 convinces me that they would have had no qualms about negotiating behind Carter's back in 1979 with the Iranians. I don't know too many other ways to restate this in English for you.

If you are being honest you would admit that both Carter and Reagan were going to do something to get the hostages out. In fact the Carter administration had another plan using C130 aircraft with booster rockets so they could land and take off from a soccer field in Tehran but they held off on the plan because they thought it would not be right to force the issue in the waining days of their term if Reagan had won the election.

You are correct that it was no coincidence that the hostages were released on day one of Reagan's inaugural. It only makes since. The hostage crisis began when Carter allowed the Shah into the states for cancer treatment [to offset criticism from the U.S. rightwing, Kissinger, and republican David Rockefeller for not allowing the Shah in]. The Iranians had achieved what they wanted to achieve. They embarrassed a U.S. President, possibly making him lose the election. There certainly wasn't going to be a lot to gain by keeping them hostage because both Carter and Reagan would do something. Gamesmanship and Game Theory would say, release the hostages and start with a clean slate with the new president of the U.S.

As far as this debate about who had more to gain and lose between Begin and Sadat in a peace between Israel and Egypt, you are arguing a minority view. The vast majority of historians accurately acknowledge that Sadat had far more to lose [I am talking about the two leaders, not the two countries]. Sadat's actions cost him his life and the expulsion of Egypt from the Arab League.Your stance is comical at best.

I do read my history, just haven't seen the details of 1973 war involving US soldiers on the battlefield. If you could point to some credible evidence of such - I'd certainly read it. It would have to be from a credible source though, since we all know any idiot can write anything on the Net and there are plenty of sites with examples of such. But if you have something credible - it would be interesting, since I've heard of Israeli PM needing assistance, in terms of weapons, but didn't know about US soldiers with Israeli flags.

Actually my comment does make sense, for those who understand their history and can think just a tad into the details described. If you know your history - you'd...

I do read my history, just haven't seen the details of 1973 war involving US soldiers on the battlefield. If you could point to some credible evidence of such - I'd certainly read it. It would have to be from a credible source though, since we all know any idiot can write anything on the Net and there are plenty of sites with examples of such. But if you have something credible - it would be interesting, since I've heard of Israeli PM needing assistance, in terms of weapons, but didn't know about US soldiers with Israeli flags.

Actually my comment does make sense, for those who understand their history and can think just a tad into the details described. If you know your history - you'd know what I'm talking about, in the overall context of discussion... and for the record - I don't drink...