« Doesn't anyone read Snopes? | Main | Dumb Criminal roundup »

Yet another reason to despise the Carter administration...

I've been moderately aware of politics for about 30 years. I recall bits and pieces of the 1976 presidential race (I was barely 9 on election day), but I recall being happy for Jimmy Carter. He seemed so different from President Ford, who struck me as a real non-entity. And I recall things getting worse and worse over the next four years, until I cheerfully sung along with the novelty protest song, "How long? (Can this world last?)" "President Carter / Get back to your peanut farm / President Carter / Get back to where you belong"

It took a long time and a lot of hard work to undo the damage Carter (who was incredibly sincere and well-meaning as he sent the country straight down the crapper) inflicted. I recall the "triple doubles," with double-digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. But the single worst thing he did, the single act (or, more correctly, inaction) that caused the worst harm, had to be his handling of the Iranian situation.

First, he abandoned the Shah. He saw Khomeini as "a man of God" with whom he could deal. He allowed a long-time US ally get overthrown, in the hopes of bringing about a more "just" government. And then he allowed Iran to overrun and take the United States Embassy in Teheran, taking Americans hostage.

Under international law, an embassy is considered sovereign territory of the nation it represents. An attack on an embassy IS an attack on the soil of the owner's nation, and constitutes an act of war. Carter refused to treat this as such, and his timidity in the face of this affront did great damage to the reputation of the United States, the second greatest blow to the United States' prestige since our emergence as a superpower after World War II.

In many ways, we are still dealing with the consequences of that decision (or indecision) of Carter's. It took 1990 and the first Gulf War to show that the United States was not only able, but willing to fight -- and was quite capable of crushing an enemy. And even then, it didn't work thoroughly -- it led to Al Qaeda's repeated attacks on America (the first World Trade Center attack, the Khobar Towers attack, the African embassies attack, the Cole bombing, and finally 9/11), and it took our almost-casual destruction of the Taliban and Hussein's governments to remind the world that the United States was, indeed, a force to be reckoned with.

But back to my original point: attacks on embassies are attacks on sovereign nations, and de facto acts of war. But the value of that was cheapened by Carter's refusal to respond forcefully to Iran's assault on our territory. And now, the Islamic rioters are going after embassies, burning them. But these acts of war are not being treated as such -- and I can't help but think that the precedent set by Iran back in 1979 is a factor.

Ever since I first heard about Jimmy Carter, back in 1976, I had the impression that he was a decent, honest, honorable man. Almost 30 years later, I still feel that way. But there's an old aphorism about good intentions, and Mr. Carter's honorable intentions nearly did send this country to hell.

Go back to the peanut farm, Mr. Carter. Or to building houses for poor people. You simply aren't competent to deal with international politics. You weren't back in 1976, and you apparently haven't learned a damned thing since.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Yet another reason to despise the Carter administration...:

» Basil's Blog linked with Picnic 2006-02-07

» PA Pundits linked with Back To The Peanut Farm With You

Comments (51)

All you said about Carter a... (Below threshold)
Charles Bannerman:

All you said about Carter and his administration is spot on. What you said about him as a person is dead wrong. Carter is a mean, vindictive, two faced, back stabbing, lying, mealy mouthed, stupid son of a bitch.
Carter talks about taking the moral high road while he swims around in slime with despots around the world and takes pot shots at the country that rejected his "leadership". He should be tried for sedition.
Chuck

They way he will defend sus... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

They way he will defend suspect elections of people like Hugo Chavez and then attack elections results in Florida, I have doubts of his good intentions. He works too hard against the US. During his presidency, you could say it was blatent incompetance. But his recent actions have gone way over the top. I think age has taken away his ability to simply play the fool and hide hide true feelings. I suspect he always wanted the US to have a continuously diminished roll in the World. All his actions, the deterioration of the military, "we can never beat Communism", support for pro-socialist dictators, and his inaction (except when his re-election was threatened) against Iran can all be easily explained as conscious or at least sub-conscious sabotage. [My only guess is perhaps because we were a stumbling block to the march of socialism.]

