The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

And you never will, because you simply want things to go agree with your thoughts.

No, I simply want people to agree with history and reality. I guess that's too much to ask for.

and everything that you read or hear his colored with that perspective.

I realize it's got to be very hard to make counter-arguments that contradict actual history. It's surely a lot more easy to make comments like these. It's a good way to change the subject, too.

Sigh.

ATV wrote:I realize it's got to be very hard to make counter-arguments that contradict actual history. It's surely a lot more easy to make comments like these. It's a good way to change the subject, too.

Sigh.

And in what way have I done that?

This article acknowledges Carter was in an "impossible situation" and I agree. Botom line - the Iranian people won and no Americans were killed.

Unless you count the Desert One operation, but unless you gloss over this event then you're forced to acknowledge an instance where Carter was at least decisive, which contradicts.....

to sit on his hands wracked with indecision, cahracterizes his presidency

You can't have it both ways. If the military operation would have worked should Carter have looked like a hero?

And in what way have I done that?

Well, you simply made those comments before editing the very same post by adding the PBS excerpt. But you knew that. What a lame tactic. Maybe I should go back and edit all my posts to make it look like I've been talking about the Bugaloos this whole time.

ATV wrote:This article acknowledges Carter was in an "impossible situation" and I agree. Botom line - the Iranian people won and no Americans were killed.

Unless you count the Desert One operation, but unless you gloss over this event then you're forced to acknowledge an instance where Carter was at least decisive, which contradicts.....

to sit on his hands wracked with indecision, cahracterizes his presidency

You can't have it both ways. If the military operation would have worked should Carter have looked like a hero?

And in what way have I done that?

Well, you simply made those comments before editing the very same post by adding the PBS excerpt. But you knew that. What a lame tactic. Maybe I should go back and edit all my posts to make it look like I've been talking about the Bugaloos this whole time.

OK, what are you talking about. Yes, I edit my posts. Usually, if I've made a mistake in fact or grammar. Or to add a point. I don't think its worth making an entirely new post to simply add one comment. What did I change that has your feathers in a ruffle. The only thing that I retracted from my statements were that Carter invited the Shah to the states being the only decisive thing that he did....and thats what prompted the revolution. But the reality is that the revolution had been ongoing for months and Carter failed to do anything about it even though the Khomeni had taken control of the military and placed his own leaders in charge.

One botched rescue attempt does not make him a fearless leader.

C'mon, I'll admit to all the mistakes that Reagan made, there are plenty, but you can't side with Carter as being a great man simply because he's a democrat!

Here's just how great a president he was.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archi ... _shah.html

When the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran, opened for business the morning of 22 October 1979, there was a cable waiting in the Central Intelligence Agency station from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The cable advised that President Carter had decided the previous day to admit the former Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, into the United States for life-saving medical treatment. From the perspective of the embassy staff, it was absolutely the worst thing that could happen, on two fronts: the decision would undo the progress, however slight, in improving United States-Iranian relations; and it would jeopardize the safety and security of all Americans in Iran. The embassy staff was utterly astonished, for not only had they warned Washington over the previous summer of the various dangers associated with such a decision, but some had even been told that by Washington seniors that the consequences of the shah’s admission to the United States were so obvious that no one would be "dumb enough" to allow it. Yet, with U.S.-Iranian relations still lacking real stability, and with an intense and growing distrust of the United States permeating the new Iranian "revolutionary" government, President Carter — unbelievably, from the embassy’s optic—had decided to allow the shah to enter the United States.
Was there no place else he could go? Was the United States the only country in the world with adequate medical facilities to treat the shah?

I ask you where it is that I am factually wrong and the best thing that you can come up with is that I ADDED a quote from PBS.

ATV wrote:

his actions in Iran are a large part of why we are constantly targets of terrorism now.

Huh? For example......?

The Khomeni is a hero to Osama Bin Laden. When he took over he advocated, funded, and fueled terrorism as a way of imposing his political will.

1 iran hostage crisis. when the sha was overthrown by muslim extreamists and the country was going crazy, carter let the sha (a friend of america) come the the US for medical treatment. as a reasult the iatolla khomani (sp?) attacked the US embassy

As if the Iranian Revolution would never have happened hadn't we allowed the Shah here. That's like saying our Colonial Revolution happened because of the Boston Tea Party. In fact Wikipedia explains that the embassy plan had already been established beforehand.....

