Carter: the anti-president

Besides sipping tea with dictators, Jimmy Carter also enjoys long walks on the beach, beautiful bouquets of flowers from ardent admirers (like Kim Jong Il), cute little puppies (always), and rampant anti-americanism. He is, in all candor, the anti-president, which prophecy predicted would come in the last days.

Tea with dictators. Carter never met a dictator he didn't like. Isn't that something?While we are celebrating the birth of our country on the 4th of July with traditional kinds of patriotism, Jimmy Carter will be exercising instead the liberal version of patriotism, the rite of dissent, against an America he views as more dangerous and unfree than any nation in the Axis of Evil.

The U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) turns 40 tomorrow, the day we celebrate our independence. But this anniversary will not be a day of celebration for the right to information in our country. ~Washington Post

No! No celebrations. America is the enemy. It always is. In liberal-speak: Dissent is patriotism; thus the more you slander America, the more you actually love it!

This is not surprising since Jimmy Carter believes that America was tainted from the start. The birth of our country is something like that of Damian Thorn in the Omen.

'If only it had been conceived in non-violence! Then we would be a free country like Canada!'

CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial's really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way. ~msnbc.com

It's no wonder that at every turn Jimmy Carter spares no effort to slander this nation and support dictators around the world.

Our government leaders have become increasingly obsessed with secrecy. Obstructionist policies and deficient practices have ensured that many important public documents and official actions remain hidden from our view.

The events in our nation today -- war, civil rights violations, spiraling energy costs, campaign finance and lobbyist scandals -- dictate the growing need and citizens' desire for access to public documents.~Washington Post

Carter loves Fidel though... but was Cuba born in non-violence?We don't have a secrecy problem. We have an anti-american problem. We have a problem wherein the left continues to paint fellow Americans and America itself as evil and the source of all that is wrong with the world today.

What we have today is a cadre of self-appointed leftists who have no problem blaming Bush for failing to stop 9/11 and who demand that the war on terror be fought as a law enforcement excercise-- giving full ACLU defence treatment and rights and due process to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi while they are sawing the heads off civilians. Then they turn around and say that we are the corrupt, no-good, barbaric monsters!

Then to top it off they leak to the world the very tools used to pursue the war on terror through law enforcement means, thereby making it harder to fight the war on terror.

It is as though the left is always working to defeat the United States. Working to minimize our hegemony and influence.

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 3, 2006 8:03 PM
Comments
Comment #164588

Carter is a decent and a good man. But many of the things that make him a good man made him a bad president and still make a fool of him today. I do not believe that Carter really understands the bad motives of people like Castro, Chavez or Kim. It is admirable for us as individuals to look inside ourselves to find our own faults and address them. It is not a bad thing for a country to do either. But we need to find some perspective. It is really absurd to drink tea with Castro and praise Chavez and then consider Bush a monster.

Nobody has illusions about Carter. Even Clinton didn’t listen to Carter. He is useful to leftist because he says the things they want to say and they can then attribute it to what authority he has left over from being president. But it is more an annoyance than a threat.

So we can say this about Carter. He would be a good neighbor. He would be a good pastor of a country church. I bet he can play the banjo well too. He can be an asset to the U.S. in that he can sometimes get into places our government cannot go. But he is a free lancer and the current government is under no obligation to follow his lead.

Conservatives should not hate Carter. His heart is right. It is just that his judgment has never been very good and now it has completely abandoned him.

I owe Carter a lot. I voted for him in 1976, my first election. His presidency taught me that good intentions don’t make good policy. Childhood ended and I voted for Reagan in 1980.

Posted by: jack at July 3, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #164589

Jack
Well said.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #164597

Carter is one of the most admirable, morally un-impeachable presidents this country has ever seen. But that is besides the point. Have things gotten so horrible for the right that you need to trot out criticism of a man who left office over a quarter century ago?? And if that’s the case, try this. Or, this. Or maybe this. Think your hands are all that clean? And those pictures were all taken while Rumsfeld, Bush and Nixon were employed by the people, not working in the private sector.

Posted by: David S at July 3, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #164599

It is embarrassing that you cannot differentiate between anti-Americanism and criticism of the current leadership.

Liberals respect dissent. Not that liberals always agree with the dissenters (especially when liberals are in power). But liberal minds know that a forceful dissent is the best means for establishing understanding.

Posted by: Homer at July 3, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #164601

>>His presidency taught me that good intentions don’t make good policy. Childhood ended and I voted for Reagan in 1980.

Posted by: jack at July 3, 2006 08:51 PM

You learned that from the Carter presedency…so, what have you learned from the Cheney/Bush presidency??? That bad intentions make good policy? That Bad intentions make bad policy? That bad policy makes bad intentions?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 3, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #164602

Jack,

“His presidency taught me that good intentions don’t make good policy.”

So what have you learned from the current presidency?

Posted by: Homer at July 3, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #164603

Dammit. Marysdude beat me.

Posted by: Homer at July 3, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #164604

Read Worse Than Watergate by John Dean, Eric. Maybe you’ll understand how much your president keeps us in the dark. He complains about secrets that weren’t secrets to begin with. He’s taken more information out of the Public Domain than any other president, and this is the Nixon White House Counsel telling you it’s dangerous. Of course, in reading this book, you might have to listen to the words of a Bush critic, which might be an act of Bush hatred by your standards.

Aside from that point, which takes care of most of your article, let me point something out to you: Carter places the blame for the unnecessary war on Great Britain. It was their war to avoid. It is only from the hypothetical point that Britain had not strained relations so much, that we get his hypothetical peaceful split as a colony from British rule.

It’s kind of pointless to grill Carter on wanting to be like Canada or India, when the fact is he justifies the way we gained independence implicitly- if the British hadn’t been such bastards, we wouldn’t have fought to free ourselves. But they were, and we did, because we had to, to be free.

Why are the Republicans making such a point of questioning half the country’s patriotism? You ask most people, and they’ll say they love this country. Of course if you argue both sides of the debate, you can make anybody seem to hate America, especially when you’ve pre-emptively decided that’s the case. It’s a sad habit to get into. How can you claim to love America if you hate half of all Americans?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #164605

The right wing obsession with hating Jimmy Carter is an interesting phenomenon. I do not see the left wing going back and picking on Richard Nixon, who actually trained most of the Bush people to believe in an imperial presidency and that presidents are above the law. You see no risk of dictatorship in that assertion! Carter was too Christian in the true sense, too humble and too honest to be president, your kind ate him alive. It is interesting that more that 30 years after his election you still are not finished with your grizzly feast.

Posted by: Hosea at July 3, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #164606

Eric, I’m a bit surprised. I never thought I’d see a screed like this from you. I profoundly disagree in your assessment of President Carter. I believe he is someone to be admired, not admonished or slandered. His work since he left office has been admirable and focused on improving the lives of the less fortunate whether through building low-income housing or through monitoring elections to insure the small of influence had their voice heard. He has dissented on American policy, but I do not for one minute believe he is anti-American. I believe he has done more to give the people of the world a picture of what is right about America instead of what we have been doing for the last five years.

