Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy.
By Moe Lane Posted in Archived — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
See, this is why you were only a one-termer. You never could figure out when to bluff, and when to fold:
You're obviously aware of your main critic, Mr. Stein, who used to be with the Carter Center.
Thirteen years ago! He hasn't been associated with the Carter Center for 13 years.
Really? By the way, Powerline's already got the screen capture, Mister Carter, so don't bother with any of the ex post facto editing. Not that you can edit this. Gotta love these computer things, huh?
So, on second thought, do bother editing. It'll add to the enjoyment of it all.
(Via Glenn)
the gift that keeps on giving, just, like Herpes.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
grapevine segment on FNC's Special Report. They seem to have staffers who check the blogs for this kind of thing, and I frequently hear things which we've mentioned. And Glenn and Captain Ed and Powerline and LGF and all those nice folks.
Carter is getting older, so maybe his short term memory isn't up to snuff. I doubt he much cares about these details anymore, what with his dangerous global mission of spreading blood libel against the Jews.
Perhaps Emory U and the Russian FSB (formerly KGB) use the same internet consultant, which follow the practices of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, where pages were inserted and deleted as facts "changed".
This probably may change the mentality of most of the readers of this blog, but I just want to say a few things.
Is it really that important that Mr. Carter remarked that Mr. Stein hasn't been associated with the Carter Center for 13 years? It's probable that he simply meant that Mr. Stein has not been an active contributor for that amount of time. This is not such an important distinction. And it is true that Mr. Stein and Mr. Carter have had major differences for a significant time, despite Mr. Stein's official affiliation with the Center. Do people need to shout "liar!" and sarcastically post screen shots of Mr. Stein's bio at the Carter Center website? I notice that the Carter Center site remains and has not been edited or removed as of this moment. Of course, Mr. Stein's bio probably will eventually be removed---this would only be proper since Mr. Stein has resigned from the Carter Center of his own volition.
All of this is, in any case, an ad hominem attack on Mr. Carter, as was the noise about the sources of maps and charts. The real issue is the thesis that Mr. Carter proposes---that the Israeli policy regarding the Palestinian issue has elements of apartheid. Whether I believe this is true or not I do not know, and it's not the point. Sarcastically belittling Mr. Carter or labeling him a liar or antisemitic does nothing to address the point that he is making.
I have not read the book yet and only have a superficial understanding of this complex issue. I will say that Mr. Carter probably has forgotten more about Palestinian and Israeli affairs than I will ever know. But I do think that the Palestinian question cannot simply be ignored. The Palestinians have certainly had a history of corrupt leadership---leaders that have adopted terror tactics---and those leaders should be condemned. But this does not permit Israel, a democracy, to resist a solution that gives the Palestinians a homeland and a future. There are in Israel far-right groups (like here in the US) that use the issue for political gain. There is clearly a selfish reason for this---namely land: the Israeli settlements. And many people from both right and left have declared that some Israeli political organizations such as AIPAC wield enormous power in policy making and in the media. Pointing this out does not automatically make someone antisemitic, any more than disagreeing with affirmative action would make someone a racist. Many Israelis clearly feel this way as well.
So I am suspicious of the people and groups that target Mr. Carter with such name-calling and simplistic ad hominem attacks. I believe Mr. Carter is an honorable man. And, while it is perfectly proper to disagree with his premise and explain why, the sarcastic nature of these attacks against him are shameful and reveal a refusal to conduct an honest discussion.
Your basic premise is wrong. believe Mr. Carter is an honorable man.
Carter is not an honorable man. He is a petty, self absorbed, anti-Semite who has become a bitter old narcicist. He's still getting even with the American people for end the worst Presidency in history and can't deal with the fact that Ronald Reagan was both a successful President and a man loved by the American people.
Carter will be a very small footnote in history. If Carter bothered to conduct himself in a manner worthy of a former President, instead of a Michael Moore acolyte, he wouldn't take so much heat.
Take a deep breath, go away until you become an adult.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
mainly with the next to last paragraph, I also agree with the other poster's general point - that while this incident is humorous and does not speak well of Jimmah, I'm not sure it is that big in the final analysis, and is certainly not a substantive response to his idiocy (that said, it is certainly an arguable point that he deserves no substantive response).
According to William Shakespeare, Marcus Antonius said in his "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech that Julius Caesar's assassins were "honorable men". Which didn't prevent him from whipping the crowds into anger against them.