"The original idea to seize the American embassy was concocted by Ebrahim Asgharzadeh (a month before) in September of 1979."

No, there were legitimate reasons for the uprisings....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

Carter just happened to be the President when the finally hit the fan.

I honestly don't even know what this means?!? The revolution happened because Carter couldn't keep the Shah in line, and wouldn't intervene. The revolution wasn't just something that happened one day and was then over with. It took place over months and months.....during which Carter, who knew just how evil and violent the Khomeni was, did nothing to aid the Shah. In the months leading up to the revolutions the Shah was oppresive and brutal, but Carter praised him publicly and fostered further resentment amongst the Iranian people.

2 he didnt stand up against the soviets when they invaded afganistan.

Wrong. "On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed a directive authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the revolutionary regime." Remember that? How did that turn out? Carter even pulled us out of the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

it is said to have ended detante and further the cold war.

Actually it's usually suggested that the USSR's debacle was akin to our experience in Vietnam, financially crippling them, hastening their downfall just a few years after they finally pulled out.

Where do some of you people get your facts from? Do you just make this stuff up? Are you simply writing what you WANT to be reality? Truely, I don't get it.

OK, Carter's regime actively attempted to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. Not only did he not stand up to them.....he wanted them to invade. And they did, and yes that hastened their demise. But that isn't really the problem. Its was that Carter aided the Mujahadeen the prolong the war. In doing so he created what is one of the largest terrorist operations in the world. Now, Reagan didn't stop this behavior when he took power. In fact he continued it, and it his him who is often blamed by the Democrats for creating the situation in the Middle East. But he didn't create it. He did however let it continue and his legacy should be tainted because of this, but why should Carter get a free ride? So, Khomeni and Mujahadeen rose to power as a direct result of actions taekn by Carter. That is fact. Go, ahead dispute it!

Carter had a cirect hand in causing the Soviet-Afghan War. People blame Reagan for funding Iraq but Carter funded the Mujahadeen…trying to trick the Soviets into invading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Inv ... fghanistan and
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled proudly:
"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap..." [...]"The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

Carter was responsible for the Sandinistas rising to power as well.....want to argue that one?

OK, what are you talking about. Yes, I edit my posts.

I promptly responded to your chide remarks.....

And you never will, because you simply want things to go agree with your thoughts, and everything that you read or hear his colored with that perspective.

That's all you had written. That's it. After you read my reply you not only added to this post, but you then also wrote.....

And in what way have I done that?

To imply that you were ignorant of the fact that you later added the exercept after obviously reading my post. I dunno, it just seems lame to me. I don't want to get off topic though....

But the reality is that the revolution had been ongoing for months and Carter failed to do anything about it

I believe this revolution was inevitable and there was nothing he COULD or SHOULD have done about it. History has taught that lesson over and over again.

One botched rescue attempt does not make him a fearless leader.

No, but if it succeeded I'm certain he would have came out of this looking like a hero, even though success or failure is wholly dependent on the skill and capability of the military.

you can't side with Carter as being a great man simply because he's a democrat!

I never wrote this is why I side with Carter as being a great man.

Here's just how great a president he was....

Without examining it in detail, I would guess this was probably a mistake. I'd be interested in hearing Carter's perspective on this issue, in hindsight, that is. Nobody is infallible. Were you aware that during much of the Civil War Lincoln was frequently meddling and bungling up the business of the Army of the Potomac? Not to change subjects, but who knows how many lives that ultimately lost.

The Khomeni is a hero to Osama Bin Laden. When he took over he advocated, funded, and fueled terrorism as a way of imposing his political will.

Without going into an argument over how true this is, it's predicated on the assumption that Carter, or anyone, could have done anything to stop their revolution.

The revolution happened because Carter couldn't keep the Shah in line, and wouldn't intervene.

No, it happened because the Shah was seen as (and was) a puppet of the West. You're insinuation that Carter could have had much of a hand in stopping this IS CASE IN POINT - The West was, sincemeddling in the internal affairs of Iran and the Iranian people had already had enough of this.

The revolution wasn't just something that happened one day and was then over with. It took place over months and months

No, it took place over years and years.

during which Carter, who knew just how evil and violent the Khomeni was, did nothing to aid the Shah.