Mr. Carter served his country both in the military and in public office. He served with distinction. Now, in the twilight of his years, he serves people all over the world.

I truly look upon him as a role model.

Truly surprising post from you Eric.

Posted by: Dennis at July 3, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #164607

Carter is probably the worst president the US has ever had. I used to say that about LBJ, but Carter moved right on up the list. He rightly won the Dhimwit of the Month award at TROP.

An excerpt from that article:

“The former President is a complex and polarizing person. He has extraordinary personal arrogance, yet is not overtly pretentious. He is a calculating intellectual who also teaches Sunday school. But in fact, while Carter was teaching those Bible classes in Plains, Georgia in the mid-60’s he was also shamelessly playing up to Southern racists in his campaign for governor by using ads that associated his opponent with (gasp) the Black Man. In office, he embraced segregationists such as George Wallace.”

Carter loves his country almost as much as the seditious and subversive NY Times. He’s sold us down the river many times…and he just keeps poking his commie nose in US foreign affairs. He needs to butt out. We need his help like we need Bin Laden’s help.

Posted by: Lance-TMQ at July 3, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #164608

>>How can you claim to love America if you hate half of all Americans?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2006 09:53 PM

You’ve done it one more time, Stephen. You are one wordy dude, but when you put your mind to it, you can say more with less words than just about anyone.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 3, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #164609

I was young and inexperienced when I voted for Carter. I use that as an excuse. You remember the old saying about being a leftist when you are 20 and not when you are 40.

BTW - I should have written good intentions ALONE. But there was more to the Carter debacle. I think Carter’s current personality showed though. He thought then and seems to think now that the U.S. does not deserve its prominent place in the world. He seemed to revel in the malaise. The 1970s sucked in general. Reagan was a good antidote.

Since you asked me about lessons from this administration, I can say that Bush has taught the perils of overreaching and being too much caught in the moment. The Bush team (and I supported and made the same error) thought it could remake the world with the exercise of American power. Make the world safe more or less permanently. I still believe Bush has changed the equation, but the timetable will be a bit longer and be a little less comprehensive than we thought.

I think we all were shocked by 9/11. We wanted to do something and respond to the attack. Americans were willing to give the President carte blanche and demanding that he use it. Now we feel a little sensitive about our earlier reaction. Many people have convinced themselves that they never felt that way or that they were tricked. A measured response is much harder in the heat of the moment than in the theorizing afterward.

Posted by: Jack at July 3, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #164614

Well said Jack,

It take quite a person to attack a president that held office three decades ago. I guess whatever takes people’s eyes away from all the fires burning in this administration does the job, and what better than a hate filled smear of a human being that actually cares?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at July 3, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #164616

Lance TMQ

Carter loves his country almost as much as the seditious and subversive NY Times.
But, obviously, more than you.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 3, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #164617

Dear conservative friends if we are to resort to the politics of the past, lets not forget that after Carter was replaced, the next president traded 4,200 TOE missiles for one hostage with a country called Iran. Carter is a good man. Perhaps he got bad intelligence.

He did try to bring respect and traditional AMERICAN VALUES to the office.

Posted by: 037 at July 3, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #164622

ElliottBay,

Well, you stuck your foot in your mouth with that illogical statement.

I’m a permanently and totally disabled American cavalry veteran. I have a background in INTEL. Graduated from the Defense Language Institute. Die hard American patriot. Currently do counterterrorism INTEL analysis and run my little weblog about Jihad.

Love my country. Almost died for it. If you think disliking Carter say’s I don’t love my country, then you may need to lay off the hookah.

Posted by: Lance-TMQ at July 3, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #164624

Odd topic.

By tradition, former presidents exercise restraint in commenting on their predecessors. Most former presidents observe this tradition. A few have ignored the tradition, sometimes in pretty spectacular fashion. Usually, ignoring the tradition is driven by ambitions to make a comeback.

In the case of Carter, the criticisms are motivated, not by political ambition, but by a strong moral compass. Because of this moral orientation, most people respond positively to Carter.

Personally, I think Carter and his presidency were one of the most difficult and the most interesting in our history. Carter came into office under incredibly difficult circumstances: a lost war, the resignation of Nixon, the pardon by Ford, rising inflation, the USSR at its most aggressive & at the height of its power, and a public that had lost all trust in the federal government.

Today, it is easy for us to overlook the disrespect people felt towards their government. Carter was the man of the hour. He was intelligent, honest, and profoundly moral. The country needed him. He met that need.

He made mistakes, a lot of mistakes.

He also made some significant achievements.

The Camp David Accords created a peace between Israel and Egypt which has lasted to this day.

During the last year of his presidency, Carter initiated the policy of backing the Mujahideen. Reagan continued that policy, and it contributed to the fall of the USSR.

Finally, during the Carter administration, over 10 million non-farm payroll jobs were created in just four years.

To put that into perspective, the current Bush administration will not match it in eight years.

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #164626

Ha! If holding hands, embracing, slapping the backs of and sending billions of American dollars to dictators is a huge negative, then we should impeach Bush immediately. For he has done all these, and continues to do so. Dictators who fall into GW Bush’s warm embrace: Musharraf, The House of Saud, Putin of Russia, China’s “President”. How about Nixon and Mao Tse Tung. Talk about sipping tea with dictators.

What propaganda bull crap. Solving international problems without war requires folks of stature sitting down and exploring both differences and common ground. Jimmy Carter is a man of peace. He seeks peaceful resolutions. Obviously a contemptible concept to some in this column. But, most people in the world regard the man very highly for his efforts and goals.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 3, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #164628

Ah, Stephen-

Of course, in reading this book, you might have to listen to the words of a Bush critic, which might be an act of Bush hatred by your standards.

What are these secrecy crimes that Bush has committed?

It’s incredible that you would ascribe to me such a colloquial mentality. I would venture to guess that I probably read more left oriented material than most people who are actually left. It’s not a case of ignoring the arguments of liberals it is a case of completely disagreeing with the arguments of the left.

How can you claim to love America if you hate half of all Americans?

Obviously, if disagreement were hate then I would be guilty of such. But I don’t consider political disagreement to be hatred. I don’t hate Carter. He’s just wrong. In fact, I’m just being a patriotic American by dissenting against his faulty worldview.

The facts are that Jimmy Carter has a poltical philosophy that calls evil good and good evil. To me this is the definition of error.

Posted by: esimonson at July 3, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #164635

Ok esimonson. I will call your bluff. What does the “left” believe and why? What is thier argument? You claim to be well read. I have this feeling most “conservatives” don’t have a clue. Prove me wrong.

Posted by: 037 at July 3, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #164636

Carter

Nice man.

Politically stupid.

Glad he’s not president now, sorry he was president then.

Posted by: Don at July 4, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #164643

Jimmy Carter was a worse President than he was Governor. And he’s the worst Governor Georgia ever had. But he isn’t the worst President we’ve ever had. That goes to Johnson hands down. Followed closely by Nixon.
I do believe that Carter is as moral as any of other Presidents we’ve had. More so than some.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 4, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #164644

esimonson-
You can read the book if you want to know about a number of them, but here’s one for starters: The normal, in fact legally mandated, practice with Texas Gubernatorial papers was to give them to the archives, so Texans could have access to them. Does Bush do this? Oh, no. He puts them in his father’s library and uses a loophole to keep them out of sight of the public.