Is there a Marcus Antonius out there now to tell the truth about the "honorable man" Jimmius Carterus?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
What I took most from your post was this:
I have not read the book yet and only have a superficial understanding of this complex issue. I will say that Mr. Carter probably has forgotten more about Palestinian and Israeli affairs than I will ever know
Billy Preston said it best, Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
First of all former President Carter is not Mr. Carter, he is former President Carter. He may have disgraced the title, but as a former President he still gets the honorific. As does the present holder of that office, regardless of what dkos posters might believe.
Finally, PLEASE, PLEASE learn history before weighing in with a lack of understanding so shocking. I suggest you READ for a while, and don't post a thought for about six months.
I feel the need to write this: All complaints about style or tone may be directed via the Contact Us button. I'm sure that pounding the table and shouting about Carter is personally gratifying to you, which is wh[]y I recommend [you] start your own weblog. That way you can set the agenda to be anything that you like, and not waste our bandwidth.
As to your actual complaints: sorry, I mostly just skimmed the text for profanity and racial/sexual/religious epithets.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
1. These are not ad hominem attacks, this is EVIDENCE of his prevarications. You know, the stuff you guys all scream for.
2. You state Jimmy would likely have been re-elected if not for the hostages. I don't know if that is more laughable or sad. Gee, ever hear terms invented because of him, like 'stagflation', and the 'misery index'? An energy crisis with long gas lines and even/odd license plate days. Oh, such happy days. Yes, sarcasm .... heaven forbid.
CARTER WAS A DISASTER!!! And he's trying to top himself. He is a DISGRACE and an EMBARRASSMENT.
As I said, it's the sarcasm and ad hominem attacks that bothered me enough to register and post. This appears to be a fundamental rhetorical technique on this website. The comments towards me only further demonstrate this: "Take a deep breath, go away until you become an adult." "I suggest you READ for a while..." It's not that take it personally---I don't---it's just that its no way to conduct an argument.
The postings on this site so frequently are of a sarcastic yet non substantive nature. This is what led me to comment further on my thoughts regarding the Palestinian issue in particular. I did qualify my thoughts with my relative non-complete understanding of the subject. I'm not completely ignorant about it, however. I know, for instance, that the terroristic actions of the Palestinian leaders are mainly suicidal attacks on innocent Israelis for the purpose of disrupting the political process. The Palestinian leaders that promote this do so to distract their people from the leaders' own corruption, and because a viable peace process would only result in the reduction of their own power. But there is no Palestinian connection with, for instance, Al Qaeda type terrorism. None of the September 11 hijackers were Palestinians (most in fact were Saudi---Bin Laden's home and a repressive non-democracy with which the Bush family is particularly close). There is no evidence that Osama Bin Laden has ever met with Palestinian leaders, or even been much of a supporter of that particular cause.
I repeat that I have respect for Mr. Carter. He brokered a peace between Israel and Egypt that lasts to this day. And had it not been for the hostage crisis (which was brought on by a naive policy of blind support for the corrupt Shah originating during the Nixon and Ford administrations), Mr. Carter may have even been re-elected. He (not Reagan) ultimately did get the hostages released unharmed, and he deserves gratitude for using diplomacy instead of, say, dropping a nuclear bomb on Terhan. And his work for the poor and underprivileged in his retirement is an example that does not seem to be equaled by any of our other retired presidents.
But hey, if you don't agree, then why don't you say why. Don't merely rant, "He is a petty, self absorbed, anti-Semite who has become a bitter old narcicist" and make conflations with Michael Moore. Do you know for sure if Mr. Carter has even ever met Michael Moore? It's that type of talk on this site that really bothers me.
By the way, I could have referred to the former president as President Carter (instead of Mr. Carter). But it's hypocritical to take me to task for this---hell, the original posting even emphasizes the less respectful form: "Powerline's already got the screen capture, Mister Carter." If you have a problem with me referring to the man (whom I respect) as Mr. Carter, then to be consistent you must have a greater problem with this sneering form of address.
that he isn't all that deserving of it.
The reality is that if he isn't anti semitic, he nudges that line so closely that he all but is.
Most of his peace brokering has turned into mush.
The last time he got involved with the Israeli/Palestinian peace proccess, he brokered crap. The Palestinians never followed through on any of the promises made, it was mostly pie in the sky wishful thinking.