The reason I say this is that is its such a long list and to my knowledge he's unapologetic about any of it. You have to be a fool of Cindy Sheehan like proportions to be that way. And even she is impaired by hate on top of that. I have my doubts about anyone who can make a run for Presidency being that completely idiotic.

Great points. That administ... (Below threshold)

Great points. That administration was the low point in the last 50 years imho. Horrible policies AND no charisma. At least Klinton had the latter! ;-)

Well, that precident and th... (Below threshold)

Well, that precident and the fact that there's sod-all that Denmark can really do about it.

Chuck's comments are right ... (Below threshold)
Redhand:

Chuck's comments are right on target. Carter was one of this country's most inept and cowardly presidents, and he has just gotten worse with age. I place him a cut above Ramsey Clark on the crazed left-wing moonbat scale, but not by much. Jimmah's tendency to find "free elections" when left wing despots seize power surely has something to do with his bitterness over his 1980 loss. His obnoxious meddling in US foreign policy is outrageous. He should STFU and let our elected leaders call the shots.

Chuck is dead on right. Car... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Chuck is dead on right. Carter is one nasty person and was the worst president in my memory (I am pushing 60 hard). For more info on this read "The Real Jimmy Carter" by Stephen F. Hayward. We are today still reaping the consequences of that disastrous four years. At least the American people had enough sense to unload that loser and elect Reagan.

P.J. O'Rourke once did a co... (Below threshold)

P.J. O'Rourke once did a commentary comparing the Clinton and Carter presidencies - he did point out that Carter gave us one precious gift that Clinton never could -

- Ronald Reagan.

I was a card-carrying Democ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

I was a card-carrying Democrat and campaigned for the President Carter when he first ran against President Ford. It pains me to say that the comments here are 100% and barely scratch the surface.

Carter was the worst President I have ever seen and the worst ex-President ever. God save our Republic from idiots like him.

Little while after Carter l... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Little while after Carter lost to Reagan, I saw Mrs. Carter on some talk show. Very sympathetic interviewer asked something about the hostages coming back and she- very angrily- said that "Anyone could have theatened and dropped bombs, but WE didn't do that". Was very proud of it. It struck me then and still does that she- and apparently Jimmy- seemed to think that almost anything was better than the effective use of force.

Which would explain a lot about his Presidency, and his actions since.

I assume all the anti- Cart... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I assume all the anti- Carter commenters here are talking about same the same Ronald Reagan who said over and over again "He would never negotiate with hostage takers" or do you mean the Ronald Reagan of the possible but credible October Surprise given weight by the subsequently proved Iran Contra affair...I assume you mean the former, since it so much easier to deal in hypothetical and abstract situations.

I, too, was relatively youn... (Below threshold)

I, too, was relatively young during Carter's administration but I remember the end of a song we used to sing:

'cuz Jimmuh Carter has a way
of messing up the U-S-A
(to the tune of the old Oscar Mayer jingle)

The worst was foreign polic... (Below threshold)
robert:

The worst was foreign policy in general, not just the Iranian situation. The Soviets soon learned that they had a free hand and that the wimp Carter would not oppose them (except to keep our Olympians on the bench).

The problems Reagan faced up to in Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, Afganistan, India-Pakistan, and numerous African countries - were all a direct result of a wimp as President. Even the Egypt-Israel accords were a result more of the principals, Sadat and Begin. Carter just sent money, but this was his one big deal.

Almost forgotten now are the mandatory 55mph speed limits and 65% max temps in office buildings. Gone too are the long gas lines, Reagan fixed that in less than 90 days by eliminating price controls.

As some celebrate Carter's Nobel prize and his election monitoring, they forget about the worst economy since the Depression, and the worst Foreign Policy period ever.