One can only ask, what does Bush have to hide?

There’s plenty more where that came from. You accuse us of unreasoning prejudice, but you come out with lines like:

The facts are that Jimmy Carter has a poltical philosophy that calls evil good and good evil. To me this is the definition of error.

or my favorite:

In fact, I’m just being a patriotic American by dissenting against his faulty worldview.

Patriotism is quite simply loving your country. You don’t have to compare somebody else to the spawn of Satan to manage that, and there are much more persuasive ways of of pointing out the errors in somebody’s thought.

The question is, how is it that you consider nearly half of Americans to be traitors to their own country?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #164654

Another old, failed liberal that has become warped and bitter. Wasn’t the high point of his presidency selflessly selling the presidential yacht? The man is proof posotive that far left policy is a miserable failure.

Posted by: scolex at July 4, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #164655

Stephen, didn’t the head of yourdnc do the same thing? Now there is an example of a younger warped and bitter man.

Posted by: scolex at July 4, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #164660

PRESIDENT CARTER, a super high IQ. a GOOD MAN, ten million non farm payroll jobs, camp david peace accords. not so good, the highest misery index at 20.86. high unemployment rate at 7.45. not enough jobs for the baby boomers. super high interest rates.at 20%. oil crisis, odd and even days and the mile long wait to get gas. overall Ranking, per wikipedia 26.3

Posted by: Rodney Brown at July 4, 2006 1:44 AM
Comment #164665

Interesting how this piece points to the vast differences in political philosphies and views of history.

Eric states that Carter is the anti-christ, oops, I mean anti-president. Isn’t Carter an evangelical,too? Perhaps not. His religion was never an issue with me, nor did he seem to wear it on his sleeve as some of the poseurs do today.

I guess Eric views the American Public as the enemy who should be kept in the dark about their government as much as possible. Of course, this is because we are in a war. We certainly have never been in a war before or used secrecy to hide the truth from Americans before. The results of that secrecy never damaged American policy or position in the world, or resulted in the needless deaths of American soldiers. That history lesson did not seem to penetrate Eric’s thinking here.

The history of empire is lost on Eric also. In his neo-con world, it is a new day and the lessons of Great Britian and other empires have been repealed and no longer apply. That Carter sees diplomacy as a means to sometimes avoid conflict is anathema to neo-cons. Spill blood first. It’s the only truly American way.

We all know Vietnam was a completely successful and necessary war that only cost us 58,000 souls to put Ho Chi-Minh in power.

It is interesting that Jack voted for Carter and now regrets it. I now know we must be of close age since I voted for Ford. I don’t think Ford was a horrible President, and I now believe Carter was one of our better Presidents. Carter was the real deal. A man with integrity. An intellectual that did not speak down to Americans. He could not sell Alpo on Death Valley Days, but time has made his character apparent to even the blind.

Ron Reagan is arguably the best actor in history. He played a president for 8 years. He made backdoor deals with the Iranians who had seized our embassy and then lied about it, but no matter, he was a great president in the minds of those who were bothered by the failures of empire that America experienced in SouthEast Asia. He solved that problem by invading Granada afer cutting and running from Lebanon. Love that Alpo and American Pie.

Sometimes emotion is more important than facts or history. I don’t think that applies to good government.

Posted by: gergle at July 4, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #164668

interesting, president ford has the exact same Ranking from wikipedia. 26.3 too bad they don’t pass out grades for effort, honesty,and morals and interigity and fortitude. i would have giving ford and carter a B+ happy 4th mr jefferson and mr Adams.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at July 4, 2006 2:57 AM
Comment #164673

Honesty….in a politician? Please…sad but the only honesty I see in all of this is Ford pardoning Nixon. He knew what would happen if we would prosecute a former President. There has been a stain on the office since, not his fault, he did what he had to do for the country and I applaud him. Can we stop the bickering and actually concentrate on the needs of our country? Complaining about our government is a right we have, relating too each other is a responsibiliy! Yeah, yeah…who the hell am I? I am that nobody that votes every election with the hope that it matters. Does it? My hope is that we actually start listening to each other and stop trying to talk so loud that we can’t hear the other speak. It accomplishes nothing. We have lobbyists corrupting our representatives with every kind of incentive they can too influence their vote be it Republican or Democrat. It sickens me to see how we have become so polarized that we won’t even listen to each other and when we do it’s a contest to see can scream the loudest. We all deserve the government we have. Do I think it’s the best it could be? No. What are we doing about it? I love my country, served to die for it and still would but why are we allowing those who agree with the current administration say that those who don’t are unpatriotic. Isn’t that one of the rights we have as Americans? Why do those who disagree with the current administration call those who do unpatriotic. Stop and think people, we are playing into the hands of those who hope that our bickering will blind us to what we really need to accomplish, a consensus on the issues. I beg you to please listen to each other, we don’t have to agree but we can comprimise. Life is too short and the next generation will suffer for our shortsidedness.

Posted by: Scott Gunter at July 4, 2006 3:42 AM
Comment #164680

“Ayatollah’s in Iran, Soviets in Afghanistan”—Sandinistas taking control in Nicaragua—other commie groups threatening El Salvador—interest rates over 20%!—gas lines, gas rationing—“Malaise in America”—hostage crisis in Iran—decline in home ownership—gold all-time high—this was by far, the worst period of US history in my lifetime. Thank God for Ronaldus Maximus!! Didn’t he win 49 of the 50 states against this man?

Posted by: nikkolai at July 4, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #164682

It’s funny that when it comes to defending a dried up peanut farmer the liberals are falling out of the roach hotel, but when it comes to pushing their agenda during an election year they fall on their collective faces. I don’t know the numbers, but I think the past several elections prove that Carter and his ilk do not represent the body of main stream America(thank God!). Patriotism is not JUST having a love for ones country, it is a fierce need to protect and defend it no matter what. Their is a word for for a vocal dissent during a time of war and it is shared by those who give AID (New York Times) and COMFORT(Jimmy “dirt farmer” Carter). That wor is TREASON. One of your liberal icons would have had them locked up and shut down… Franklin Delano Roosevelt, check your history.

Posted by: Pete K. at July 4, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #164687

>>Patriotism is not JUST having a love for ones country, it is a fierce need to protect and defend it no matter what. Their is a word for for a vocal dissent during a time of war and it is shared by those who give AID (New York Times) and COMFORT(Jimmy “dirt farmer” Carter). That word is TREASON. One of your liberal icons would have had them locked up and shut down… Franklin Delano Roosevelt, check your history.

Posted by: Pete K. at July 4, 2006 08:39 AM

That has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever seen on a serious political blog site…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 4, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #164688


Jack: What this post reveals is that some Americans like to have presidents who are intellectuals while other Americans like presidents that aren’t playing with a full deck.

