Peanut envy? A reaction to Carter's attacks of Bush

[xiggi]

<p><a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2166661[/url]”>http://www.slate.com/id/2166661&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Peanut Envy
The latest absurdities to emerge from Jimmy Carter’s big, smug mouth.
By Christopher Hitchens </p>

<p>Almost always, when former President Jimmy Carter opens his big, smug mouth, he has already made the psychological mistake that is going to reduce his words to absurdity. When he told the press last week that the Bush administration had aroused antipathy around the world, he might have been uttering no more than a banality. But no, he had to try to invest it with a special signature flourish. So, he said instead: </p>

<p>I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. </p>

<p>“Worst in history,” as the great statesman from Georgia has to know, has been the title for which he has himself been actively contending since 1976. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had." </p>

<p>Many people in retrospect think Bush did a good job in assembling a large multinational coalition, under U.N. auspices, for the emancipation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. But Jimmy Carter used his prestige, at that uneasy moment, to make an open appeal to all governments not to join that coalition. He went public to oppose the settled policy of Congress and the declared resolutions of the United Nations and to denounce his own country as the warmonger. </p>

<p>Here is a man who, in his latest book on the Israel-Palestine crisis, has found the elusive key to the problem. The mistake of Israel, he tells us (and tells us that he told the Israeli leadership) is to have moved away from God and the prophets and toward secularism. </p>

<p>He also went on the British Broadcasting Corporation to make spiteful and cheap remarks on the retirement of Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling him “loyal, blind, apparently subservient.” Yes, that’s right, Mr. Carter. Just the way to make friends and assert “America’s basic values.” Show us your peanut envy. Heap insults on a guest in Washington: a thrice-elected prime minister who was the first and strongest ally of the United States on the most awful day in its recent history. A man who was prepared to risk his own career to be counted as a friend. A man who was warning against the Taliban, against Slobodan Milosevic, and against Saddam Hussein when George Bush was only the governor of Texas. Leaders like that deserve a little respect even when they are wrong—but don’t expect any generosity or courtesy from the purse-mouthed preacher man from Plains, who just purely knows he was right all along, and who, when that fails, can always point to the numberless godly victories that he won over the forces of evil.

</p>

[mini]

<p>I think this is called “ad hominem” (perhaps “with hominy” in Georgia). </p>

<p>As for Ding-Dong, history will judge. (Personally, in the long run, I think he was no worse than Clinton in the “big picture stuff” - war/foreign policy, international trade policy, global environment, though in the spoils game and curtailment of civil liberties he probably ranks somewhere between Martin Van Buren and Warren Harding.)</p>

[MarathonMan88]

<p>I was a Carter admirer, and even overlooked the Kuwait stand, which was at least a stand on a sustantial policy question on which he had strongly held view. But some of the latest unseemly statements are just plain mean spirited and serve no constructive purpose.</p>

[barrons]

<p>While the Iraq was certainly has become an unfortunate unwinnable quagmire and a major mistake, the America we had under Carter was one of depression, resignation and hopelessness within our own borders. The Midwest was renamed the Rust Belt and the only sane alternative was to move to Texas. It was a lousy time. Much worse than the US today, even with Iraq.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>President Carter is one of the reasons why Iran is now in the process of obtaining nuclear weapons in order to threaten Israel and the United States. Carter did little to help the Shaw of Iran withstand the take over by the religious extremists in Iran. The Shaw wasn’t great, but he was a lot better than what we have now. Carter established the US as a weak nation by doing nothing when Americans were taken hostage for 444 days by a bunch of “students”. Carter destroyed our economy in the 1970s. The worst President ever was Carter. What a disgusting person.</p>

[conyat]

<p>I wouldn’t be too quick to use the economy as a reason to prefer Bush to Carter. The WSJ had an interesting piece today on the shrinkage in real wages since 2000.</p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118005313993514160-ffyvlR98p8u9Sorpc2R_TwOs50w_20070601.html?mod=blogs[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118005313993514160-ffyvlR98p8u9Sorpc2R_TwOs50w_20070601.html?mod=blogs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

American men in their 30s today are worse off than their fathers’ generation, a reversal from just a decade ago, when sons generally were better off than their fathers, a new study finds.</p>

<p>The study, the first in a series on economic mobility undertaken by several prominent think tanks, also says the typical American family’s income has lagged far behind productivity growth since 2000, a departure from most of the post-World War II period.

</p>

<p>

In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s, a good predictor of his lifetime earnings, was $35,010, the study says, 12% less than for men in their 30s in 1974 – their fathers’ generation – adjusted for inflation. A decade ago, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5% higher than 30 years earlier.

</p>

<p>Among the groups that participated in the study were Pew, the Brookings Instititute, the AEI, and the Heritage Foundation.</p>

[mini]

<p>“Carter did little to help the Shaw of Iran withstand the take over by the religious extremists in Iran. The Shaw wasn’t great, but he was a lot better than what we have now.”</p>

<p>Yup. He only established Iran as the fifth most powerful military power in the world, and trained torturers in his home state of Georgia, and toasted the Shah on Iranian National TV for his commitment to human rights. </p>

<p>“why Iran is now in the process of obtaining nuclear weapons in order to threaten Israel and the United States”</p>

<p>Who actually HAS the nuclear weapons and who is actively threatening who? (or does the U.S. flotilla of war ships, and 200,000 hostile, aggressive soldiers on the borders not count?)</p>

[barrons]

<p>“Adjusted for inflation” Carter killed that too. Take out JC’s inflation years and redo the numbers. </p>

<p>Anyway unemployment is still much better and skilled college educated people are doing as well as ever. The losers are the high manu. wage folks such as those who used to make crappy US cars.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

Who actually HAS the nuclear weapons and who is actively threatening who? (or does the U.S. flotilla of war ships, and 200,000 hostile, aggressive soldiers on the borders not count?)

