DON'T Scrape It!
From the 'Peanut' GalleryBy James Wigderson
Former President Jimmy Carter made the news recently when he criticized the current president in rather harsh terms. "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."
Carter was immediately praised by some on the political left for his "candor." After all, they love that whole "speak truth to power" nonsense.
The good news for my friends on the left is that President Carter only served one term in office as president. That’s right. He can run again.
After all, if he isn’t going to respect the tradition that ex-presidents should say nothing about his successors, then let’s get him back into the political arena.
The political left would love it. Remember the windfall profit tax on oil? Heck, Gov. Jim Doyle is so nostalgic for it he’s trying something similar in Wisconsin.
Carter had something for everyone on the left. The sweaters he wore when he was promoting energy conservation. We had gasoline shortages with lines around the block. Scientists were even warning about a coming ice age. It was a mass transit and anti-global warming heaven.
And don’t forget that great foreign policy. In Central America, he gave the Panama Canal away to a dictator. Carter lost Nicaragua to the Communists and almost lost El Salvador.
Communism also advanced in Africa with Cuban troops in Angola and Mozambique. Ethiopia became a Soviet client state and descended into the chaos that would become the worst famine in the 1980s.
In Asia, Cambodia became the "killing fields." Even Sen. George McGovern wanted to intervene. Carter almost destabilized the Korean peninsula and he weakened our commitment to Taiwan.
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The United States retaliated by canceling wheat sales and keeping our athletes home from the Moscow Olympics in 1980.
Of course, who will forget the fall of the Shah of Iran, the seizure of our embassy in Teheran, and Carter’s incompetent handling of the hostage crisis including the inept rescue attempt. These are failures that still haunt us today in the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, the economy under Carter was just as memorable. We had double-digit inflation and unemployment. Until Carter took office, economists believed that combination was nearly impossible.
So to my friends on the political left who swoon every time the man from Plains, Ga., speaks, I say, "Go for it!" Run him for president. He’s the real deal.
He even unpatriotically accepted the Nobel Peace Prize when it was given to him as a symbolic criticism of his country’s foreign policy. What more could you ask?
Because when it comes to being the worst president ever, Jimmy Carter is an expert.
http://www.gmtoday.com/milwaukeetoday/editorials/wigderson/wigderson_05242007.asp
posted by VerityINK at 11:53 AM
Information:
18 Comments:
I can think of some "necessary" uses of this particular bucket. Jimmah wouldn't mind, he's a sewer rat anyway!
Morgan
Well, I'm not sure now. A recently released intelligence report indicates that Bush was briefed in 2003, before the war, what would happen in Iraq. He chose to ignore the intel, and sadly, EVERYTHING that is happening now, was predicted and reported to the President. He chose to believe Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and the rest of the crew. I think that puts "Worst President Ever" in a new light. A new pardigm.
Can we fill up the barrel with pickles...or pickled peanuts?
ANON.--Not at all. that only tells me President Bush knew the war would be a difficult one. That sounds like a leader who is realistic and practical--not fuffernutter Edwards who simpers 'the war on terror is just a bumpersticker'...
Ooooooh anon you seem to have it figured out. Bush lied, kids died, and he did it so he and Cheney and Wolfy and Perle and Rumsfeld could steal Iraqi oil. They didn't invite Condi because she's a black chick who wasn't putting out. I guess I'll just have to wake up earlier to sneak one past sharpies like you!
Morgan
I'm not sure what you guys read but no one said Bush lied, what the article in the Times says is tha Bush ignored the intel. Big difference. Yes, he was told the war would be difficult and even exactly what would happen. Did he then make contingency plans based on the intel? No. Did he then tell people it would be difficult? No, he and his lackies said it would be a cake walk.
And Morgan, nice sentiments you have there. No one said that on this post. Just what are you thinking? Is that the current Republican canard?
No anon that's not the "current Republican canard", it's the quality of the crap that's coming from the left. Also try not to LIE about the words of the President, people at this blog are practiced at sniffing out nuts like you.
You wrote: "Did he tell people it would be difficult? No, he and his lackies said it would be a cake walk."
That's an abject lie! The President said early on that this would be a "long and difficult fight." Since it was on TV I'm guessing that I wasn't the only American who saw it? Damn it must be tough to be a leftist liar in the age of recording devices. If I was a psychologist I would worry that you were delusional or maybe a member of a cult due to the horsesh-t that you adhere to!
But I'm just a regular guy who is sick to death of lying leftist schmucks like yourself who will say or do ANYTHING to hurt our country! So I don't care what your problem is, I'm determined to defeat your lying ass. That's the actual purpose of DONAL's brilliant blog!
Morgan
And tell me about this lying crap.