Wimp lib Carter and wimp lib congress raised marginal tax rates to above 70% so that investments were all going to tax shelters instead of real business (Reagan fixed that too). But the damage was done - too many office buildings crashed that market and led to a later expensive bailout of the S&Ls. 21% interest rates on credit cards, 10% unemployment, 12% inflation - good grief, it does not get much worse.

As the US was sinking in world standing and in so many other ways, all Carter could think of was "get used to it".

Sorry to <a href="http://wi... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Sorry to burst your bubble, Steve, but perhaps one shouldn't be so bubble-headed when posting.

J.

Don't forget this little <a... (Below threshold)

Don't forget this little gem from Dhimmi.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
[email protected]

I disagree that Carter is n... (Below threshold)
Jim in Cleveland:

I disagree that Carter is nasty, but I have always found him to be one of the most arrogant men I have ever seen. A self-proclaimed born again Christian, he has the audacity to criticize President Bush's public displays of faith. Having screwed up foreign policy regarding Iran and the USSR while president, he has the arrogance to go into North Korea while a civilian and screw that situation up. AND THEN he actually gave a DNC convention speech in 2004 that ripped on Bush for how he handled North Korea! And the libs call Bush arrogant!!!

I was a newlywed, just grad... (Below threshold)
Razorgirl:

I was a newlywed, just graduated from college. I remember casting my vote for Mr. Carter. He seemed so pure and refreshing at the time. But what had seemed pure and refreshing turned out to be ignorance and naivety. I also remember casting my vote for Ronald Reagan in the next election. I was actually embarassed by what our country had become in four years time.

And what is it about former presidents? "Help! I'm talking and I can't shut up." Former presidents should be seen and not heard. You had your chance. Now retire gracefully. Maybe we could reduce the national debt by creating an ex-presidential "Blab tax."

Let's not forget that Mr. C... (Below threshold)
Gail:

Let's not forget that Mr. Carter thought it was appropriate to give back the Panama Canal, which was then "managed" by the Chinese within 6 months. Gee, couldn't see that one coming.
I disagree with Jim in Clevlenad that he isn't nasty. He is bile personified. And not for the altruistic ideals but because he was snubbed by the American people and his ego never got over it.
I hear the Habitat for Humanity people get volunteers and donations so they can make a show of giving these homes, all the while having unpayable mortgages, which then become the property of the banks, which makes evil capitalist money on their resale.
Jimmy in Georgia wants us all to buy Iran a coke and give it a hug, and torch a Danish embassy to show we care.

I would like to see a simil... (Below threshold)
jp2:

I would like to see a similar post against Hollywood Ronnie, who funded terrorists responsible for 9/11. We are dealing with his mistakes every day.

Do you despise him? Is he mean? Vile? A son of a bitch?

Naw.

Carter did everything possi... (Below threshold)
Jake:

Carter did everything possible to make sure that the Islamic fascists took over Iran. His action destabilized the Middle East and made heroes of the Islamic fascists.

Carter's action was the match that created the conflagration of Islamic fascism we see today. Carter is truly the Father of Islamic Terrorism.

Hmmmm.Oh joy.... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

Oh joy.

Jack Carter, son of Jimmy Carter, is now entering politics.

I can just hear my father, a lifelong Democrat as is the rest of my family, beating his head against a wall.

Jay, when you say you belie... (Below threshold)
Levans:

Jay, when you say you believe Carter has "good intentions" I assume you only mean he intends his own good, right? Exactly what "good intentions" other than purely selfish ones can motivate his sucking-up to terrorists and dictators and his determination to seek international acclaim by undercutting American policy and interests? I guess he thinks he's full of good works by helping to provide housing for poor Americans, so aiding and abetting human monsters is a mere peccadillo.

I disagree that Carter i... (Below threshold)

I disagree that Carter is nasty, but I have always found him to be one of the most arrogant men I have ever seen. A self-proclaimed born again Christian...