All presidents make mistakes. When Carter became president, this country was headed for hard times. Considering the difficulties that he faced, Carter did a hell of a good job. If Regan had won the republican nomination and the presidency in 1976, he would have had to deal with all of the issues that were put on Carter’s plate and he would have done no better a job of dealing with those problems and quite possibly a worse job.

Jack: The man that you show Carter sitting with was elected president of his country with a greater percentage of the votes than Bush and with far less iregularities than was present in our election. In our country, a person can be elected by getting 25.1% of the people to vote because half of our citizens are either to disgusted with the process or to disinterested in the process to vote.

Is it ok to associate with dictators as long as they are right wing dictators. Saudis hijacked those planes on 911 and they were financed with Saudi money. The Saudis are like family to George Bush isn’t that right. How about those dictators that Bush wanted running our ports. How about that dictator that is harboring Osama. Last but not least how about those dictators in China who we are giving our jobs to.

Posted by: jlw at July 4, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #164689

I am willing to bet that conservatives and liberals will both have a extreme negative view of Bush II 2030.

Posted by: JAGUY at July 4, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #164695

Thats pretty harsh of the moral right wing to say about such a kind old man.

Posted by: Richard at July 4, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #164703


I think that the major difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats will critize any president or congress when they do things that democrats don’t like, while republicans are far more selective in their criticism. exp. I consider NAFTA a treasonous act that was signed into law by Clinton. It is destroying the independence of our nation, making us increasingly dependent on other nations and undermining our ability to defend ourselves in times of war. If,God forbid, we ever had to fight a war like WW2, we would have no recourse but to begin the process of eliminating this planet’s ability to sustain life because we could never sustain our economy or produce the goods that would be necessary to take the four years that that it took to defeat the Nazi’s and the Japanese.

Just so you know who I think are the real traitors to this nation, it is the wealthy and those want to be’s who are on the north side of the middle class that are far more loyal to profit and money than they are to their nation. ” For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

Posted by: jlw at July 4, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #164709

We are in the middle of a war. The outcome of this war will determine the fate of mankind for a long, long time. It doesn’t matter whether Carter is a good man, a decent man, has his heart in the right place or his head fimly wedged between his butt cheeks.

Carter is DANGEROUS. His raving anti-American rhetoric resonates with our enemies here and abroad and emboldens them to commit acts of mischief and mayhem. Carter is the modern-day equivalent to Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose.

Posted by: crowan at July 4, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #164710

Canada, Austrailia,and India are free countries because we fought the Revolutionary War. We would not be free and neither would they if we had done things the way former President Carter would have had us do.

Posted by: rlt at July 4, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #164713

This article is completely offensive and narrow minded. There is nothing more to say.

I suppose the author would rather ATTACK all our enemies rather than for them to change from within and become just nations peacefully.

NEO-Conservatism absolutely SUCKS

Posted by: RGF at July 4, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #164715

Lance TMQ

Unlike you and other members of the far wrong wong, Jimmy Carter wouldn’t divide the country and accuse half the population of treason because they disagree with him.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 4, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #164716

jlw,

“I consider NAFTA a treasonous act that was signed into law by Clinton.”

So, if it had Bush Sr pushed NAFTA harder, and it had passed through Congress sooner, and had also been signed into law by Bush Sr, would you still consider NAFTA a treasonous act?

Posted by: Rocky at July 4, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #164723

>>We are in the middle of a war. Carter is DANGEROUS. His raving anti-American rhetoric resonates with our enemies here and abroad and emboldens them to commit acts of mischief and mayhem.
Posted by: crowan at July 4, 2006 11:00 AM

crowan,

What war? Are we at war with Iraq? Are we at war with Afghanistan? Are we at war with Mars or Venus?

How much encuragement do terrorists need from President Carter, in order to express their hate or do mischievous acts against America?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 4, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #164724

When this country looks back over the whole panarama of American History in years to come…

Bush II will be seen as the most destructive, least mandated and most dangerous to the world of any president ever…unless we do worse.

Carter is already seen as an amazing and gifted human rights advocate and diplomat who has pursued peaceful resolutions and better conditions for people all over the globe.

That is already the view Carter has earned. We all know he had a hard time with domestic economic problems during his presidency…Isn’t it you folks on the right who are so fond, THESE DAYS, of saying that president’s don’t have that much to do with the economy?

Posted by: RGF at July 4, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #164726

Its funny that the left spread the word of kindness and peace but hate any opinion that they dissagree with. Secrecy is needed to win wars, Roosevelt knew this, so did Lincoln. Wilson, Truman. The ones that didn’t know this was Carter, Johnson, Clinton, and look at the foreign policy they were succesful at.

Posted by: George at July 4, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #164728

crowan,

“His raving anti-American rhetoric resonates with our enemies here and abroad and emboldens them to commit acts of mischief and mayhem.”

His “raving” isn’t anti-American, his raving is against what America is becoming.

Posted by: Rocky at July 4, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #164729

Its funny that the left spread the word of kindness and peace but hate any opinion that they dissagree with. Secrecy is needed to win wars, Roosevelt knew this, so did Lincoln. Wilson, Truman. The ones that didn’t know this was Carter, Johnson, Clinton, and look at the foreign policy they were succesful at.

Posted by: George at July 4, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #164730


Rocky: If you read why I think it was a treasonous act then you would already have the answer to your question. My answer to your question is absolutely. I know that most of the planning for NAFTA was done in the Regan and Bush1 administrations but, it was Clinton who finalized the bill. Do you know that the defense department is giving contracts to corporations that have already started the process of outsourcing the manufacturing of military equipment to other countries including China? Will it make you feel safer when our tanks and planes are eventually being made in China? Can you explain the difference between Bush1’s New World Order and Bush2’s Globilization? Perhaps this New World Order would be benign if peace were to break out all over the globe. Can you ever imagine such a thing happening in your life time? The only thing that has been constant in my life time is WAR.

Posted by: jlw at July 4, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #164731

Eric,

America is the enemy.

As you should know, everybody is its own worst enemy. Nothing new under the sun…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 4, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #164732

jlw,

“Do you know that the defense department is giving contracts to corporations that have already started the process of outsourcing the manufacturing of military equipment to other countries including China? Will it make you feel safer when our tanks and planes are eventually being made in China?”

We are already outsourcing much of our manufacturing, why then should it surprise you that the DoD would allow the same?

America’s recent history has been all about capitalism at any price, about the enrichment of stockholders above all else.
The rich get richer and the workers lose the jobs that are outsourced.

Virtually all of the gains made by American unions in the name of the workers have been lost to the expanded bottom line, and to the demands of stockholders.

Posted by: Rocky at July 4, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #164733

Jack,

I think we all were shocked by 9/11. We wanted to do something and respond to the attack. Americans were willing to give the President carte blanche and demanding that he use it. Now we feel a little sensitive about our earlier reaction. Many people have convinced themselves that they never felt that way or that they were tricked. A measured response is much harder in the heat of the moment than in the theorizing afterward.

That why a President should not make decision based on what its guts or, worst, all its citizens’s guts tell him and why allowing full carte blanche to a government is not good for a power-balanced democracy.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 4, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #164735

crowan,

We are in the middle of a war. The outcome of this war will determine the fate of mankind for a long, long time.