Without going into an argument over whether Khomeni is evil (I'm not sure he is) or whether Carter believed this (who cares), I'm certain that the U.S. had very close ties with the Shah and Iran. Again, you're implying that there was something we could have, or should have, realisticly done to stop the revolution. I'm not sure we'll ever know this for certain.

In the months leading up to the revolutions the Shah was oppresive and brutal, but Carter praised him publicly and fostered further resentment amongst the Iranian people.

Exactly. he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. One could say he (Carter) didn't do very much. Well, I'm saying maybe that was the way to go. Who knows. Call me a hippy pinko liberal but I'm not a big fan of our nation interfering in other nation's business.

OK, Carter's regime actively attempted to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. Not only did he not stand up to them.....he wanted them to invade.

Yea, I read this sentence too. It surprised me a little. I had never read or heard about this before. I suspect there could be some truth to it but I'm wary of the blanket statement.

Its was that Carter aided the Mujahadeen the prolong the war.

Carter, and then Reagan, yes. Our goal was to suuport the Mujahadeen so that the USSR couldn't occupy Afghanistan. These administration weren't very interested in whether the war was prolonged or not.

In doing so he created what is one of the largest terrorist operations in the world.

Uhh.....well, our CIA taught them many tactics and they learned to fight a guerilla war if that's what you mean. I'm not sure about creating an "operation". The CIA didn't create Al-Qaeda if that's what you're getting at.

Now, Reagan didn't stop this behavior when he took power. In fact he continued it, and it his him who is often blamed by the Democrats for creating the situation in the Middle East.

Well, I've never heard or read this. I'm a Democrat and I don't believe this. I do fault Reagan for continuing the long held policy of supporting Israel. I believe this certainly has a lot to do with Middle Eastern angst against the US - Reagan wasn't the first or last to do this, though.

"He did however let it continue and his legacy should be tainted because of this, but why should Carter get a free ride?"

If you mean the Palestinian situation, then yes, I believe Reagan and Carter deserve equal blame. However I was glad to see that Carter recently stood up to say our Israeli policy has been flawed.

So, Khomeni and Mujahadeen rose to power as a direct result of actions taekn by Carter

Again, my take: Khomeni, no. Mujahadeen, that's quite a stretch. You could just as easily blame Brezhnev.

People blame Reagan for funding Iraq

Please, some other day.....

Carter was responsible for the Sandinistas rising to power as well.....want to argue that one?

Sure, I'll even argue the Sandinistas were the GOOD guys.

So, again I ask you....where did I fabricate facts....or rewrite history?

You can believe that these things were inevitiable, you can believe that there was nothing that he could have done. Thats fine. However, you're going to need to point out to me where exactly it is that I "made this stuff up."

Where do some of you people get your facts from? Do you just make this stuff up? Are you simply writing what you WANT to be reality? Truely, I don't get it.

...

I never wrote that you, specifically, fabricated facts. I've tried to demonstrate why this assertion......

his actions in Iran are a large part of why we are constantly targets of terrorism now.

.....is quite a stretch.

ATV wrote:I never wrote that you, specifically, fabricated facts. I've tried to demonstrate why this assertion......

his actions in Iran are a large part of why we are constantly targets of terrorism now.

.....is quite a stretch.

Its not a stretch at all. You argue that the Revolution was inevitable, but Khomeni vowed to never return to Iran unless the Shah was gone. ON January 16th, 1979 he did leave. And because of this the Khomeni returned from exile. It was the end of a secular government in Iran. The Khomeni rose to power and became the center of extremism in the world. He actively funded terrorism, repressed his people and created a theocracy in Iran that is the real force behind Iranina politics even today. Its why we fear them.

Now, what did Carter have to do with this? Nothing. The "Pillar of Stability" was crumbling, and Carter did nothing to help. He knew that the Khomeni would return and did nothing to prevent it. A provisional government was put into place prior to the Shah's departure, but Carter did nothing to ensure its success. The revolution was not an inevitable. The Shah left because he wasn't getting the support from the U.S. And when he did leave, the "hands off" approach to foriegn policy that the liberals consistenlty support was tested....the result was the oppression of millions of people and a chain of extremist terrorist activity that is the chief threat to America today. Now, what right do we have to intervene in another countries affairs? Every right. Thats the perogative of being a superpower. We've been doing it all the time....and even Carter practiced this with the Mujahadeen and the Sandinistas. Carter didn't cause the revolution, but he did nothing to stop it when there were several opportunities to do so. Was it a mistake? How was he to know what would happen? He was the president. Its his job to know. There is no "Well, Shucks," when your president. You succeed or you don't. He didn't!