In my opinion, Jimmy Carter just can't stand it that no matter how many houses he builds, he'll always be only the world's second most famous carpenter with the initials "J.C."

Oh, and jp2,

I would like to see a similar post against Hollywood Ronnie, who funded terrorists responsible for 9/11.

Why don't you write it, instead of trying to tell other people what to write on their own blogs?

JP2:Good to see you ... (Below threshold)
Charles Bannerman:

JP2:
Good to see you are still around.
Don't let this grandfatherly, slow talking, smiling, gray haired old man fool you. He is as mean as a snake and will steal the color out of your eyes.
Jimmy Carter is evil personified.
Chuck

Carter! what an asshole! th... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Carter! what an asshole! there is nothing more insufferable than an arrogant self righteous fool.
If he had any sense of decency he would disappear from the public sight.
This prick and the democrats are directly responsible for the Muslim headache we have now. Stupid bastard should destroyed Iran after the hostage taking, an act of war if ever there was one. That would have put an end to the Muslim nonsense.

But nooooo, now he has set the bar so high that even 9/11 isn't enough to convince the leftist scum that this an act of war.
Was/is Carter a sleeper Soviet Agent? It's hard to believe that a genuine sleeper could have done any worse.

"...there is nothing more i... (Below threshold)
tom:

"...there is nothing more insufferable than an arrogant self righteous fool. If he had any sense of decency he would disappear from the public sight."
Posted by cubanbob

Cubanbob:

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were describing George Bush...talk about an insufferable fool.

You're right about Carter a... (Below threshold)

You're right about Carter and the Shah. I liken it to the current administration's abandonment of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a long time American ally, he kept his people in line, and he kept the oil flowing. By turning our backs on Saddam, we have likely created an Iraq-Iran Shiite superstate which will threaten us until the end of time.

Well, I just think if we ar... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Well, I just think if we are going to address problems regarding terrorism and their relations to US Presidents, I think a President who funded terrorists should be noted. And that would be President Ronald Reagan - he helped give us (so far) 30 years of terrorism. But he was a Republican, so it doesn't matter.

Mcgee: Much better writers have blogged about Reagan's ties with terrorists. Try Juan Cole's history.

Odd, I recall hearing from ... (Below threshold)

Odd, I recall hearing from Zbig Brzezinski taking credit for helping the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan...

which admin did he work in?

jp2 seems to forget that RR... (Below threshold)
Pete:

jp2 seems to forget that RR's support of terrorists was a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.


On the one hand, you have these fanatics running amok (Carter thought he could deal with the Ayatollah since the Ol' Ko was a "man of religion" -- proof that Carter's perseption of people, politics and religion was[is]dead wrong).

These fanatics had a handful of rocks and arsenals filled with delapitated Soviet castaways.

On the other hand, you had the Soviets.

Given the time, the conditions and the fact that conflagaration is at the push of a button, I'd give ol' Ronnie some slack.

The man spearheaded the defeat of the Soviet Union.

Carter spearheaded the rise of islamofacism.

... just a thought.

I liken it to the ... (Below threshold)
Mark A. Flacy:
I liken it to the current administration's abandonment of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a long time American ally, he kept his people in line, and he kept the oil flowing.

Have you been in a drug-induced haze for the past 15 years?

Yes, it is true that Reagan... (Below threshold)
robert:

Yes, it is true that Reagan helped in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

The Soviet invasion was however, all but invited during the Carter years through his lack of response to Soviet expansion all over the place. The Soviets knew he was soft and took advantage.

"Probe with bayonets, where you encounter steel withdraw, where you find mush, proceed". (Joe Stalin).

I was the GM of a US Olympic team. I watched them train for five hours a day, every day, for more than ten years for their one shot at the Olympics. Carter robbed them of this as his feeble response to the invasion of Afghanistan. This was not only feeble, but futile.

Reagan did arm the resistance with RPGs and other aid in a continuation of the Cold War. At the time, Afghanistan was similar to Berlin, Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ethiopia, Vietnam and many other places. Reagan fought, Carter did not.

