Thursday, January 11, 2007

Jimmy Carter, Still A Loser

Recently, one person at the Carter Center had resigned because of Carter's blatant one-sidedness (and I'm being kind there) in his recent book about Israel and the Palestinians. Now, le deluge.

Update, 1/19/07: Our Worst Ex-President.

25 comments:

Mike said...

If memory serves, a group of of 14 additional democrat worthies, including any who had supported and virtually worshipped Carter for decades also resigned their positions on the advisory board of the Carter Center today for the same reasons.

allen said...

I used to think that, between Carter's engineering background and his willingness to pick up a hammer and do himself what liberals typically demand others do, he was a cut above the run-of-the-mill leftie. Stories like this and his inability to keep his mouth shut are causing me to re-examine my assumptions.

Darren said...

There was a 7-year stint, between hearing him speak at the Air Force Academy in '85 and the Dem National Convention in '92, when I thought he was a decent man.

I hate being wrong.

Anonymous said...

... wow... show some respect to your former commander.

Darren said...

He was never *my* commander. I didn't serve during his presidency.

What I'd be interested in knowing, but can't because you're anonymous, is how much respect you show the current Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

Anonymous said...

Don't you kind of feel sorry for Rosalyn? I mean,here's her very verbal and pushy husband, who is trying to change what was a very lame legacy of inflation and mismanagement by espousing radical views and don't you think at some point she's wondering if he's finally slipped a cog? Do you know if he wrote the book himself, or did he have a ghost writer? Also, who paid for the research? A book is only as good as the research, and if someone with an agenda chose to attach bad information to Jimmy Carter's name, it wouldn't surprise me. It's arrogant to be sure, but not surprising in this day when the political intrigue makes Louis XIV's court look like a tennis match.

Darren said...

I've never heard Rosalyn speak about politics. As a result, I'm inclined to give her a pass on Carter's politics. She may share them, but she's classy enough to recognize that *he* is the politician, and she isn't.

It doesn't matter who gave Carter the information. He's the author of the book. There are strands of Christianity with an unexplainable anti-Semitic slant, and Carter obviously belongs to one of these strands. This isn't the first time he's done this, it's just the biggest and most in-your-face.

Anonymous said...

When did you see President Carter?

Darren said...

In the Fall of '85, when I was an exchange cadet to the Air Force Academy. He came and spoke to the Cadet Wing. All us cadets were gathered in the Field House to hear him speak. On another occasion that semester, Henry Kissinger spoke to us.

Anonymous said...

Carter is better than Bush. Stop crying.

Darren said...

Oh, well that settles it.

Thank you for that intellectually gratifying, BDS-laced remark. Now take your pill and go back into your hole.

Anonymous said...

Go read about the deaths and deficit and how Iraq is more costly than 9/11 was. Go and support your country, not the idiot leading it!

Darren said...

Yes, of course. We'd be much better off if we continued with our head in the sand after 9/11, continued to think we could negotiate and come to some "peace" with such people, and just continued on our merry way. In fact, we could also have flagellated ourselves a bit in the process, just to make sure we feel good and guilty about our success as a nation.

No, I'm not about to go there. While I'm not a fan of the president's domestic accomplishments, there's no one else I'd rather have at the helm in this war. Good God, can you imagine Algore or Horseface trying to run this show? If you can, you're far more of a partisan than you think I am.

MikeAT said...

Anon, I must ask.

What makes Jimmy Carter better than George W Bush?

Bush, for good or bad, will have a consequential administration.

I remember Jimmy's 4 years. The gas shortages, double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates.

BTY, if Jimmy had actually acted like a president and took serious action during the hostage crisis, we might still have the Twin Towers in New York. The Ayatollah Khomeini was shocked at how weak we reacted to an invasion of our sovereign territory (which an embassy is). This encouraged others, including a man named Bin Laden.

Again Anon, explain to all of us what makes James Earl Carter Jr. better than George Walker Bush?

Anonymous said...