North Korea? He did that one too, he also made promises for Clinton that Clinton hadn't exactly gotten on board with, but had to follow through. What did it get us? We gave lots and lots of money to N Korea while they built their nuclear bombs anyway.
Carter has the opposite of the midas touch, everything he touches seems to turn to absolute crap.
I liked him best when he was building houses, I wish he would stick with that.
have been reelected.
Hey Bubba, you're credibility, what little you might have had, is now officially GONE.
You are obviously under 40 (you couldn't have lived thru the '70's), you don't read history much, and you have no contemporary understand of politics. Other than than, you're probably just not too bright. Feel free to take this personally. It's not, however, sarcasm [or an] ad hominem [sic] attack[s] because you've provided all the proof necessary with that one statement.
The economy, in 1979 had tanked. Prime rate was in the high teens, mortgage rates were too. There was no HOPE abroad in the land. Some of problem stemmed from Nixon and Ford's economic policies, but Carter did nothing in his term but buy a sweater and turn the head down in the White House. The following election was not a single issue (Iran) election, Iran was just the topping on the very large cake.
In the years since he left office, Carter has distinguished himself as an anti-American anti-Semite. That comment is neither hyperbole or ad homonym, it's fact. Now please go away, you bore us.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
yourself. Don't tell me, that's different.
I will say this, you think like Carter. Your reference to Iran has a certain Carteresque reasoning, Reagan and Ford are responsible for what Iran is, not the religious fanatics who have made it a more repressive and dangerous nation. Better a series of murderous zealots than a "corrupt" Shah. Perhaps a thank you is in order for identifying who and what you are. After all, it's other people who are dying.
Yes it was Carter who got the hostages released, was it the prayers on the White House lawn or that famous and effecient rescue mission. And it was just a coincidence that the hostages who were released by Carters efforts were released after Reagan entered in the WH. The Iranian leadership had contempt for Carter,although I'm sure they appreciated his denying a dying man, the Shah, entry into the USA for medical treatment. Just the sort and level of compassion that's right up your alley.
You're a piece of work JosephP and considering your criticism of this site I may note that we've added sanctimony and whining. Welcome aboard!
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Perhaps you actually beleive he did good things. Perhaps you were not around when he did to this country what he did as Persident. Certainly you are around as he continues to break tradition and propriety and stand in the public square misleading people about himself and bad mouthing this country.
Carter badly led this country during the 3 Mile Island event. His weakness and vascilation over the events of TMI allowed the anti-nuke extremists to fester and to wreck our national energy policy. We have paid aa terrible price in dollars as well as pollution.
His weakness and short-sightedness put Nicragua into the hands, for awhile, of communist tyrants. His weakness encouraged communists to assasinate the King of Ethiopia, triggering massive waves of killing and famine. His weakness encouraged the USSR to invade Afghanistan. His short sightedness betrayed the Shah, who served our interests pretty well and was in fact permitting progress in Iran and allowed a cruel theocracy dedicated to terrorism and war to enslave the Iranian people. Carter's weakness gave castro the temerity to empty his prisons and send the freed criminals to the US.
Carter's inability to lead meany that even though the dems had large majorities in both Houses of Congress, he could pass nearly 0 important legislation. He weakened the Dept. of Defense in the face of increased Soviet threats.
He blamed the American people for the problems of the day.
he still misrepresents his engineering degree from the Naval Academy, claiming falsely he is a 'nuclear scientist'.
Except for the peace treaty he arranged between Egypt and Israel, he did nothing in the ME to help protect American interests or to lessen the influence of extremists.
Today he ignores the deliberate policy of the regional powers to incite their poeple to hate Jews tot he point of desiring genocide and promoting old and flase slanders about jewish people, yet blames the smallest country in the region, Israel, for the problems of the region.
Your strange pose of excess deference to former President Carter is clearly not called for.
His pathetic attempt to divert the eye of history from a close look at his profound failures deserves no compassion from anyone who is familiar with his record.
Try as I might to be respectful of your postings as those of a thoughtful person, I am compelled to respond to your inane postings with a little anecdotal refresher. Although I am not over 40, I have profound and vivid memories of "life" under President Carter's regime (I use the term regime intentionally, since President Carter continues to "validate" Hugo Chavez's rule). I grew up as a Navy dependent, my father was an enlisted man in the US Navy. We didn't live, but subsisted. Our family existed hand to mouth, because President Carter (like me, a Naval Academy graduate, who should have known better than anyone else) gutted the military to a mere shell. Pay raises didn't exist. Military families couldn't even begin to dream about home ownership, because interest rates were above 20% (can imagine the ado if interest rates were double digits today?).