What? Did I miss *the* news that US just drop its #1 power into Climate Change fight?
Hum? Iraq/Terror War? you should be kidding!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 4, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #164737

I grew up near Plains, Ga. and knew the Carters when I was a kid. My father said Billy was the brains behind the plantation. He referred to Jimmy as “that pompous ass”.
My great uncle on my mother’s side had business dealings with the Carters. He utterly despised Jimmy, often saying that he and Jody Powell were the most corrupt men he had ever met.
When he was president Carter secretly authorized $500 million to create an international network to spread Islamism in central asia and “destabilize” the USSR. The CIA called this “Operation Cyclone” and over the next few years poured over $4 billion into Islamic training schools in Pakistan. The U.S. taxpayer paid to train future al-Qaida fanatics in “sabotage skills” (i.e. terrorism).[The Sword of the Prophet, pg. 211]
This stupidity sowed the seeds for the bitter harvest we’re now reaping.
When he was president Carter and the Democratic congress ran the economy into the ground and did incalculable harm to America internationally. Carter continues to harm America every chance he gets.

Posted by: traveller at July 4, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #164739


Rocky: You sound just like me. Another of their buzz words is competition. Competition is good because it lowers prices and the workers will be able to buy plastic shoes and polyester clothes from walmart with their unemployment checks or their welfare payments. The illegals can afford to shop at walmart on their low incomes allowing their scab employers to keep more of THEIR money in their stock portfolio. The difference between what scap employers and union employers charge for labor=0.

Posted by: jlw at July 4, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #164743

jlw,

I wouldn’t be surprised to see American tanks on sale at WalMart soon.

I believe China is now “financing” America with the profits it has made from all of those WalMart sales.

Posted by: Rocky at July 4, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #164744

rlt,

Canada, Australia and India are free countries because we fought the Revolutionary War.

Gandhi just called, and he strongly disagree!
Plus, you fought the Revolutionary War not alone. I may remember which country give you a hand eventually…

We would not be free and neither would they if we had done things the way former President Carter would have had us do.

Lenine just called, and he want to say that his own October Revolution doesn’t make its country free.
Wait.
Mao on phone, he say “mi neither!”.
Another call. Castro say “no mucho fridom sinche révolucion ouaaar”.
Hey, please guys, I can’t take all calls *together*!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 4, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #164745

From: “The Unfinished Presidency” by Douglas Brinkley, page 427.

On Jimmy Carter, Sam Nunn and Colin Powell’s negotiation with Raul Cedras’ to leave Haiti before the US invasion in 1994.

“Just before 4:00 pm, the negotiations were taking a turn for the better, and Powell telephoned the White House to urge President Clinton to take the compromise deal without a specific deadline date. Once U.S. troops had landed peacefully, Powell argued, General Shelton would be “King of the Island.” Clinton refused. Shortly thereafter Brigadier General Philippe Biamby - the number-two man after Cedras - burst into the negotiating room in a vicious rage, waving a submachine gun at Carter, Powell, and Nunn. “General Cedras, my commander in chief, we have to leave here right now,” Biamby shouted. “The negotiations are over. We have been betrayed. We have intelligence information that the 82nd airborne are getting their parachutes and loading on the plans at Fort Bragg and heading here.” An astonished Carter immediately turned to Cedras, his face beet red. “You must accept this agreement right now or your children will be killed.” Carter shouted. “Your country will be burned.” Powell was amazed to watch the president dubbed the “malaise man” by his former boss Ronald Reagan act so resolute. “There was such power in his presentation,” Powell recalled. “He was tougher and more dogged than I had thought.”

Ok, at this time, Carter was 70 years old. He had gone to Haiti with General Powell and Senator Nunn at the request of President Clinton. Mr. Carter and his team negotiated a safe withdrawal of Cedras and the re-installation of the Haitian President Jean Paul Aristide.

Regardless of what people’s criticisms are about former President Carter, he has earned his stripes time and again. Like only three other former presidents in the last 100 years (Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover and Bill Clinton), he has had an extremely active and productive post-presidency.

His love and respect for his country are without question. His courage even in his twilight years is remarkable. For those of you who only recall the presidential years, I encourage you to read of the man’s post-presidency. Douglas Brinkley’s book is fascinating, and while I was not a Carter fan before I read it, I have become one since.

Posted by: Dennis at July 4, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #164746


Jack: Dissent is patriotism. Unabiding loyalty is totalitarianism. If the patriots who fought for our independence felt as you suggest, George the 22nd would be our ruler.

Posted by: jlw at July 4, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #164747

traveller,

“When he was president Carter secretly authorized $500 million to create an international network to spread Islamism in central asia and “destabilize” the USSR. The CIA called this “Operation Cyclone” and over the next few years poured over $4 billion into Islamic training schools in Pakistan. The U.S. taxpayer paid to train future al-Qaida fanatics in “sabotage skills” (i.e. terrorism).”

It is a well known fact that America supported the resistance in Afghanistan against the Soviets, including Bin Laden’s fighters.
America has made some crappy choices, but theoretically, the funding and training helped to further America’s “victory” in the Cold War.

Posted by: Rocky at July 4, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #164749

Traveller: Jimmy Carter didn’t have Osama Bin Laden visit him in the White House, but Ron Ray Gun did. Isn’t it ironic, Regan was given that name while he was governor and began building his very own ray gun when he became president.

Posted by: jlw at July 4, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #164756

traveller,

I might add that “Operation Cyclone” was iniciated in 1979, and when Reagan took office he continued the support of the mujahideen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahadeen

“The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (during the Carter and Reagan administrations) and by the People’s Republic of China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.

Ronald Reagan praised them as freedom fighters, and the 1988 Rambo III, portrayed them as heroic. This connection is ironic, in light of the future turn of events in which many of the same men would end up as a major threat to the United States.”

Blame Carter all you want for initiating the support, but Reagan was just as, if not more guilty for continuing the training that has subsequently been used in the fight against America (and it’s allies), in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: Rocky at July 4, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #164765

Eric:

You and Jack do the same thing. You dig up something far removed from today’s events and scream about those “lousy, treasonous liberals.”

You have everybody talking about Carter when Bush is the guy that has messed up America in a big way. Maybe you find it too hard to defend Bush. A lot of conservatives have lost faith in him.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 4, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #164823

I admire jimy Carte for what he has done around the world to promote humanitarian aid and promostion of democracy in election whatchs. More to promote democracy than this administration ever thought of. As far as the media exposing ao called secrets president G.W. Bush said a few days after 9/11 that hewould every meansthe money to track. Idont mind them evry thing at their desposal but I want over sight. Him saying just trust me just dose not cut it.This adminisration thinks its OK to releas classifide information as they are the ones doing the leaking. A T.R Republican

Posted by: Earl at July 4, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #164837

David S. has posted pictures of Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., and Nixon shaking hands with dictators. He thinks those pictures rebut criticism of Carter’s infatuation with dictators. It’s not that simple, David. Rumsfeld and Bush Sr. have wised up, and Nixon is dead, but Carter never wises up. He goes through life, year after year, making the same mistake. And Carter seeks publicity when he expresses his infatuation with dictators. IN RESPONSE TO CARTER’S PUBLICITY, conservatives criticize him. Anyone who enters the public arena is walking into a two-way debate, David. Carter is not immune from debate.

