Posted on 08/06/2005 3:18:34 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer and former U.S. President, has a huge problem: his mouth. The things emanating from that orifice are bizarre in the extreme, considering that Carter was arguably the worst president in the history of the United States. His most recent foot-in-mouth episode involves his running commentary on George W. Bushs veracity and the "atrocities" committed by American soldiers in the war on terrorism. Carter maintains that had the U.S. not waged war against the Taliban who were sponsors of Osama bin Ladens al Qaeda network, or deposed Saddam Hussein, then the Islamic terrorists would have no excuse for attacking the West.
To say this sentiment is naïve is charitable, given Carters history of extreme failure as Americas 39th president. For those too young to remember, under Carters tenure in the White House inflation and interest rates rose to their highest levels since the Second World War. In 1978 interest rates of 20 percent were not unheard of, as Carter dithered with the U.S. economy. It was also under Carters watch that Iranian fundamentalist Muslims took 66 American diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days, while Carter was powerless to do anything but posture.
It is ironic that this happened, as Carter was directly responsible for the Ayatollah Khomeinis takeover of Iran. Carter had decided that Mohammed Reza Palavi, the Shah of Iran and a committed friend of the United States, wasnt democratic enough for Carters taste. As a result, Carter insisted the Shah democratize his regime, the result of which was the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah when the Shah left Iran for cancer treatment in the U.S.
More ironically still, the takeover of Iran by the Islamic fundamentalists emboldened Saddam Hussein, who had just begun his tenure as absolute dictator of Iraq. Believing that the departure of the Shah and the chilling of American/Iranian relations would render Iran ripe for an invasion, Saddam attacked Iran in hopes of securing that countrys oil fields and deposing the Shia Muslim theocracy there. The result was that over 1,000,000 men died during that conflict, which remained at a stalemate for years.
Had Carter not been instrumental in deposing the Shah, then Saddam would likely have remained a bit player in the region, which might have resulted in greater stability.
In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development". This sounds to me like it may have been the booby prize, given that Carter actually never accomplished anything concrete that resulted in the resolution of international conflicts, the advancement of democracy or even the promotion of economic and social development. Quite the opposite, as under Carters reign the "misery index", which was Carters own invention (leave it to a Democrat to focus on misery), climbed by over 50 percent! But then, we have to remember that the Nobel Peace prize also went to Yassar Arafat, the notorious murderer who is responsible for thousands of deaths, both among Israelis as well as Palestinians.
Its so characteristic of Democrats in the U.S. to take total failures, flunkies who accomplish less than nothing, and elevate them to some mythical pantheon of liberal heroes because they had good intentions. My grandmother used to tell me that the road to hell was paved with them.
he should renounce the entire organization that awarded him the peace prize and take a stand for justice. Let's not forget his flirtations with Fidel Castro. Now, here is a real human rights activist! How many people did Fidel have incarcerated and tortured in Cuba?
Rather than trying to score political points with those who are trying to kill us, Jimmy Carter might be well advised to read some history. I strongly recommend European history between, say, 1930 and 1945. There are some wonderful lessons to be learned in the comparison between Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. The former, Like Jimmy Carter, wanted to appease the enemy, while the latter, Like George Bush, took steps to defend his country.
Mondale campainged in Minnesota exclusively for the last week to ten days, trying to fend off the humiliating embarassment of losing his own home state. (Gore did lose his home state of Tenn in 2000, btw.) After all that effort, Mondale won Minn by only 3700 votes.
We should trade Minnesota for a western portion of Canada. Minnesotians even talk like Canadians, eh?
Look on Carter as a blessing in disguise. Anytime anyone is tempted to voted for the Dimbocrats, just think of him. Just consider. If not for Bush41 failing to take on Clinton in 1992 and defeating him we would probably be looking at 25 straight years of Republican presidents. That would have topped the 20 years of Democratic rule from 1932 to 1952.
And BTW, I remember Carter all too well. He convinced me to change my party allegiance. The scales fell from my eyes during his miserable tenure in office.
The Nobel "Peace" Prize is a sick joke. IMHO the world would have been far better off it had a number of its recipients, and those who awarded it to them, been lined up on a wall and summarily shot instead.
Now let me tell you how I really feel...
It is fortunate for the country that the RATs were stampeded into nominating Mr. Heinz-Kerry on the basis of a late winter poll which showed he could beat GWB on the basis of a manufactured war hero record just when Howard Dean imploded.
Had the RAT rank and file primary voters actually thought for themselves, they would have been in the whitehouse now.
Does it have to be multiple choice? Would you go for a tie??????
Deep religious devotion will trump a little military training every time, and Jimmy Carter is a devout Marxian. Since Marxianity requires the destruction of Capitalism, our somewhat capitalistic country has got to go...
I know he professed to be a Christian, but, like Islamists, Marxians are encouraged to lie if it helps the "cause".
Kakistocracy is rule by the worst among us--the least qualified and the most malignant toward what has made us great in the past.
He is an icon of Marxianity and the DUmmies are all Marxians. (Yeah, I learned two new words today. ;^)
LOL
Easier to point out "What's right about Jimmah Carter?"
1. He was faithful to his wife.
2. He swings a mean hammer.
What's scary is that the rats just keep on trying to elect the same type of nitwit (e) Al gore, (f) John F'n Kerry.
Sal! You old rascal. What is this? Get back to the NYT Crossword puzzel page. (You word-merchant).
We be talking "Man-talk".
My grocery check out cashier is named Kaki. She'll be delighted to know that her name will live forever in the annals of pointlessness.
PS: Sal,doggie: Stay on point lad.Marshall those thoughts squirling around in that keen mind.
He was the worst U.S. president in our history before Bill Clinton.
Why is Rosalind always on top?
Because Jimmy can only screw UP!
Well you and HighWheeler have this wonderful take that goes something like this:
"Yes. They were all a$$holes but, by God, right is right and might is might and somehow the good will prevail."
And Boys, I just really want to believe that it is so.
Yet, caught up in the notion of personal dominion I feel we ought to have caught on to them much earlier and trounced them every one.
Do we dare allow Queen Hillary and her soon to be appointed King of The UN,Bill to "do their thing" so we can sit here some Saturday in the future and tell each other how God is looking out for all of us?
I have to disagree with you. Jimmy Peanut Carter comes out by far as # 1 , Billy Jeff as # 2 and LBJ as # 3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.