Now, Carter is being accused of having improper facts and ommissions as well as plagurizing some maps.

When Kenneth Stein resigned from the Carter Center over Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," he wrote in an email that he objected to the book because "it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments." At the time of the email, however, Stein cited no specifics.

In an interview with The Los Angeles Times last night, however, Stein backed up his allegation that Carter "copied materials not cited" claiming that he had lifted maps from Dennis Ross's book "The Missing Peace."

http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/2006/12/video_dennis_ross_says_carter.php

Don't know if its legit.

Yes, but his actions in Iran are a large part of why we are constantly targets of terrorism now.

Let's get serious. Iran was and is a Shi-ite country. We were attacked on 9/11 by Islamic fundamentalist Sunnis. That group, Al Qeada, is an amalgam of the pro-violence wing of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and a group of Wahabbi Suuni fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia.

Is there a connection between terrorism in Iraq? Sure. Is there a connection to 9/11? Not a bit.

We blew away a Sunni military dictator named Saddam Hussesin, and put the country in the hands of three Shi-ite factions. The Iraqi Sunnis have continued to fight the dominant Shia.

Al Q spends it's spare time blowing up Shia mosques, and bombins Shia pilgrims. The three Shia militias kidnap and murder 50 or 60 Sunnis every day.

Who controls the Iraqi "internal security" forces?

Since it's time to talk accurately, please investigate the three Shia armed factions, including that of Moktada Al Sadr. They are called the Mahdi Army, and they have waged armed attacks on US forces since the Battle of Sadr City, April 4, 2004. Look it up. He has no ties to Iran...but he tells the Iraqi government what to do.

How does Jimmy Carter play in this? Would the "Shah" have changed anything?

TincoSkin wrote:two things people look poorly at carter for,
1 iran hostage crisis. when the sha was overthrown by muslim extreamists and the country was going crazy, carter let the sha (a friend of america) come the the US for medical treatment. as a reasult the iatolla khomani (sp?) attacked the US embassy.. thus starting a hostage crisis that would not end till years and years later.

2 he didnt stand up against the soviets when they invaded afganistan. over amillion people died and people say its his fault.
it is said to have ended detante and further the cold war.

now, people who love reagan hate jimmy carter because one, they didnt like his humanitarian first ideals and two, it was carters presidency that set the stage for reagans triumph and if they cant let it go.. jimmy famously said we were living in a state of political malaise, as a country we did not know what we stood for after the turbulent 60s. the nation was exhausted after the civil rights revolution and were searching for meanning. reagan gave them meaning with the backing of the moral majority/relgious right.

so, people hate jimmy because the reagan lovers (and there a lot of them) wont let his 2 mistakes die.

he was a good president. he did a lot of good things but his two mistakes will haunt him forever..

he has been one of the best ex presidents ever though.. he is more suited in that regard. not as a person with military power but one with a kind heart and a will to make the world a better place.


personally i think he was trying to be like JFK and bobby but they were way tougher when it came to forgin policy and carter never got that. he thought you could change the world will love with out a big gun behind it.

Two mistakes you have to be joking inflation was up like none other, not only that the long lines of unemployment, 2 mistakes its more like many.

In general I'll leave you all with chaddukes because he has the crux of the matter understood. Wish I'd have been here over the past 2 months or I'd have joined the discussion sooner but I'll add a bit.

Carter did nothing. The president who got just about everything wrong is now suddenly a great president? Because he builds houses for the poor? That would make him a good human being. But a great president? Seriously where do people come up with these ideas?

We blew away a Sunni military dictator named Saddam Hussesin, and put the country in the hands of three Shi-ite factions. The Iraqi Sunnis have continued to fight the dominant Shia. Al Q spends it's spare time blowing up Shia mosques, and bombins Shia pilgrims. The three Shia militias kidnap and murder 50 or 60 Sunnis every day.

Iran is currently aiding both sides of the "aisle" so to speak in an effort to drive up the violence and sap our will and force us to retreat.

Since it's time to talk accurately, please investigate the three Shia armed factions, including that of Moktada Al Sadr. They are called the Mahdi Army, and they have waged armed attacks on US forces since the Battle of Sadr City, April 4, 2004. Look it up. He has no ties to Iran...but he tells the Iraqi government what to do.