Posted by: Arthur at July 4, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #164839

Gergle, didn’t Carter help Clinton with that world class deal that we gave to North Korea some years back? Didn’t somebody mention “high IQ”? Is that what that deal was a result of? Or was it his peace loving naivette that blinded him what the rest of us knew(conservatives anyway) about North Korea? Wouldn’t you love to see this guy sitting at the poker table when you walked in?

Posted by: scolex at July 4, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #164845

scolex,

Are you serious? You’re blaming Carter for the current situation in NK?

Carter and Clinton left the NK situation in fairly decent shape when Bush took over. Unfortunately, Bush didn’t concern himself with NK except as a part of the rhetorical “Axis of Evil” for his entire first term, leading to a degredation of the situation until it is what we have now.

Don’t blame Carter for trying. Blame the people in power who didn’t follow up on the possibilities Carter gave them.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 4, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #164848

Lawnboy, is your idea of “fairly decent shape” leaving this clown with a reactor, regardless of the type, and pretending that all was ok, that he and Clinton were dealing with an honorable man? Bush is a bafoon at times but what could he do that the dems wouldn’t scream about? Hell, since Jimmy and Bill did such a great job setting the deal up, I guess Bush could follow up by getting North Korea to promise peace for it’s neighbor’s and treat it’s people with dignity by giving them a few MX’s and warheads to boot. Why go halfway? Like I said, love to catch him at the poker table.

Posted by: scolex at July 4, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #164853

Rocky,
I’m well aware of Reagan’s guilt. This thread is about Carter and I had all of the “Carter’s a great man/president” nonsense I could take.
Carter is an appeaser and was incompetent in the White House. History shows the results of appeasement. North Korea is a good example.
Not only Carter and Reagan, but both Bushes and Clinton have all given aid to our Islamist enemies. I consider Clinton’s actions in the Balkans to be the most treacherous of all. He bombed civilian targets in Serbia in support of the Islamic narco-terrorist group the Kosovo Liberation Army. This murderous action made it possible for Islamic terrorists to seize power in Kosovo and Bosnia.
Bombing civilian targets is considered a war crime except when it’s done by one of the left’s demigods.

Posted by: traveller at July 5, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #164854

scolex-
If they’re producing material for a bomb, they have one already. The difference between a light water reactor and a heavy water one is that the light water reactor produces far less plutonium, making it less advantageous reactor for weapons development.

As for Bush? If people had the guts to get past the cult of personality and make it clear that his screwing up was a political liability, he wouldn’t wait around to get things done.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #164855


The decision to invade Iraq was made before Bush took the oath of office. Since there is no way to defend this administration we should concentrate our efforts on discrediting past democratic presidents and blaming them for what is wrong.

Had this administration been in charge during the Cuban missle crisis, it is very doubtful that any of us would be discussing anything.

Considering all of the classified information that Dick Cheney has leaked to the press, one could assume that he is a reporter for the NYT.

Posted by: jlw at July 5, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #164860

traveller,

“He bombed civilian targets in Serbia in support of the Islamic narco-terrorist group the Kosovo Liberation Army. This murderous action made it possible for Islamic terrorists to seize power in Kosovo and Bosnia.”

So you’re ok with the “ethnic cleansing” perpetrated by Milosevic and his group of thugs?
This was a NATO sanctioned action, but in your own words Clinton committed murder?

Whatever you say pal.

Posted by: Rocky at July 5, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #164875

Eric,

How on earth could you write this article? Or perhaps WHY might be the better question? Maybe, just maybe you misunderstood. perhaps you need to re-read the article again.

Where did you read about the “anti-president”? Which prophecy predicted would come in the last days? While I’ll admit I don’t have the Bible memorized, I just can’t believe that the words ‘anti-president would appear.

While we are celebrating the birth of our country on the 4th of July…Jimmy Carter will be exercising instead the liberal version of patriotism, the rite of dissent, against an America he views as more dangerous and unfree than any nation in the Axis of Evil.

You sort of took this statement out of context, which can happen to anyone.

,

But this anniversary will not be a day of celebration for the “right to information” in our country. ~Washington Post.

Carter believes that there are too manysecrets’.

No where does he say he hates America, merely the direction he sees the us heading towards. Not “Hate Americans”, as you tried to imply. One has to admit, there do seem to be a an awful lot of leaks coming for the current administration.
We Need Fewer Secrets
cjheck out this site:

http://WWW.washingtonpost.Com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006070200674_pf.HTML

Considering all of the “LEAKS” that we’ve ‘heard’ about, why bother to go the ‘secrets’ route
on what appears to be even unimportant?


Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial’s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way. ~msnbc.Com.

It would appear to me that wars and dying are almost essential these days to obtaining freedoms. Why, I’m not totally sure. Seems like some of governments are trying to flex their muscles. I can’t help but wonder about the last time. Had the British Parliament, and King George III actually worked together, we could still be part of the British Domain.

I personally thought Carter was ineffective as President, mostly because he had moral values and held himself to higher standards, which no one in Congress at the time seemed willing to achieve, Or deal with.

As for now, I honestly don’t see the problem with him intervening on our behalf by talking to OUR enemies. I truly did not want amnesty for the men who shirked they duties to serve by taking off to Canada. I firmly believe that communication, talking makes more sense in many ways, than to invade a country. We have never been considered to be a country that would use force first At least not until after 9\11.

Someone’wrote an article stting concerning “Chinton has turned into a terrific statesman”

BTW, I just wanted to add a point here regarding all this Liberals or conservatives. or neocon
hokiness about about hating America, or being traitors or be treasonous,

I honestly don’t bellieve that there is anyone here who Hates America, or the other viewpoints. At least no one who actually blogs on either this side or the red side, or the green side.

I love my country, I simply totally disagree withe methods President Bush has handled many things

I truly belive that those who believe Buch has been a good President, also truly love their country
.

I sinserally believe that you are telling the truth.

Posted by: Linda H. at July 5, 2006 4:16 AM
Comment #164885

Rocky,
The Muslims were the aggressors in the Balkan War. It was a religious war that Milosevic made worse.
It doesn’t matter who sanctioned the bombing. I repeat, He bombed civilian targets! So you’re ok with murdering innocent civilians?
Whatever you say pal.

Posted by: traveller at July 5, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #164889

Traveller-
Don’t look now, but you’re buying a Serb position on it.

It’s a hell of a lot more complicated than you think. Yugoslavia was largely an artificial construct, kept together by both Tito’s charisma and the tensions of the Cold War. Bosnia was not the only country that split off, nor was it as simple as religion. though that played a part.

There is plenty of evidence of what the Serbs did, and it was a bloody massacre most of the time. Have you forgotten the Seige of Sarajevo? Or Srebinica?