Reagan rebuilt the military, placed missiles in Europe, started missile intercept, made the wall speech, funded the contras, and fought them every way possible, everywhere possible.

And, oh by the way, won the Cold War.

lolHe had no other... (Below threshold)
jp2:

lol

He had no other choice - Reagan HAD to fund bin Laden. Considering what he did to this country, that salt and pepper outlook is pretty dangerous.


JP2But it is salt ... (Below threshold)
robert:

JP2

But it is salt and pepper - almost black and white. Most historians already place Reagan with the great Presidents and Carter way down the list.

The differece will be greater 100 years from now.

What Reagan did to this country? He inherited double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates. He lowered marginal rates from 70+ to 38 and changed the Fed from managing unemployment to managing interest rates and the money supply, resulting in economic boom.

Since the Reagan revolution, the US has experienced the two longest economic booms in our history and only had two mild recessions.

When you think of Carter, think of twenty percent interest rates and 10% unemployment. When you think of Reagan, think of 7% interest rates and 5% unemployemnt. (approx. as they left office).

It is fairly clear who did what to our country.

Hmmmm.Try... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

Try Juan Cole's history.

**LAUGH**

What does that have to do w... (Below threshold)
jp2:

What does that have to do with Reagan supporting terrorism? I think he did a lot of great things, but funding and training terrorists (including bin Laden) would not be at the top of my list.

And sorry, just because you say it's a black and white issue doesn't mean it is. I know it's easier for some to digest, but really, it's rarely the case.

Reagan won 49 States in a l... (Below threshold)
robert:

Reagan won 49 States in a landslide that was historic.

I'm not the one who says black and white, the american people said so.

"you could look it up" (CS).

The American people said it... (Below threshold)
jp2:

The American people said it was okay to fund bin Laden? Please show data. Last I saw, most people here were concerned about him living. (I have to say most because of W)

And I can understand why you don't like Professor Cole. Why get your info from a Middle East scholar when you can get it from a guy named Jay "The Jizzer" Tea? Clearly the conservative cause doesn't need help with their mid-East policy. Spot on!

jp, maybe you missed my poi... (Below threshold)
Pete:

jp, maybe you missed my point.

Regean: mujahadeen = bad; BUT, mujahadeen fight Soviet bear. Good.

Soviet bear have big boom-boom, mujahadeen have little boom-boom, need bit bigger boom-boom to fight bear with big boom-boom.

Lesser of two evils. not good in the long run, but the short run helped ease the pressure from big boom-boom.

Carter though the the Ayatolloh could find Jesus and be dealt with. Carter = dumb ass who, via his devote ignorance, couldn't see how his impotence assited in the pussification of the West with regards to Islam.

Don't blame Ronnie for terrorists; and for the record, he didn't fund OBL, directly. Reagan funded the mujahadeen .. OBL was part of that, but what made that rat bastard so popular, is that he brought his daddy's construction money along for the ride. This assisted in giving OBL a "savior-like" quality which lead to ...

oh, buy you know everything there is to know about the roots of terrorism. I'm boring you.

Apologies.

It seems that today Jimmy h... (Below threshold)
Mike:

It seems that today Jimmy has once again shown what a total no class asshole he really is in his remarks at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. This man just can't help himself. He is a total jerk who thinks he is superior to everyone else.

I owe Jimmy Carter a lot. ... (Below threshold)
Denny Crane:

I owe Jimmy Carter a lot. Seriously!

I was 16 when he was elected, and 20 when he was ousted. During those years, I lucked into a job as a commercial fisherman in Alaska. When I was 17, 18, 19, 20, I was earning about $50,000 per summer as a "self-employed" crewmember, and no taxes were withheld from my settlement checks. So, imagine how I felt when that first April 15 rolled around, and this 18-year-old was facing a Jimmy Carter tax bill that exceeds what many college graduates earn in their entry-level jobs today. I could have bought a Corvette with that first check I wrote to Carter's IRS! Seriously--and that's tough for an 18-year-old to swallow!