Darren,

I agree with you that terrorism is bad. I think everyone here does. But you have to understand that there is no military solution. The US army is currently a bunch of sitting ducks in a relious conflict that has been going on for thousands of years. Diplomacy is the only way out. I'm not saying release their prisoners and give into their demands, but I am saying listen to them. Every one deserves that. Do you seriously believe you can kill every terrorist out there? Because if you do, well, know that you can't.

Darren said...

Finally, someone who sounds reasonable.

I don't agree with you, but you present your point rationally.

No, I don't think you can talk to them--precisely because they're on some millenium-long vision quest. And no, we can't kill all of them, but we can make it so costly for them that eventually it won't be worth their while. Who was it who said, "Let them hate, as long as they fear"?

Diplomacy does *not* work with terrorists. They are by definition "bad guys" who don't play by the same rules that reasonable/rational people play by. It's like gun control; you can put the laws on the books, but criminals by definition don't obey the laws!

There is no evidence at all, no reason at all to believe that diplomacy will work. When has it ever with them? Bad guys understand force. Good guys understand reason and negotiation.

Darren said...

BTW, I genuinely believe that when you negotiate with terrorists, you validate their activities and invite more of it.

Anonymous said...

Yes, negotiation with them is tough. I think that sometimes the terrorists are indeed Iraqis, and when it comes down to it, it's their country. If they don't want us there, I say let them manage their own country.

allen said...

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you that terrorism is bad. I think everyone here does.

I hope belaboring the obvious isn't your only form of aerobic exercise.

But you have to understand that there is no military solution.

You are so wrong. The military solution has been so popular down through history, in part, because it works. When someone's giving you trouble a very good way to make sure they don't do it twice is to reduce them to their component parts.

Trouble is, to a guy with a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Some problems are better dealt with by talking and the trick is to know which is which. Mistaking the one for the other leads, inevitably, to tragedy.

That's the neat thing about democracies by the way. There's no such thing as a popular war in a democracy. The phrase "popular war" is oxymoronic in a democracy since you're asking mommies to enthusiastically send their bouncing baby boys off to be ground into hamburger. Now there's a tough sell!

The US army is currently a bunch of sitting ducks in a religious conflict that has been going on for thousands of years.

Sitting ducks? I think duck hunting might be significantly less popular if your average canvasback, sitting or not, had the sort of training and equipment that the U.S. military has. And, I'm not even remotely impressed by "religious conflicts going back thousands of years". If the same batch of religious zealots can learn to tolerate each other in the U.S. they can learn to tolerate each other anywhere.


Diplomacy is the only way out.

Think of war, at least the wars that America gets into, as a forceful way of getting people's attention. Diplomacy can only start when both sides are willing to listen. Some people need a Marine sitting on their chest, screwing an M-16 into their ear before they reacquire their ability to hear.

I'm not saying release their prisoners and give into their demands, but I am saying listen to them.

Cuts two ways. When they stop doing their talking with IEDs then American hearing improves markedly.

Every one deserves that.

Nope, everyone doesn't.

Do you seriously believe you can kill every terrorist out there? Because if you do, well, know that you can't.

Well, actually you can. You might point to the numerous examples of successful insurgencies as a way of buttressing your estimation of their military/political value. There are just bags of successful terroristic organizations, right?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, go ahead and brake down my whole comment all you want, but this argument would go nowhere. You think I'm wrong and I think the same about you. That's all it is in the end.

Mike said...

I wonder when the public will learn that much of what they hear about the war from the media is, at best, one-sided, and all too often, an abject lie. Their failure meme is now so entrenched, can any intelligent American believe that the media will accurately report on American progress in Iraq in the future? Even is we wiped every terrorist from the face of the planet tomorrow, the media would spin it as a defeat.

Anonymous' comments are so stereotypically liberal I suspect they're actually parody. There's no military solution? Good grief. This is right up there in profundity with "war never solved anything." We are having difficulties not because we have used military force, but because we've been trying to do it nicely. Our enemies in WWII were willing to adopt democracy because we visited upon them the horrors of war, thus making stark choices very obvious indeed. Unless we fight this war as though we were fighting a war, we'll not be making the progress we should.