As for Kosovo, it’s considerably more complicated than you think. The KLA, while not really a hero in the story as far as I can tell and principly Muslim, was more centered on ethnic issues than on religion. Bin Laden did try to exploit the Bosnian and Kosovar situations, but we did our work on the ground there, and he failed to get a jihad going in that part of the world.

Clinton did bomb civilian targets, but it’s a bit foolish to blame him for that when you consider who he was fighting, and what the other side was willing to do. When we call about Clinton bombing civilian targets, we’re talking about bridges, electrical grids, and other infrastructure. He wasn’t deliberately bombing residential areas, or needlessly inflicting civilian casualties.

The purpose, in the end, was to bring the war back home to those who had supported the surrounding and shelling of cities, the wiping out of villages and other things, while they lived safe and sound in their towns and villages away from the action. By taking out the infrastructure like Clinton did, he made them feel the pain that they had inflicted on others.

That was ultimately to begin the end of Milosevic’s rule, and his life as a free man.

Now Kosovo and other places are relatively peaceful, in no small part thanks to the people that Clinton listened to in terms of how man peacekeepers to keep in place.

The question here is what bias the Right is willing to inflict on history in order to push the view that Clinton’s actions in these matters were wrong, or even traitorous. Such question are of importance now, as the Republicans try to rationalize their failure to see successes similar to Clinton’s. I mean, after all, the Right is supposed to be better at waging war than the left, by their estimation. But butchering history in order to get that reputation back will do the right little good.

Real deeds bring real improvements in reputation. Trying to get such improvements through denigrating others is just as likely to sink the reputation further.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2006 8:23 AM
Comment #164891

Eric criticizing Carter on anything is kind of like Bush criticizing Einstein’s theories on Physics.

Posted by: Schwamp at July 5, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #164892

Stephen,

In some senses traveller was correct.
In the fight for Bosnian independence there was brutality on both sides and the Mujahideen was involved on the Bosnian side.
That said however, the “ethnic cleansing” that took place after the Dayton Accords was entirely done by the Serbs against the Bosniaks (Muslims), that is when Nato stepped in and the bombing started in earnest.

traveller,

To call the bombing murder is just hyperbole.

If Clinton does it, you call it “murder”, and Clinton is a monster.

If Bush does it, you call it “collateral damage”, and Bush is praised for freeing the Iraqi people from the yoke of injustice.

Give me a break.

Posted by: Rocky at July 5, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #164900

No, it isn’t more complicated than I think. I know how complicated it is.
The jihad in the Balkans succeeded, thanks to Clinton.

Rocky,
Making war on civilians to force a government to change its policy is terrorism. Targeting civilians is a war crime. Killing civilians is murder.
Doing all of the above to install known jihadists in power is treachery.

“Collateral damage” is a euphemism I don’t like and I never use.
Civilians die in war. It has always been true and it will always be true. Killing them unintentionally is tragic. Killing them purposely is murder.

btw-I’m strongly opposed to the Iraq war. I think it’s a strategic blunder.

Posted by: traveller at July 5, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #164905
Making war on civilians to force a government to change its policy is terrorism. Targeting civilians is a war crime. Killing civilians is murder.

Then Truman was a murderer (Iroshima, Nagazaki). And Bush is (Shock and Awe). And Israel, whatever PM, is. And Chirac is (Ivory Coast). And every nation leaders than happened to keep economic sanctions agains Rogue nation(s) when they do know civilians will die due to these sanctions (remember Madeleyne Allbright’s “it was worth it” about iraquis civilians casualties under sanctions?).

In fact, pretty much every leader that happened to get enough power to sanctionned a military operation while knowing civilians “collateral dommage” can’t be avoid are concerned. So let’s put all these people on trial for war crime. Should be fun. And overcrowned.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 5, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #164916

“Making war on civilians to force a government to change its policy is terrorism. Targeting civilians is a war crime. Killing civilians is murder.”

The left’s own definitions, except when done by one of their demigods.

Posted by: traveller at July 5, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #164917

How in the hell did a poorly worded and ineffectively researched paper on Carter end up with rants about Clinton’s Bosnian adventure?

Is Karl Rove in this thread?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 5, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #164962


self-appointed?

I’m not aware of an official appointment as neccessary to being a leftist. Do conservatives have a secret club where you can’t be conservative unless you are sponsored by another conservative and then “Appointed”?

If your intention was to convey disgust, I can hardly beleive that there were no better adjectives available.

Posted by: DOC at July 5, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #165021

We almost lost the cold war because of Carter. Our armed forces were a JOKE under his admin. A JOKE! _ Perhaps some on the left should read “The real Jimmy Carter”

From the Inside Flap

Jimmy Carter: America’s best ex-president? Only if you’re not bothered by the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (which started on his watch), the shamefaced foreign policy of Bill Clinton and John Kerry (ditto), and think that ex-presidents should travel the world coddling dictators and bad-mouthing America à la Jesse Jackson.
Jimmy Carter has been given a free ride from the liberal media, liberal historians, and even the American people, who excuse his political delinquencies and disasters on the grounds that he is a “good” man. But as bank robber Willie Sutton said of Carter: “I’ve never seen a bigger confidence man in my life, and I’ve been around some of the best in the business.”
It’s time to set the record straight. Finally, an honest historian-Steven F. Hayward, author of The Age of Reagan-demolishes the myth of “Saint” Jimmy and exposes how he created today’s leftist Democratic party of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Jimmy Carter’s laundry list of failures aren’t just accidents of history: They’re rooted in Carter’s deeply flawed character and ideology-a smugly pious arrogance matched with a profound distrust of America.
The Real Jimmy Carter reveals:
• Carter as meddling ex-president: Why a Time magazine columnist wrote that some of Carter’s “Lone Ranger work has taken him dangerously close to the neighborhood of what we used to call treason”
• How Carter befriended North Korea during the Clinton administration, appeasing the communist regime and giving it cover for its nuclear weapons program
• How Carter made direct contacts with Soviet officials to try to subvert President Reagan’s anti-communist policies
• The shocking extent of Carter’s clandestine efforts to sabotage the first Gulf War in 1990 and how he used Gulf War II to publicly question the Christian faith of America’s commander in chief
• How Carter befriended Yasir Arafat-making himself an enemy of Israel
• Carter as politician: a vicious campaigner-and even race-baiter
• The Carter White House during the disasters of the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua, the energy crisis and stagflation, the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, and the invasion of Afghanistan
• How Carter, the failed president, remade himself as Carter the humanitarian and freelance foreign policy critic of America

• How a Nobel official inadvertently revealed that Carter’s Nobel Prize was actually meant as a slap at America The Real Jimmy Carter is a shocker, showing why the peanut president should never have left his farm.

Posted by: chotty at July 5, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #165075

As a President I thought Carter was well meaning but just way over his head. As an ex-President I have always had the feeling that he was so scarred by the Iran hostage situation and how Reagan was credited with ending it, that he will do almost anything to undermine Republican Presidents with the hope that any failures in these administrations will lift the relative legacy of his administration. If I was a democrat I would be pretty nervous about having this crazy old man of the democratic party running loose.

