Wednesday, November 29, 2006


Former Peanut Farmer Jimmy Carter is quoted in the press as predicting that the present invasion of Iraq will go down as one of history's greatest failures - at least as far as Presidential decisions are concerned. Don't you just love the way some people believe they can already tell you how history will be INTERPRETED before it has even TRANSPIRED?!?! Sort of reminds me of the teachings of a German Philosopher that have been used by fanatics and academics alike to tell us what the social fabric of the world will be like in the future.

From a historical perspecitve, one thing already is clear: If Jimmy Carter had just one of Lady Thatcher's Testicles the world would be far more safer today. Iraq will only be a failure if the west abandons the field and allows the enemy to assume power. And Jimmy: the enemy is the same bunch of fanatics that you backed down from in 1979! (you should recognize him in the photo above left...)


Luv2Jihad said...

Yes, he did not do well with the Iranian hostage crisis. No one really knew what to do when an entire society violates international norms and takes an embassy hostage. Country to country, there is no lower act in the world.

Since then, President Carter has built many (thousands) homes for the homeless and poor people. He has also been involved in many major diplomatic issues world wide, saving many lives in preventing potential conflicts.

We can only hope to have the same positive global impact that Jimmy Carter, the Peanut Farmer, has had on the world.

If you try, sometimes you'll fail. Unlike your critics, you tried.

McCoy said...

While many of the decisions that Carter made during the lead up to and during the hostage situation were foolish, I don't see how that makes his current prediction any less likely to occur. If anything, his experiences leave him uniquely qualified to comment on how history views the actions of past presidents.

I'm also confused as to why you chose to emphasize the word "invasion". Do you take issue with Carter's use of that term to describe what occurred?

Reliapundit said...

i suppose, mccccccoy that you would say we invaded Nazi germany!?!? or serbia or kosovo or panama or granada or etc!?!?!

the word onvasion has connotations which folks like you like and which hawks like us dislike.

so dont be petty on a semantic level: it dumb.

also: i voted for carter. don't tell me one eefin thing abiut the asshole. the worst prsident ever, who has suppoerted tyrant after ant-american tyrany since leaving office.

like castro and chavez and kim.

carter is a piece of shit.

McCoy said...

"i suppose, mccccccoy that you would say we invaded Nazi germany!?!?"<

Then you would supppppppose wrong, although I can see why you would choose to blow over that straw man.

"the word onvasion has connotations which folks like you like and which hawks like us dislike."

If you mean "invasion", your likes and dislikes are of no relevance. The issue is whether or not it is an accurate term to describe what took place.

"so dont be petty on a semantic level: it dumb."

I'm not the one who chose to emphasize the word in the first place, I merely asked why it was done.

"the worst prsident ever"

I think you need to update your calendar. It's no longer Sept, 2000.

northern seer said...

Hey McCoy - It was me and not reliapundit that chose the word invasion - and I will explain why I italicised it in my post.

It seems that when you ask why I emphasised the word, you raise the issue of how one interprets the connotation of "invasion". Whenever foreign troops enter a sovereign nation it is fair to refer to it an invasion...we also refer to an invasion of tourists...or birds...or insects.

But that is not why I call attention to it. Carter makes a prediction regarding the future historical assessments which he expects will be made of the invasion of Iraq. The "invasion" of Iraq was a successful military operation that unseated a despicable regime. The REAL ISSUE is what happens after the invasion - and the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

So I am criticising Carter for assuming that he can predict the future...and also how the future will interpret the past!!!

Luv2Jihad defends Carter's efforts with Habitat for Humanity, and his numerous mediating efforts.Much of Carter's mediating has - beyond lending credibility to corrupt dictators - had dubious effect. Camp David was his greatest achievement - and yet what has Egypt done since to reign in the Muslim Brotherhood? Be that as it may - it does not change the fact that Carter's presidency WAS weak.

Charity is great - and I am sure there are thousands of good people who have performed as much or more charity than Carter - without grandstanding for the media.