The real legacy of the Israeli/Egyptian "Peace" is that now the idea of Israel ceding territory in order to achieve some semblance of existence is now always on the table. Egypt got its foothold across the Suez back (the Sinai peninsula). Arms and fighters move back and forth with little or no obstruction between the Egyptian and Gaza borders.
The last thing was that your precious Saint Jimmy never made the acceptance of a viable Israeli state a part of the equation. Jimmy Carter was, and is and unmitigated failure as a President, and now as a Nobel laureate. The sad thing is that his body of work with Habitat for Humanity and others would have strengthened his legacy. Unfortunately his coddling of dictators and his complete hatred for all things Israel make him the sad example of political leadership, he is today.
"We make war that we may live in peace."
--Aristotle--
One further thing...I realize now that Michael Moore has met with Mr. Carter before. They evidently met at the 2004 Democratic Convention. So in the interests of integrity I wanted to note that. But so what? I certainly haven't seen Mr. Carter as a Michael Moore "acolyte". I suppose Michael Moore has been completely demonized so mentioning them together in the same sentence serves as a rhetorical device.
Carter and Moore did more than "evidently" meet. Moore was personally invited to sit with Carter in his personal box. If you lay down with dogs, you will tend to get fleas. Especially if the dog in question is a shameless, self-promoting, hypocritical America-hating socialist.
Cheers,
Scott in Indy
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
What a terrible president, Carter was. But all this about the map in his book and such is a tempest in a teacup.
official?
26 years ago! He hasn't held office in 26 years!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The level of vitriol in this diary is astounding.
I realize that President Carter holds a special place in the hearts of many Redstaters.
But some of you are going beyond the pale in your condemnations of him.
While I personally think he was a mediocre to poor President, he was not the cause of all the evils of the world from 1976 to 1981.
You guys still haven't shown anything that supports your claim that President Carter is an anti-semite.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
... on equivalent lefty sites if a similar dynamic ever exists in reverse - that is, a former Republican President goes to the lenghts and depths to which James Earl has gone since September 2001 in sandbagging the foreign and domestic policies a current Democrat President in real time.
I doubt said meter will read anything short of "nuclear meltdown hot".
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Like I said, I understand the general hatred you guys feel for him.
But it seems like any and all attacks on him are acceptable.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
At least, not from me. But more of a refutation of Former President Carter's lack of decorum, tact and protocol, in light of his disatrous term. His criticisms of the current President are hypocritical, and based on his opinion, more than naked fact.
I'm reminded of the Confuscious (sp) platitude of the man who lives in a glass house, refraining from the practice of rock throwing.
Former Presidents Nixon and Ford both pretty much kept their pie-holes closed, even though FP Carter was severely gumming things up. Reagan was a gentleman and statesman toward his predeccesors. Sadly, Democrat FPs can't, or won't, show the same decorum.
not everything that comes out of a box of cereal works, although the Gene Autry glow-in- the- dark compass was pretty cool.
It's possible that we have learned one thing from President Carter, try as he might to guide a nation lacking his wisddom.
Following his example we may have concluded that if he can say anything he wants about our country, the current president, our foreign policy, and it is all acceptable[ your word], we can follow suite.
You must not confuse hate, the liberals favorite word despite their tolerance and magnaminity, with scorn or disgust. Explore the differnce in meaning and be wiser for the effort.
Yours in benign exchanges, johnt.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
It's lamentable that you excuse palpable lies from the Bush administration, yet yout stoop to nitpicking a statement by Carter that is essentially accurate. Read what Stein himself stated in his email published on Powerline:
Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow.
...Tain't our fault that the Carter Center's own records contradict Carter's altogether-too-definitive statement "He hasn't been associated with the Carter Center for 13 years." Doubly tain't our fault that you guys could never make the Bush-lied meme stick long enough to win in '04. But it's sweet that you came running in here to defend Carter. Just like an avenging angel!
[6:39 AM - On reflection, this next bit was a little too over-the-top; no coffee yet, you see. Just ban the twerps and be done with it. - Moe Lane]
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
will get nailed on this in a public forum, reported by the LATimes or NYT?
Me either.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?