I believe -

The Bush Administration knew he was going to Cuba.

The Bush Administration had responsible people "brief" him on the issues he might face on the trip.

Carter was honest in what he says he was told.

And after this the Bush Administration people have publically announced that Carter was wrong.

Now, Carter is clearly not an "agent" of the US, certainly is a representative. He is not an ambassador with a capital "A", is an ambassador in a real sense.

If the Bush Administration or the CIA were trying to set up Carter, were trying to discredit him, I think it would look like what has happened.

Some Carter, CIA context. Carter came into office after a disastrous Vietnam experience. The American people had been lied to about Vietnam and the US involvement by a succession of political regimes, starting with DDE, proceeding through JFK, LBJ, and RN with his accomplice, Henry Kissinger. (Not many people know the French action there was completely financed by the US - US arms, US uniforms, US munitions, US met the payroll. French troops.)

By the time of the '76 election, the lies were obvious, and the US had 58,000 dead and many more wounded and scarred for no apparent good.

Not only had the politicians, all of 'em, lied to the Merkans (LBJ - "Mah fellow Merkans"), but they had been lied to. The folks in the intelligence establishment had told the politicians what they wanted to hear, and, as a matter of fact, gradually became willing to play the political games they wanted. RN very nearly got away with the "national security" cover-up for Watergate.

Carter's dismantled a failed, corrupted system. Not a completely failed system, not a completely corrupted system, but one which had largely failed the country as it had tried to please it's bosses. For instance, it didn't even see the revolt in Iran coming, and that was a CIA puppet regime.

(One US intelligence official, several weeks before, crawled out of a window of the US embassy in Tehran, and mingled with the people. He immediately warned the officials there were some very strong political undercurrents running through the countryside, and changes coming. Was ignored. All the CIA would have had to do was not JUST listen to the SAVAK.)

For the CIA, for instance, to regain credibility there had to be some changes, some accountability, something more than a whitewash, "fog of war" sort of thing. While I didn't think so at the time, Carter did Reagan, and the country, a favor. If Carter hadn't wound down the CIA a bit, Reagan couldn't have spun it up.

While I'm on my little roll, and since no one reads this far anyway, I may as well use another example of the "system" failing. The FBI in the Ruby Ridge affair killed a lady unnecessarily. They then lied, covered up, did all the dastardly things it is supposed to uncover, was sued, and the American taxpayer paid $4 million of taxpayers money to a real jerk, Randy Weaver. Two FBI people got letters of reprimand. After killing, lying, and losing an expensive lawsuit.

If there is anywhere in the country where there needs to be the discipline to not kill outside the ROE and to not lie for the sole purpose of covering your ass it should be the FBI.

Who guards the guards? Whatcha wanna bet that system is still corrupt? That the ability to kill, lie, and cover-up is still in place?

And, that led to Waco, where they did essentially the same thing. I'm not saying they shouldn't have rooted 'em out at that point, I'm saying they should have done it in such a way as to protect the people they said they were concerned with - the innocent hostages, the children. Clearly they weren't as concerned as they said, clearly they were reckless.

But, that's one liberal's opinion. On a lot of things. Ain't nothing but a hound dog, ain't never caught a rabbit, and I ain't no friend of theirs. (Large, loud drum roll!)

Arf