So why do I owe him? Career guidance. I immediately became Republican and I enrolled in college and majored in political science and economics, with a heavy emphasis in public finance and expenditure. Then I went to law school and took every tax law course offered.

By the time Reagan gutted the tax code in 1986, I was burned out on tax issues and switched to litigation instead. But without Carter's idiocy at play, I might never have gone to college.

Carter: Worst. President. Ever!

Carter is a loser. Always ... (Below threshold)
audrey:

Carter is a loser. Always has been. Always will be.
His behavior today proves it.

JP2There you go ag... (Below threshold)
robert:

JP2

There you go again. These child-like taunts of Reagan supported OBL, Reagan supported OBL... This just announces your lack of understanding of geopolitics and history.

Pete has got it right, in child-like terms that even the occasional idiot could understand.

Sometimes it is necessary to do a deal with the devil:

In the spring of 1941, England faced her toughest challenge. Europe had fallen, America was neutral and England was hanging by a thread in the Battle of Britain. Not one military officer in twenty would give England a chance in hell against the vastly superior German forces. After the military had been so depleted by Chamberlain, it was not a question of if England would fall; it was a question of when.

As luck would have it, it was Churchill by then, not Chamberlain. Churchill enlisted FDR and switched Stalin out of a non-aggression pact with Hitler and into an alliance with the West, America supporting.

A deal with the devil without doubt, but it saved the world.

Little known and long forgotten, in May of 1941, Rudolf Hess, then #3 in Nazi Germany, flew to Scotland with a peace proposal. Germany would stop the fight in England and withdraw from France, Holland and Belgium. In exchange, England and the US would not interfere with Germany's invasion of Russia, nor provide support.

There you have it, a deal with Stalin or a deal with Hitler - a choice of bad company. Had it been Chamberlain (or Carter) there is no doubt that the easy way would have been the choice, "Peace in our time", and screw the cost. It had to be tempting, England was almost gone.

So we did a deal with Joe Stalin, an evil to which OBL can only aspire. It did save the world however and we spent the next 40 years fighting the Soviets. But, Hitler was the greater evil then.

"FDR supported Stalin, FDR supported Stalin, FDR supported Stalin". (Enter Amy Carter, 6, skipping rope).

It is interesting that all American Presidents from Truman on fought the cold war, save Carter. JFK was an absolute stalwart lest you think this is a party thing. Carter folded.

So then it comes around that to fight the Soviets - then a greater threat - we support the resistance of which OBL was a small part.

History is replete with examples of this: Nixon's detente' with China to hold off Soviet Russia is another example. History is also replete with bad men like Hitler, Stalin and OBL and - thank God - men of steel like Churchill, FDR, JFK and Reagan.

Whenever we have peacenik Wimps (note the capital) like Chamberlain and Carter, the bad guys get stronger and bolder; the result is more wars not less.

In case you haven't noticed, you have lost this argument...badly. So stop with these silly Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan chants of yours and go find me a Democrat with balls, there are so very few left.

"There you go again. These ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"There you go again. These child-like taunts of Reagan supported OBL, Reagan supported OBL... This just announces your lack of understanding of geopolitics and history."

So here you are saying that Reagan didn't support bin Laden, and being mildly insulting. However, two thoughts later:

"we support the resistance of which OBL was a small part."

Are you sure I'm the one having trouble understanding the issue? You don't even understand yourself.

There is just no denying that the current problem of terrorism is due in a large part to Reagan funding and training Islamic fundamentalists, one of which was bin Laden who planned the greatest attack ever on American soil.

There is really no way to spin from it, no matter whose name you mention - Carter, Hitler, whoever.

"Living is easy with eyes closed"

Very timely post.... (Below threshold)

Very timely post.