The good guys have the nukes (ie. American). We have had many opportunities to use nukes but have refrained because we know how horrible the consequences can be. When Iran was not trying to get nukes, we did not threaten it. For over 20 years, Iran was free to be the terrorist nation it is without the threat of invasion from the US. Now that a terrorist nation is trying to get nukes, we must do something and I hope it is more than just threatening Iran. Try supporting your own country now and then, Mini.</p>

[conyat]

<p>

When Iran was not trying to get nukes, we did not threaten it.

</p>

<p>And when Iran offered to abandon its nuclear program we ignored the offer and insulted the intermediary who conveyed it.</p>

[mini]

<p>Are you kidding? There are have been continuing attempts to overthrow the elected government of Iran beginning with Ronald Reagan.</p>

<p>But again - who has been threatening whom? Who instigated the use of chemical weapons against them (the Rumsfeld Handshake) and caused the death of half a million Iranians- when there wasn’t even a hint of nuclear anything? Who has placed 200,000 hostile, aggressive troops on their borders (“suicide death squads”, to paraphrase Dick Morris)?</p>

<p>The U.S. has done much more than threaten.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

But again - who has been threatening whom?

Oh I don’t know, how about this?

Iran’s new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the face of the earth”. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is more hardline than his predecessor, told students in Tehran that a new wave of Palestinian attacks would be enough to finish off Israel.

Sounds like a threat to me.
<a href=“Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president | Israel | The Guardian”>Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president | Israel | The Guardian;

<p>

Who instigated the use of chemical weapons against them (the Rumsfeld Handshake) and caused the death of half a million Iranians- when there wasn’t even a hint of nuclear anything?

I don’t think you want to go there – you might end up having to admit that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. </p>

<p>

And when Iran offered to abandon its nuclear program we ignored the offer and insulted the intermediary who conveyed it.

Iran has never made a serious offer to abandon its nuclear program. The US and allies have made a serious offer to let Iran develop nuclear energy without the risk of nuclear weapons but of course Iran rejected that.

Iran could produce nuclear power using uranium enriched in Russia under a draft proposal aimed at breaking an impasse over Tehran’s nuclear program, a Western diplomat familiar with the plan said Thursday.

<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/iran.nuclear/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/iran.nuclear/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The unfortunate thing is that those of you who think we should appease Iran (the way we attempted to do with Hiltler) will be the first to blame President Bush for not connecting the dots when Iran or its intermediaries destroy Israel.</p>

[Princedog]

<p>

We have had many opportunities to use nukes but have refrained because we know how horrible the consequences can be.

</p>

<p>So far (luckily enough) it doesn’t seem to me like anyone has really initiated a nuclear holocaust. Ironically you could probably argue the US is one of the countries that’s gotten dangerously close, but that was mainly before Carter (Cuban missile crisis, “testing” a missile in the direction of the Soviet Union). Not to mention for better or for worse we did drop A-bombs at the end of WWII. The strategic balance of power is in America’s favor, and except for the missile gap scare (which probably contributed to the aforementioned crises), the arms race stayed in control because of the concept of mutually assured destruction. </p>

<p>I’m not sure there are many nuclear programs who assume what they’re creating is innocuous. I imagine they know there are harrowing consequences. The US did have a large role in accelerating a nuclear arms race. The problem is that once you accelerate a race with such high stakes, you fall into a security dilemma. Actions provoke counter-actions, and neither side feels they can disarm. Why would Iran disarm? They won’t for the same reason that we won’t. Because it would be stupid for them. In each side’s fervent quest to become more safe, everyone becomes less safe in the end.</p>

[Vyse]

<p>I have quite the love-hate relationship with hitchens as a religious war supporter.</p>

[rorosen]

<p>with his empathy for the poor and despising of religion, he has much in common with the iranian writer george bernard shah</p>

[conyat]

<p>Not serious? </p>

<p>

Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table – including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.</p>

<p>But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

</p>

[conyat]

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/washington/26strategy.html?ei=5090&en=5b4851db4838e949&ex=1337832000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1180193414-udbVS+knJiQPhkSH3J9TxQ[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/washington/26strategy.html?ei=5090&en=5b4851db4838e949&ex=1337832000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1180193414-udbVS+knJiQPhkSH3J9TxQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Looks like the administration is making plans to cut and run from Iraq in time to influence the 2008 elections.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>I hated the Carter years - they were our worst years in my entire lifetime. It is no wonder that Reagan’s “Morning in America” ad was so effective - people truly welcomed a new morning. </p>

<p>Carter was just starting to redeem himself in my eyes as a fairly decent ex-president with his humanitarian work, but now he seems to have made a pact with the far left and has become a bitter, spiteful old man. I think he is worried that he will be permanently labeled as the worst president of the 20th and 21st century and is looking to drag someone down to be below him. With time, some presidents who had low approval in office have reclaimed their stature in the eyes of historians (i.e, Truman). However, Carter has had ample time to be redeemed in history’s eys and he still wallows near the bottom.</p>