Posted by: Carnak at July 5, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #165113

Does anyone remember that this so called “well intentioned, good hearted president (Carter)” that you are all so lovingly praising left Americans in the hands of the enemy for years?!?! Does nobody remember that he was soft and too weak to do anything about it?! And that it was Reagan who got them released?! I guess the Liberals want us to forget that because they so graciously forgot about Watergate. Well dont do us any favors because the fact is, when it comes down to it, the DemocRATS have put some of the worst people in the White House.

Posted by: Alex at July 5, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #165147

Because Carter “chose” not bo back the Shah of Iran due to his “so called human rights violations” in the 70’s or to help them transition to a more viable secular leader, that one fatal mistake and lack of foresight in mideast politics, allowed for a handful of militant elite Iranian college students to ignite the Iranian Revolution, and bring into power a medieval theocracy in the form of the Ayatollah Khomeni, and the cancer we now know as Jihad and Islamofascism.

Hey, but in Carter’s mind, that’s called “self determination”…

Anyway, Iran is only the second largest oil producing country that controls the Persian Gulf, but Carter had an answer for that too—he made us drive at 55 mph.

Thanks allot Jimmy, oh, and happy Independence Day!

Posted by: gopRkewl at July 6, 2006 4:46 AM
Comment #165251

About the Canp David Accords and Carters Nobel Peace prize:

1) OK for US = Mixed bag of results, but we have somewhat of an ally.
2) OK for Israel = Fueled more hatred.
3) Not so good for Anwar Sadat—he was assasinated by members in his own military guard during a parade.
4) Fueled even more Islamic terrorists and produced the likes of Aman Al-Zawahiri, OBL’s second hand guy.

Posted by: gopRkewl at July 6, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #165305

Phillippe,

To proceed in English, press 1.

For deportation, press 2.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 6, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #165343

ElliottBay,

Yes he would…and he did, but Bush didn’t. So take your imbecilic intellect elsewhere. It won’t work here.

We’re at war. You need to ruck up and get with the program. Being nice to Muslim Islamofascists doesn’t work. Just ask Carter. Then ask Hillbilly Clinton.

You are either for or against your country. Choose a side and stick with it. I did.

You’ll feel better in the morning, I promise.

Posted by: Lance-TMQ at July 6, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #165395
And that it was Reagan who got them released?

Actually, they were release while the inauguration was still going on. While it’s true that Carter didn’t get them released while he was in office, it’s quite ludicrous to claim that they were release because of any act by Reagan.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 7, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #165648

Lawnboy, of course Iran did not release the hostages because of any ACT by Reagan. They were afraid of what Reagan MIGHT do. They knew that they could get away with an act of war while Carter was president, and they did not dare to continue that act of war when Reagan became president. This is all very simple.

Posted by: Arthur at July 7, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #165676

Stephen

and if you want to know what kind of pres Clinton was try reading “Year of the Rat” or better yet “All to Human”

Im very much a conservitive, and I serve at the pleasure of the President this one and future ones, I dissagree with several things hes done. the war is not one of them. and when at war you HAVE to keep secerets. and as a side note. the most secerative pres. took place during WWII not this one.

Posted by: Jeff at July 8, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #165679

I wish Bush had one tenth of the wisdom and experience of Jimmy Carter. I’m a senior citizen and hands down he has been the most trustworthy and decent President we have seen in my lifetime. Shame on those of you that have attacked his integrity. I have my personal non flattering opinion of Bushes integrity, how ever I will just say this. He is the most dangerous President we have had in my lifetime and is pretty much threating war to any other nation that opposses his foreign policies or demands. It’s only a matter of time before one or more of them respond in a like manner. This cowboy of a President, if not stopped will not only NOT make us safer but cause the death of even more Americans. Does anyone really believe that we are at war with a country that has the 2nd largest reserve of oil, our President is an oil baron and the two facts are not related?? And I might add…a country until we invaded it had never harmed an American.

Posted by: lisa at July 8, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #165683

Lisa

man I love it when people pull out the “blood for oil” argument.

Iraq had WMDs, had tarrorist ties. but heres the biggest reason of all for going into Iraq.
Look on a map what dose Iraq have.
One. a major port that our Navy can use.
Two. its smack dab in the middle of the middle east. its a major launching pad into anywhere in the middle east we may need to go.
Iran, syria, jordan. all tarrorist states all now in reach once Iraq is secure. That is why we took Iraq. its whats called a foot hold in the reagen.
and ill bet my pension that if we go into syria we’ll find those upto date WMDs we’ve been looking for.

Posted by: Jeff at July 8, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #165686

Lisa, Bush is not an oil baron, but he did spend some years in the oil industry. Yes, it is relevant that Saddam had oil. A madman with oil is dangerous, because he can sell the oil to get the money to buy a big military. You say that Iraq never harmed an American before we invaded? But they did. Iraq had been funding and sheltering terrorists for years. South of Baghdad there was a terrorist training camp, with an airliner to practice hijacking. Iraq was a threat to the U.S., and Bush put an end to that threat. Bush knows what his responsibilities are. His critics have their heads in the sand.

Posted by: Arthur at July 8, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #165690

Ohhhh yes….forgot about “those” WMD. Guess we could look most anywhere for them. Someday, someway, somewhere, some year we might find some and then we can say ahaaaa, but for now there are none in Iraq. And you know one man’s terrorist…is another man’s freedon fighter, and I’m certain we are viewed as terrorists in Iraq. I’m not sure how we equate thousands of Iraqs dying with freeing them. Seems to me they should have a choice in that decision. So now its clear its not about freeing them and you say its not about oil and more about a foothold and I will agree on that point somewhat. Have to have control of all that oil. Oil and a foothold are mighty incentives. I might even had a different opinion if Bush hadn’t tried to sell a fairy tale freedom story and the WMD threat to justify his war. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this war.

Posted by: lisa at July 8, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #165692

Lisa

hmm didnt we just find 500 rounds of mustard and sayrian gas in iraq. even if thay are deterated dosent take much to make them effective. thanks to the BS that the UN put up Iraq had more then enough time to get the WMDs thay had been developing at the time the inspectors where being pissed around with by SodamnInsane that thay are sitting now in Syria or worse yet in the hands of the tarrorist thay coddel and train.

Posted by: Jeff at July 8, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #165704

Duane-o one extra L, he is Philippe.

Posted by: steve at July 8, 2006 2:17 AM
Comment #249898

Those people who think Carter was a good president were obviously too young to know better. Hewas politically ignorant and knew more about the price of lumber than what this country needed. He spoke to dictators, people who shunned and hated America like they were his brothers, oh yes he did have a drunk brother did he not?? The only thing good that can be said about his presidency was that it ended. Thank God a real man came along and became a real leader, a man who earned the respect and title of President, Ronald Reagan, if it weren’t for him those hostages would still be in Iran, or maybe not Carter could have went to Iran and had a tea party, said some nasty anti-American things and had them released, thats the only way he could have had them freed, he was and still is no politican.

Posted by: Debbie at April 5, 2008 5:27 PM
Post a comment