"It will be a cake walk"
- Dick Cheney
"I think we will be greeted as liberators"
- Dick Cheney
That was on TEEVEE also! I am sick of your lying crap also! Just because you dream it doesnt make it so. And I am sick of lying delusional people like you who are a threat to the American constitution and our way of life. When will you open your eyes? When it is just you and Barney that still supports this moron?
Hey Anon,
Here is the link.
Jingo, care to comment on this?
A few highlights (or lowlights)
- "Iraq would be unlikely to split apart, but a post-Saddam authority would face a deeply divided society with a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so,”
The assessment suggested that an Iraq war could strengthen Iran, where “some elements” could seek to “sow dissent against the U.S. presence and complicate the formation of a new, pro-U.S. Iraqi government.”
Pretty damning stuff.
I think this is what anon is referring to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/washington/26intel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
No Les, anon lied and I caught him at it. If he was a better man he would fess up AND he would print the full quote from Dich Cheney so I could examine it in context.
Your link tells me nothing earth shattering except that from the start there were people covering their own backsides "just in case." Boy oh boy isn't that gutsy for bureaucrats to do! LOL!
Fighting these head chopping barbarians is one of the FEW things this President does well and you lefties have behaved miserably in that regard by undermining our wartime commander-in-chief! Your type learned well from Hiss.
In the final analysis we are still stuck with anon's lie: "Did he tell people that it would be difficult? No. He and his lackies said it would be a cakewalk."
I didn't include the out of context Cheney quote as a lie because I'm hoping anon comes through with some context. It's tough to proceed here with a whopper of a lie hanging over us...
Morgan
Morgan's right; that's EXACTLY the purpose of my blog--he's right on the money.
Come on, guys--Les, Anon. (whose posts piggyback each other, still). It's awfully dim not to understand the nature of war--only a fool would believe it would be easy. And only a bigger fool wouldn't believe that a nations' leader would, sometimes, in a pep talk, paint it better than that in order to keep up the nation's morale.
Grow up, fellas and stop niggling over every sentence fragment you find. You ignore the sentences where the war was said to be difficult, and you over-emphasize the ones where it was painted as a noble endeavor and pep-talked up.
When I search for a rationale that weighs one sentence more heavily from the same author than the other, I find only Bush Derangement Syndrome that has made the difference. Thus, you're only playing a tired, empty game of 'Gothcha'--go find something better to do.
DONAL arguing with the demented left can be fun! It's kinda like taping over holes in a screen.
Morgan
Morgan--yes, but sometimes there's enough flies in the house!
Hey Morgan,
You hanging on Anons statement is like Walnuts McCain discounting Obama because he used the alternative spelling of flak (look it up). If that is all you have to hang your hat on, well, good luck to you. How about this:
"Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.}
Basically, the White House managed to reject what intelligence agencies got right and embrace what the agencies got wrong. How exquisitely true to form.
All of this is coming out now because Senator Roberts was carrying Bushs water for him during the 04 election and beyond. And if you continue to hang your hat on Bush saying it is going to be hard, how about hanging your hat on the declaration that after Saddams sons were killed that the violence would abate. Or every other corner we "turned". I think you arent seeing the forest for the trees.
These guys have no credibility left. None, zippo. People laugh at Cheney now. He is a walking joke. The going line in DC is do the opposite of what Cheney says and it will be successful.
And here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052501380.html?hpid=topnews
And here is the absolute worst part:
"In addition to portraying a terrorist nexus between Iraq and al-Qaeda that did not exist, the Bush administration "also kept from the American people . . . the sobering intelligence assessments it received at the time" -- that an Iraq war could allow al-Qaeda "to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at Americans it did not have prior to the invasion."
I am speechless at the incompetence and arrogance of Bush and his cronies.
LES-- Are trying to manufacture reasons to be 'speechless at the incompetence and arrogance of Bush and his cronies'. It's just a pose...
First, you blame Bush for having inaccurate intelligence about 9/11 and the war, so you blame them on him when he listens to them.
Then, you say THIS intelligence WAS accurate--and you blame Bush for NOT listening to it!
You Lefties have a position to blame Bush for anything--either side--on a moments' notice. It's all a carefully orchestrated game of 'Gotcha'--so that you blame Bush NO MATTER WHICH POSITION HE TAKES.
It's ridiculous--and it's becoming a little overly obvious.
Donal,
Again your analysis is spot on. You are absolutely correct. I blame Bush for ignoring good intel and listening to the intel he wanted to so as to support his adventure.
So yes, you are absolutely correct. And finally we will be getting that report that Senator Roberts has repressed about how Bush and the neocons abused the intelligence.
LES--I was only 'absolutely right' in the accuracy I used in quoting YOU. I also said--and feel free to consider this my dominant point--that your conceptualization of the thing is absolutely INCORRECT and displays muddle-headed thinking.
You seem to be entirely unaware of your contradictory positions--even within the same paragraph or post!
Post a Comment
<< Home