Thursday, August 17, 2006

Jimmuh Carter hits bottom, keeps digging

(Cartoon hat tip to the geniuses at Cox and Forkum; see blogroll right)

During my all-too-short lunch break today, I caught a snippet of the Michael Medved show on the radio where Medved was fuming about an interview that disgraced (as far as I'm concerned) former U.S. president Jimmy "Dhimmi" Carter gave to a German magazine called Der Spiegel. For you non-German speaking folks, Der Spiegel means The Mirror. I got a chance to read the interview, and I gotta tell you, I can't remember the last time I read something that ticked me off so badly. This man, who purports himself to be the picture of morality and the conscience of our nation, is a tyranny-loving, America-hating liar. I cannot speak more lowly of this man, who I would probably consider the worst president of the 20th century, if not the worst ever. I always say that nothing much of any good came out of the 1970s (except me). Jimmy Carter is the embodiment of everything that was dysfunctional about our country during that screwy decade.

I don't like to fisk articles because, well, frankly it can be mentally taxing and time consuming. So I will stick to just the juiciest Jimmuh-isms that oozed out of this article like a lanced boil. Check out what Jimmuh had to say:

Under all of [the Bush administration's] predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis.

You are kidding right? We never had a commitment to preemptive war before President Bush came along? Jimmuh must have slept right through the Korean and Vietnam Wars; Grenada too.

Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon. (Chanman's emphasis)

SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no. (Chanman's emphasis)

Where do I begin with this one? First, I would like Jimmuh to tell me exactly how it is that Israel was "unjustified" in defending itself from hundreds of rockets being fired at it every day from Lebanon. Second, please notice that even a left-wing rag like Der Spiegel clucked their tongue at that comment. Notice that the interviewer followed up with the question, But wasn't Israel attacked first? So what does Jimmuh do? Why, he lies. He says that Israel bombed the "entire" nation of Lebanon. See, that's one of the big lies to come out of this whole ugly mess. Not only was the entire nation of Lebanon not bombed, not even the entire city of Beirut was bombed either. The Israeli airstrikes were as surgical as possible, and they were targeted only against targets that were essential to the continued operation of Hezbollah: bridges, power facilities, headquarters buildings, the airport, fighting positions. Admittedly, the problems for Israel lay especially with that last item: fighting positions. That is because for Hezbollah, their fighting positions were purposely set up among the civilian population of Lebanon, so that when Israel did defend itself, Lebanese civilians would inevitably be among the casualties. Yet you don't hear Jimmuh say a word about his friends from Hezbollah using civilians as human shields. And notice in his last sentence there that he throws in Gaza for good measure. Nope, no rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza by golly (only about 800 of them). My God this man is contemptible!

Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse.

Even though there is so much more, I will end with this, because this really takes the cake as far as showing what a pompous, lying ass that Jimmuh really is. Nice twofer Jimmuh: you get in a dig at Menachim Begin, then you take credit for the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. The only thing Jimmuh did to make that peace agreement happen was to show up. It was Egyptian president Anwar Sadat who "under great difficulty" approached Israel and made the peace treaty happen. How much difficulty you might ask? Remember how his fellow Muslims repaid Sadat for making peace with the Jews? He was shot and killed three years after the treaty was signed.

In the name of politeness, getting along, and "being the bigger man", it has become unfashionable to wish ill will upon your political opponents. But sometimes, you have a case where it's not just about minimum wage policy or whether or not to build a sports stadium. The actions of Jimmuh Carter cause peoples' deaths. When he chums it up with Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il, when he chums it up with Hezbollah and Hamas, when he legitimizes a sham election in Venezuala in order to retain their murdering socialist dictator, Jimmuh Carter does a lot more than differ with me in policy; he causes the violent death of a lot of innocent people. When you have a man like that, especially one in his 80s, you can't help but hope that his advanced years will take him soon so that more people may yet live. If any of my readers find my position to be distasteful, just ask yourself if you would wish Hitler or Stalin had caught cancer or had a stroke before they could carry out all the awful things they did.

In the meantime, if Jimmuh's ticker is going to keep chugging along a while longer, the least he can do is go back to his peanut farm in Georgia, and stop meddling.

Good Day to You, Sir


HaroldLovesMaude said...

Carter forgot to mention that until he and Clinton came along our country also had a long standing tradition of ex-presidents shuting the hell up, and staying out of politics/policy.

Sean Heron said...

Vietnam and Korea were not pre-emptive wars in the sense that the Irak war was: In both cases the USA sided against the Communist faction in a civil war. Regards Sean Heron.

Chanman said...

The U.S. participated in both the Korean and Vietnam wars in a preemptive effort to keep the spread of Soviet communism at bay. Carter's litmus test was that a country had to be a threat to our security before we could invade them. How was either Vietnam or Korea themselves a threat to our security? The only reason then that we went into both countries stop Soviet hegemony from becoming so great that one day we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves against it. That is the definition of preemptive.

Thank you for reading my blog.

Anonymous said...

Who fired the first heavy round, bomb, rocket?
Until then, it was just 2:10K
Regardless, Israel lost, why, because they have lost the edge they had in the 60s & 70s. Just like we are gonna loose unless we use the damn draft and put a hell of a lot more people on the ground or accept that we are gonna kill lots of people and use really heavy bombs every where, just like in WWII.
We would be hated world wide even more if not for President Carter. His term was messed up because he was a good man surrounded by a bunch of really bad people.

Darren said...

Next time we meet for caffeine, I'll tell you the story of the time Carter spoke to us at school (if I didn't tell you the *first* time we met!). He gave a great speech and I actually respected him for 7 years--until the vile hatred he spewed as a speaker at the '92 Democratic Convention.

Chanman said...

First of all, what is "2:10k"? I am racking my brain and I don't get it.

Second, please tell me how Jimmuh Carter is a good man when he goes around licking the boots of just about any tyrant or dictator to whom he can get close enough to do so?

But for the sake of argument, let's say that Jimmuh is a good man; so what? See, you are hung up on intentions. I care about results. And the results of the presidency of this "good man" were an absolute foreign and domestic disaster. These bad people you speak of who surrounded Carter were picked by Carter.

The American people apparently didn't care that Carter was a good man either. They threw him out on his ear in a landslide after one term in office. Results, Anonymous, results.