No ties to Iran? You sure ?

How does Jimmy Carter play in this? Would the "Shah" have changed anything?

The Shah was our biggest ally in the Middle East. He was slowly modernizing the nation and the fanatics disliked it. Take this in the context of the Cold War. Instead of Israel and Iran being our allies, Carter basically pissed on Iran and didn't help the Shah when he needed help and the revolution was then successful. Even after it had started, had the Shah ordered a tough response to the revolution it would've died away. Carter's recommendation? "Do nothing".

So you go from a country that is an ally to a country that is now an enemy and which, using its petro-dollars funds terrorism (Hezbollah and Hamas come to mind but there are other groups as well).

Gee...I can't imagine what the Shah being in power woulda changed over the last few decades.

ATV wrote:

Tell me, what makes Carter such a GREAT man?

What doesn't?

- Praising and befriending terrorist Yasser Arafat

- Praising and befriending murdering dictator Fidel Castro

- Accepting the Nobel "Peace" prize when the committee when asked confirmed his anti-Americanism was a large part of their motivation for awarding it to him. A true American would have thrown it in their face at that point, not Jimmy Carter

- Helping communism spread from Cuba to Nicaragua, creating a second Communist western hemisphere government

- Giving away the Panama Canal to China, I mean Panama who turned it over to China

- Idiotically trying to micromanage the government and the Pentagon for 4 years rather than trusting anyone or ceding any decision making authority

- Coming up with the brilliant response to the USSR after invading Afghanistan of pulling out of the Olympics, ouch, that stung!

- Deciding to publicly abandon the Shah and actually facilitating an even worse government then the Shah's, the Iatolah Kohmeni, taking over. A government Westernizing and growing it's economy without political freedom was left with a totalitarian Islamic regime and the women in particular lost all rights

- Doing nothing real in response to the Iranian embassy takeover

- Ineptly micromanaging and causing the failure of the Iranian embassy rescue mission by insisting he could cancel it up until the last possible second

- Intervening in Iraq on behalf of Hussein and calling Bush a bigger terrorist (I am opposed BTW to the Iraq war but it was still idiotic to do what he did)

- After being a horrible, micromanaging inept President, he started to do some good things, like habitat for humanity. Then decided he preferred to spend his time supporting terrorists and dictators and trashing his country and blaming them for everything wrong in the world.

Sorry, that's all I've got off the top of my head.

Here's another thing about good ole Jimmy...

Kenneth Stein, a professor of history at Emory University, has been associated with Jimmy Carter's Carter Center from its founding. He was its first executive director, and its first academic fellow. He has also terminated his association with the Carter Center because of Carter's new book.

Here's what he had to say [emphasis mine];

This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop. My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.

Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally.

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.

In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.

As ever,
Ken

Dr. Kenneth W. Stein,
Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science,
and Israeli Studies,
Director, Middle East Research Program and
Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel
Atlanta, Georgia

Instead of spending hours rebutting the above filth, for those still of an impartial unaffected opinion on here (of which there may be none), I simply hope that you value earned honors such as Purple Hearts, and Nobel prizes, or that you respect our nation's current and former scholars, artists and authors, etc. Likewise, I hope you also never forget the relatively recent traitors to our democracy, the criminals (Nixon, Liddy, North, Libby, Abramoff....more to come) who seem to often be amongst the orchestration (corrupt administrations, Fox News, etc.) behind the denouncement, reduction, of our nation's heroes.

Instead of spending hours rebutting the above filth, for those still of an impartial unaffected opinion on here (of which there may be none), I simply hope that you value earned honors such as Purple Hearts, and Nobel prizes, or that you respect our nation's current and former scholars, artists and authors, etc. Likewise, I hope you also never forget the relatively recent traitors to our democracy, the criminals (Nixon, Liddy, North, Libby, Abramoff....more to come) who seem to often be amongst the orchestration (corrupt administrations, Fox News, etc.) behind the denouncement, reduction, of our nation's heroes.

Seriously ... if you hope to put up Carter as a "hero" in whole or in part because he garnered a Nobel prize (due to his anti-Americanism) then I simply do not know what to say.

As for the denouncement and reduction of our nation's heroes, talk to Jawn Carri (John Kerry), Charlie Rangel, Cindy Sheehan and others on the Left. While the Right, as far as I can see, takes umbrage with the positions the person is taking or their actions (and then that Democrat then wraps himself up in his service and ribbons as a supposed umbrella defense against his/her bad positions/actions) the ones on the Left seem to disparage those on the Right personally. Couple that with the corruption of Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Rep. Jefferson and others and one can see how easily I can turn the mirror to you and say the same thing.

Cheers...

P.S. - everyone keeps forgetting one of the most recent things you should be loathing good ole Jimmy... his supposed "deal" he worked out the the North Koreans in the 90's where we give them reactors and concessions in exchange for them not developing nukes... whoopsie

thaiphoon wrote:

Instead of spending hours rebutting the above filth, for those still of an impartial unaffected opinion on here (of which there may be none), I simply hope that you value earned honors such as Purple Hearts, and Nobel prizes, or that you respect our nation's current and former scholars, artists and authors, etc. Likewise, I hope you also never forget the relatively recent traitors to our democracy, the criminals (Nixon, Liddy, North, Libby, Abramoff....more to come) who seem to often be amongst the orchestration (corrupt administrations, Fox News, etc.) behind the denouncement, reduction, of our nation's heroes.

Seriously ... if you hope to put up Carter as a "hero" in whole or in part because he garnered a Nobel prize (due to his anti-Americanism) then I simply do not know what to say.

As for the denouncement and reduction of our nation's heroes, talk to Jawn Carri (John Kerry), Charlie Rangel, Cindy Sheehan and others on the Left. While the Right, as far as I can see, takes umbrage with the positions the person is taking or their actions (and then that Democrat then wraps himself up in his service and ribbons as a supposed umbrella defense against his/her bad positions/actions) the ones on the Left seem to disparage those on the Right personally. Couple that with the corruption of Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Rep. Jefferson and others and one can see how easily I can turn the mirror to you and say the same thing.

Cheers...

P.S. - everyone keeps forgetting one of the most recent things you should be loathing good ole Jimmy... his supposed "deal" he worked out the the North Koreans in the 90's where we give them reactors and concessions in exchange for them not developing nukes... whoopsie

Don't forget Ted Kennedy!

Ted who?

ATV wrote:Instead of spending hours rebutting the above filth, for those still of an impartial unaffected opinion on here (of which there may be none), I simply hope that you value earned honors such as Purple Hearts, and Nobel prizes, or that you respect our nation's current and former scholars, artists and authors, etc. Likewise, I hope you also never forget the relatively recent traitors to our democracy, the criminals (Nixon, Liddy, North, Libby, Abramoff....more to come) who seem to often be amongst the orchestration (corrupt administrations, Fox News, etc.) behind the denouncement, reduction, of our nation's heroes.

Heroes? I thought we were talking about Jimmy Carter. Liar, lover of terrorists and dictators, blames the US for all evil in the world. Sorry, I was in the wrong discussion, I'll find the Jimmy Carter one.

Don't forget Ted Kennedy!

That's right, all you facists be sure to get in line....

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/1 ... ile-enemy/

ATV wrote:

Don't forget Ted Kennedy!

That's right, all you facists be sure to get in line....

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/1 ... ile-enemy/

I thought liberals were against labelling? Turns out you're just against being labelled. Isn't it funny how the people who do things the most are the first to cry when it's done to them?

Republicans are "neocons."
Republicans are "Nazis"
Republicans are "racist."
Republicans are "sexist."
Republicans are "anti-environment."
Republicans are "anti-poor"
Bush is "Dumb" (an intellectually lazy argument, if he is it would be easy to focus on the issue)
Bush Senior was "dumb"
Reagan was "dumb"
Rumsfeld is "dumb"
Newt Gingrich is "dumb" (funny how non-liberals are always dumb, like wanting the corrupt inept government to care for you is so freaking brilliant)
The Bush administration is giving our government to "big oil."
The Bush administration is giving our government to "corporate america."
Republicans are a "culture of corruption."

Yeah, liberals are against labelling.

labels, blah blah, Republicans, Nazis something something, blah blah blah

No more Ted Kennedy? Wha Happen?

ATV wrote:

labels, blah blah, Republicans, Nazis something something, blah blah blah

No more Ted Kennedy? Wha Happen?

Another brilliant liberal argument. I think I'm starting to come around.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Ted who?

He is the senator from Massachusetts that got away with murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

http://www.ytedk.com/chappindex.htm