This is not to say we're not making progress. Our enemies hide behind women and children because they know that whenever they try to engage us in any significant way, they are promptly reduced to greasy stains in the sand. We've sent tens of thousands of them to Allah, and continue to do that on a regular basis and on what does the media report? Each and every IED--a bomb--that goes off. In a war? Yeah, that's news.

Everyone deserves to be heard? Well of course. We owe a moral duty to hear every lunatic who would like nothing more than to cut off the heads of the children of those sensitive listening souls. We've listened to those who wish to exterminate us for years now. Our only problem as a nation seems to be our collective inability to (1) hear what they're saying, and (2) take them at their word. When I see them cutting off heads on video, I get it. Why can't folks like Anonymous? What will keep them from cutting off the heads of additional infidels? Perhaps if we say "please?"

Can we kill every terrorist out there? No, but fortunately, history teaches us that we don't have to do that. We just have to kill enough of them and use absolutely violence and aggressiveness in the process. In other words, we have to actually fight a war and kill enough of the enemy to convince those who remain that nothing awaits them but a sure and humiliating, puposeless death.

What people like Anonymous seem unable to grasp is that our battle now will be cheap in lives and dollars in comparison to what will happen if we give up now and/or when, not if, the terrorists detonate a nuc or conduct chemical or biological attacks in America. Under those circumstances, even a Democrat president would have little choice but to immediately escalate to an overwhelming nuclear response (you'd see an actual impeachment if they didn't). Would all of the liberals who have threatened to move to Canada do so then?

Anonymous said...

There's a cultural ignorance and bravado that seems to pervade the liberal mindset. The liberals come from a culture where statesmanship and negotiation is prized. The Middle East is a culture where domination at all costs is prized. There is no middle ground for these two opposing cultures to meet. One HAS to totally defeat the other, because we can negotiate all day and all night, but the bottom line is that according to Wahbist Islam, the "faithful" do not have to honor contracts made with infidenls. And even Muslims within other sects of Islam are considered infidels. How can you even begin to think you can bargain with a nation that ultimatley has a 200 year plan to wipe out all other religions and has followers willing to blow themselves into tiny bits to make that happen? The bottom line is that we MUST destroy them and that we MUST not fall into the idea that these are people negotiating with honor. All they are doing is biding their time and building their strength. How can people who claim to be educated in the ways of the world be so damned naive as some of these liberals. They show no consideration or understanding that the culture they live in is NOT the same culture we are opposing. Is that hubris or what?

allen said...

Ah yes, the study of the common American liberal, liberalis vulgaris. A worthwhile subject for study but objectivity is difficult to maintain.

First you have to dispense with any self-serving descriptions. They're not stupid, at least not notably stupider then conservatives. They're not crazy, again, at least not notably more so then conservatives. And they're not noticeably more evil. In fact, other then personal hygiene and that's an unreliable indicator, there's nothing discernible that differentiates them from conservatives other then their politics.

Any explanation has to take the similarities into account as much as it takes into account the differences.

Anonymous, if you've got something to say, say it. If you got beliefs, state them. If you're incapable of defending them then you might want to reexamine them.

Right at the top of the list of ideas ripe for a second look is that the people who disagree with your feelings about war aren't necessarily doing so because they're blood-lust maddened psychopaths with blackjack IQ's.

It's possible to believe that a war is necessary without relishing the prospect of the war. People make difficult choices between unattractive options all the time and pretending that one of those options can be made to disappear simply by wishing it so is not the act of an adult. Some things have to be dealt with the choices being bad and worse and doing nothing being a vote for "worse".

You seem to think that there's some path of discourse that hasn't been explored. I think you're wrong and point to as evidence the use of the most extreme and brutal violence on people chosen specifically for their inability to defend themselves. What's the basis for discussion with someone who prefers the killing of non-combatants? Particularly when the opposition has made no attempt to open a path of discourse?

Darren said...

Back on the subject of Carter, here's some info that says he's bought and paid for by the Saudis:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/01/say-it-aint-so-jimmy.html

Anonymous said...

No one has a solution to the middle east. It's been bad, it will be bad. Focus on things that affect us.
*waits for the "anti-american pro-failure anti-troop comments*