"Living is easy with eyes c... (Below threshold)
Pete:

"Living is easy with eyes closed"

Ok - I'll ask one question, and leave it (and my poor typing skills) behind:

Consider an active enemy of the United States: a behemoth of an empire, possessing missles tipped with warheads that could level hundreds of cities within 30 minutes, versus a splinter group of Wahbiist nut-jobs who's strongest blow to date, while a grotesque number on its own, but small in a relativism kinda' way, obliterated 3,000 people?

On the one hand, millions dead; entire landscapes, regions, countries, decimated - unlivable - for centuries. Worst case: end of civilization; christian, jew, bhuddist, muslim, voo doo, monkey worshipping - the whole shabang - cripsy.

On the other, a considerably smaller pile of dead. Worst case, tyrannical, opressive rule; but hope for relief.

Either way, we're gonna' have to fight a perverted, totalitarian vision which is going to create piles of bodies.

Millions .. vs. thousands.

Which pile is going to help you sleep better at night?

Reagan supported OBL, yes - directly, and personally. In the same exact way that your donations to the Christians Childrens Fund go directly and personally to that little girl on the brochure.

"...there is nothing mo... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

"...there is nothing more insufferable than an arrogant self righteous fool. If he had any sense of decency he would disappear from the public sight."
Posted by cubanbob

Cubanbob:

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were describing George Bush...talk about an insufferable fool."

Posted by: tom at February 7, 2006 12:59 PM


Obviously you don't know better. Must have voted for those other insufferable fools, Clinton, Gore and "Christmas in Cambodia and looking for Col. Kurtz up the Nung River" Kerry a/k/a The Gigolo.

Juan Cole proven idiot and ... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Juan Cole proven idiot and communist. Who would cite him as expert on anything other than an idiot or a communist?

Juan Cole is to the Middle ... (Below threshold)
Bat One:

Juan Cole is to the Middle East and Islamist fascism what Paul Krugmanis to economics.

Again, I really don't think... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Again, I really don't think it's a black and white issue. But at least you can finally admit that Reagan funded terrorists. That's a big step, seriously.

Anyways, you assume that if Reagan hadn't funded and trained terrorists that we would be under mushroom clouds and the world would end. (Condi recently made a similar error in logic) Well, I don't agree that was the case, so I cannot accept your point. While I am very happy with the cold war ending, I am not happy with the legacy of war and terror Reagan left.

We say: Carter is an... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

We say: Carter is an asshat.
jp2 says: B-B-But... Reagan!

Non-sequitor deflections do not alter the original statement of fact.

I didn't know Reagan's invo... (Below threshold)
Pete:

I didn't know Reagan's involvement was debatable. I thought money to the afghan (et al) rebels was pretty visable.

Nor, should it be assumed that we could not have defeated the Soviets - or that we'd all be breathing nuke dust - had the US not funded the rebels.

Doing so did reposition Soviet assests - which hastened the fall of the USSR; ultimately defusing, for the most part, the nuclear threat and destroying the communist infrastructure.

It's much better to fight the threat than the outcome of nuclear war.

Something Carter was unable to fathom, because, as SOTG stated, Carter was an asshat.

Reagan used the muslims, some of whom - the Northern Alliance, were our allies then, and after 9/11 when we invaded Afghanistan. It just sucks that not all of the muslims were N. Alliance, but also Wahabiist nut-jobs.

Carter's an asshat because he thought Egypt and Israel at peace would send a message to the rest of the ME to play nice. He failed to realize that giving an extremist a little means that they'll want more. And, if they don't exactly like what you've given them, they'll kill whichever muslim(s) were involve.

Goodnight, Anwar. Hello, backpages of history.

Which is where Carter belongs. Not on some podium, on a shared stage with the sitting president, dancing around due process by comparing the internal, FBI wiretapping against the Kings with the international wiretappings Bush is dealing with. An on-going investigation, and the former chief executive, thinking himself above the Constituion, declares Bush to have committed a crime.

Carter. Asshat.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy