Empty Pot Speaks
The perennial empty pot is at it again, Jimmy Carter has the unmitigated gall to lecture about the US being in more danger because we "didn't stay in Afghanistan".
FALLON, Nev. — Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday major policy changes are needed because the Iraq war has divided the nation "almost as much as Vietnam."
"So there's no doubt that our country is in much more danger now from terrorism than it would have been if we would have done what we should have done and stayed in Afghanistan," he said on the campaign trail with his son, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Jack Carter.
The former president said the Bush administration made a "terrible mistake" by invading Iraq and diverting troops from Afghanistan.
Yeah, Jimmy. We've been in more danger from terrorism alright. But you have the dates all mixed up. We have been in more danger since November 4, 1979. Thanks to you, Jimmy.
Other Links to this Post
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Clang, Clang, Clang Goes The Jimmy — Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 1:22 pm
By Black Jack, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Maybe Jimmy Carter should go on TV and wag his finger at the interviewer, puff himself up, get red in the face, and say it was all someone someone else’s fault.
He could lean forward, attempt to intimidate the interviewer, poke him in the chest, lie and distort the historical record, and say that he might have failed to rescue our hostages in Iran, but he tried, at least he tried, dag-nab-it!
He could claim that he’d have succeeded too, if he wasn’t so busy, hard at work sucking up to dictators and selling peanuts.
That’s assuming of course he could find someone who wouldn’t laugh in his face.
By Bob, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 1:46 pm
BlackJack, I get the sense that Clinton must have really rattled not just Chris Wallace, but countless millions of other conservatives too. Here is a President who can think on his feet, speak in complete sentences, and who left office with approval ratings that embarrass the current president ( and this despite the best efforts of right wingers to bring him down). It must enrage you that there’s still no one who can touch him. But please, let’s have some more childish insults . . . it’s really amusing.
By Black Jack, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 8:00 pm
Bob, are you really comfortable pretending that Bill Clinton didn’t rape Juanita Broaderick? That he didn’t try to force himself on Paula Jones? That he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky?
Why are you throwing away your own integrity on the guy who sold pardons to drug dealers and international fugitives?
I’d like to know why you defend a man who can’t bring himself to face the truth of the damage he inflicts on others.
By Bob, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 11:03 pm
BlackJack, let’s be serious. Do you honestly think that if Clinton had committed any crimes before or during his presidency that sufficient evidence wouldn’t have been found to produce an indictment? How much evidence of wrongdoing do you think they should have been able to uncover after spending tens of millions of dollars investigating him? Or was Ken Starr part of a brilliant and secret conspiracy to overlook actual crimes and only pursue leads that would, in the end, come up totally empty? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Right wingers like to accuse the left of being obsessed with George W. Bush. But come on. Clinton’s been out of office for years now. Time to give it a rest. He’s a womanizer, sure, but there seems to be no evidence that he broke any laws despite EXHAUSTIVE inquiry. You certainly wouldn’t know one way or the other yourself, so maybe you should give the guy the benefit of the doubt for a change.
By Black Jack, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 12:15 pm
Bob, you’re blind as bat, but funny, I’ll give you that. Seriously, your comment above is indicative of the type of deliberate myopia Clinton’s apologists too often exhibit.
But, in response to you first question: Yes, I think Clinton committed crimes during his presidency and that sufficient evidence was found to produce an indictment.
As to your second and third questions: Yes, there was no lack of evidence of Clinton’s wrongdoing, and although Clinton and his snarling pack of smear merchants incessantly accused Ken Starr of being part of a plot to get him, there was little evidence to support that accusation.
While it’s true Clinton’s been out of office for some years now, he’s never out of the public eye for long, he’s often on TV or traveling to visit world leaders, his wife is a Senator with presidential ambitions, he’s attempting to influence the outcome of elections, and he’s currently trying to rewrite his record in office to escape responsibility for blatant incompetence in the face of multiple terrorist attacks. Americans died because Bill Clinton was busy chasing Monica Lewinsky around the oval office instead of protecting the nation. That’s Bill Clinton’s legacy.
So please, it’s disingenuous to try passing off a patently bogus claim that angry Republicans are going out of their way to pester poor Bill Clinton’s retirement celebration.
Moreover, you claim there’s “no evidence that he broke any laws…” What poppycock!
Perjury is against the law and so is obstruction of justice, those are two charges to which he plead guilty, and for which he was variously indicted, impeached, lost his law license, and had to pay a fine.
Now, to you all that may not constitute “evidence” since you seem to think Clinton deserves “the benefit of the doubt…”
Well, there is no doubt, Bill Clinton is an admitted liar, a confessed crook, a rapist and a serial abuser of women, and he’ll go down in history as a miserable failure, as a president, as an American, and as a man.
By Bob, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Black Jack, the issue that I have in general with you is not that you hold a different political philosophy than me. I’m fine with conservatives who are honest and principled. But what seems to have become a major driving force behind the conservative movement is more like a kind of identity-based zealotry that only cares about its own side, and will pursue any course of action—no matter how unprincipled or inconsistent with American values it may be—to win. It’s more like gang warfare or a sort of bigotry, where your political opponents are automatically immoral and unworthy just because you say so. Meanwhile, you excuse any and all transgressions of your own side, turning a blind eye to dishonesty, graft, racism—you name it. If it were left up to people like you, the Bush administration could tear up the Constitution and throw all of the Democratic leadership in jail, and you’d probably cheer them on. You’d probably think they got what they deserved.
By Black Jack, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Bob, I said in response to your previous comment that you were “blind as a bat,” well, that didn’t quite cover the issue. The blind don’t see at all, but you can see all right, it’s just that you project your own delusions onto others.
That’s exactly what you’ve done in your latest comment, you accuse me of your own faults. What you think you see is actually the reflection of what you’ve become.
Read your own words and reflect on the peculiar sort of zealotry so much in evidence right before your eyes. The big tip-off is where you point the finger at me and say, “…you excuse any and all transgressions of your own side, turning a blind eye to dishonesty, graft, racism—you name it.”
Now, Bob, if you can’t see that’s exactly what you’ve been doing here, making excuses for Bill Clinton’s transgressions, well, there’s little left for an honest and principled conservative to say, other than to object to your final two sentences.
“People like me” don’t want to tear up the Constitution, we want to defend it from people like you. And, if some in the Democrat leadership end up in jail, well, it will be because they were indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury of their peers for criminal misbehavior. And, yes, if they deserved it, I would consider it appropriate, but I wouldn’t cheer.
By Bob, Saturday, 30 September , 2006 @ 12:50 am
Black Jack, I have conservative friends that I respect and can actually have conversations with. They’re fair and reasonable people who realize that nobody can always have it their way. They’re good sports who can dish it out as well as take a joke.
On the other hand, there are people like you who give no quarter to anyone who disagrees with you. You’re so steeped in propaganda and hatred of your political opponents that you actually dehumanize them. To you, Bill Clinton (or me, for that matter) isn’t so much a person as an object of hatred. And I get the sense that for you, dishing out hatred is something that amuses you. Am I right?
I’ve debated you here to see if I got any sense of fairness or any flexibility at all. Most people, even if they disagree over some specific issue, can usually, eventually, find some common ground. Most people are willing to meet halfway, as it were. I’ve corresponded with lots of people I disagreed with, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered someone who was more extreme in their rhetoric or their attitudes than you. You’re way out on the fringe. Do you realize that?
By Black Jack, Saturday, 30 September , 2006 @ 3:53 pm
Bob asked, “Am I right?”
No, Bob, you’re not. And, not only are you wrong, again you blindly accuse me of your own faults. That’s getting to be a bit old. You should wake up and smell the coffee.
You say above that you have conservative friends you respect who are fair and reasonable, ones you can have conversations with. Well, Bob, that’s not what you’ve shown here.
Respect for others includes respect for their opinions, especially if they diverge from yours. You talk the talk, but you haven’t shown you can walk the walk.
Rather than address yourself to the issues, you continue to accuse me of personal shortcomings. A partial list of examples follows: You have accused me directly and by implication of not knowing what I was talking about; bigotry; turning a blind eye to dishonesty, graft, and racism; and of cheering on the destruction of the Constitution.
Additionally, You say I’m “steeped in propaganda and hatred,” which you then reiterate by impudently asking if “dishing out hatred is something that amuses (me).” Really, now, isn’t that beneath you?
You say, you’ve debated me looking for “fairness or any flexibility.” Is that what the above represents to you? If so, you’re looking in the wrong place.
Now, you say, “…I don’t think I’ve ever encountered someone who was more extreme in their rhetoric or their attitudes than you.” Say what you will Bob, but that’s not the sort of sentiment which allows for mutual progress in the search for “common ground.”
You say I’m way out on the fringe, and again try to drive home the point by sarcastically asking if I realize it. Well, Bob, the answer is no, but I do realize other sorts of things, and a few of them are about you, most of which however aren’t complimentary.
So, in parting I’ll give you some unrequested advice. If you seek common ground, and mutual respect, in political conversations with a knowledgeable and congenial individual, go into your bathroom and look in the mirror. That’s about the only place where you’re sure to find a guy who meets all your expectations.
By Bob, Sunday, 1 October , 2006 @ 9:45 pm
BlackJack, I will take your unsolicited advice with the grain of salt that it’s worth. People who go out slandering public figures based on propaganda from extremist sources shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously. People with arrogant and condescending attitudes shouldn’t expect to be received warmly. If you’re not willing to try meeting people somewhere in the middle, then don’t expect anyone to put up with the B.S. just to be nice to you. By the way, the line about “respecting other peoples†opinions was really quite precious, coming from you. Thanks for the laugh.
By Black Jack, Tuesday, 3 October , 2006 @ 2:34 pm
Bob, you’re welcome for the laugh, but the joke’s on you.
You have defended the indefensible, and abused me for refusing to turn a blind eye to Bill Clinton’s misbehavior. If you really were interested in finding common ground, you would have taken off the blinders and faced facts: Bill Clinton is guilty of a long list of undeniable wrongs.
Those are facts and they are not subject to wishful thinking, nor will they evaporate into thin air no matter how far you stick your head in the sand. The road to common ground is paved with good faith, and so far all I’ve seen is vanity, denial, and projection.
Let’s start with the impeachment. It really happened. The House voted to impeach Bill Clinton. Surely, you won’t deny that.