I love posts that say others hate, then proceed to name call and conduct personal attacks. You are the gift that keeps giving.

Why the anger Uber? Get a life. Liberals are goining to run the House and Senate and you are still in melt down mode! I don't think some of you will ever be happy.

Under President Carter, the US was like the kid on the play ground that gets his lunch money stolen and wedgies, but at least he never fought anyone! Liked, possibly, respected NOT.

One difference between Grenada and the Desert 1 fiasco, Reagan was successful. I guess the Iron curtain fell by itself. Oh, don't forget in addition to Iran going exteremist the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, real effective Mr. Carter, can you say Taliban!

If Presient Carter would stick to Charity, he would be more respected.

I agree - what Carter did in the 1970's - race-baiting and all is old news. Besides, beating a Republican-appointed, never-elected incumbent President after Watergate is not exactly moving mountains.

But, let's see what has he done lately? Oh yes, a book declaring that Israel is the real problem and the land they took from the Palestinians must be given back. Not only does that ignore historical facts, it is anti-American and inflamatory.

Habitat for Humanity was much more in line with his abilities and at least that helped people instead of more division and disruption.
meow

I have no problem with someone giving us history lessons, as that puts things into perspective. Most of the people reading this were not around to vote in the Carter-Sanders election, so this information is also interesting. Your personal attacks against the writer are way over the top. Finally, if it's true that a leopard doesn't change its spots, then this early information about Carter helps to explain what kind of person he was and is. With that, we can decide if his attacks on America today are worthy of any more of our attention and respect.

"And finally, if you Google "Jimmy Carter" and "traitor" you'll get 184,000 hits. He and Jane Fonda will always have a special place in my. . . well lets say its not in my heart."

That is a quote from DICK Hobbs on 12/06. But ooohhh, my "personal attacks against the writer are way over the top." Bite me! How's that? I'm not a kind and gentle person like Jeff or Jimmy Carter. You have the AUDACITY to say a leopard doesn't change its spots, when our president used marijuana and other illegal drugs, and both the VP and Pres were alcohol abusers. But there is no such thing as redemption as far as Woody says, and as relates to a Nobel Prize winner. I am amazed that you guys even buy your own BS. I beleive in redemption. I believe people mature and change. And I'm not buying the unverified stories on a former president, but I'm referring to the current. We had better hope that hard charging partying leopard can change his spots. We had better hope that VP Cheney stops at 2 DUIs. Hadn't we?
And Jimmy Carter's attacks on America? Is our President "America?" Is our President the "Constitution?" Are you smoking with him? Those terms are more apropoe for Sadaam Hu ssein or Kim Jong Il in their peeks. Our country, my dear confused poster, works a bit differently.
Leslie Nielson only ACTS like an idiot on TV. Your original poster lives it. I suggest pasting his picture with your comments next round.

Kevin Hack King

Hey, AF A-10, I changed the picture to give you a better image of what I'm like rather than whom I like. Your response is just more of the same personal attacks that people on the left use when their arguments on the issues are weak.

On changing spots, it's obvious that you can't see the difference in changing a behavior versus changing your personality and character. And, I'm not surprised that you and others cite Carter's Nobel Prize as something to behold, but keep in mind that one of the requirements to win it from the left-wing group that controls that prize is to oppose America and speak badly of our country, which Carter does regularly in other countries, unlike other Presidents who retired as statesmen and who support succeeding administrations.

Frankly, Carter has been the worst president in my lifetime and his efforts to redeem himself only seem to be working with the left and the uninformed.

Now to the meat of the mission. Your quote was:

"Frankly, Carter has been the worst president in my lifetime and his efforts to redeem himself only seem to be working with the left and the uninformed."

I will keep this reply short and void of my opinion.

Millions upon millions of Americans use Google and Yahoo. The most popular hits for a said topic are displayed at the top, and are listed from most searched to least searched sites. While Google hits are not imperical data, they will give us an idea of where the majority of Americans are searching.

Google site search for "worst president ever" yields as the top 3:

Rolling Stone : The Worst President in History? One of America's leading historians assesses Bush, and finds that among historians he is in serious contention for the title of worst president ever.
www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

President of the United States - George W. BushBiography of the president from the official White House web site.
www.whitehouse.gov/president/

He's The Worst Ever - washingtonpost.comEver since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 ... I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html

Now, let's try Yahoo: This is cut and pasted from their screen:

Also try: president bush, george w. bush, bush administration More...
WEB RESULTS
He's The Worst Ever - washingtonpost.com
Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. ... I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history. ...washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/.../01/AR2006120101509.html - 107k - Cached - More from this site
Rolling Stone : The Worst President in History?
... historians he is in serious contention for the title of worst president ever. ... Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. ...rollingstone.com/news/.../story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history - 35k - Cached - More from this site
Worst. President. Ever. | TPMCafe
Bush is "the worst president this country has ever had" or Hillary Clinton's ... candidacy for worst president ever, we'll have ... Worst president ever? ...www.tpmcafe.com/node/27975

You are entitled to your opinion, Woody.

Kevin Hack King

Kevin, your analysis proves nothing. There was a concerted effort throughout the liberal part of the blogosphere to have "bush worst president" put into the tag lines of as many blogs as possible, and those tag lines are what artificially drives the results of the search engines--not the inquiries. I think that your selection of this means to make a point is quite incredible and uninformed.

Also, I don't consider the views of Rolling Stone or Arthur Schlesinger to be anywhere close to objective. Do you know anything about either of them and their political loyalties? And, how can or why would a historian rate a President until that President has completed his presidency and some years have passed to see the historical impact of his policies and actions? Left wing publishers put politics ahead of historical accuracy--pure and simple.

Under Carter, we had double digit interest rates, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, a hostage crisis that he allowed and couldn't end, and a general sense of despair among Americans.

Perhaps a better analysis of the success or failure of Carter's administration was the presidential election for his second term in which the people who lived and voted at that time resoundingly rejected Carter, the incumbent, in favor of Reagan.

That's not my opinion. That's historical fact.

(New Reagan picture replaces Clint Eastwood which replaced Leslie Nielsen.)

"Congress OKs landmark U.S.-India nuclear bill"

Rare victory for Bush; critics warn measure could trigger Asian arms race

At least Carter didn't give away nuclear fuel to a foreign country.

I'm still seeing Clint Eastwood's picture, not that anything is wrong with that. I don't even know how to get pix in here.

In my post I made it clear that my search was not empirical data. And none of what I cut and pasted was my opinion. I will tell you confidently that many historians and the court of public opinion will strongly challenge your "worst ever" choice. Your quote was:

"Under Carter, we had double digit interest rates, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, a hostage crisis that he allowed and couldn't end, and a general sense of despair among Americans."

Factually speaking, we currently have a federal budget deficit which eclipses any previous President's. Our national debt, which has risen every year no matter the president in office, has risen at a faster rate than under any previous president's admin. Our nation is arguably as divided as we have ever been. Compared to the Carter hostage crisis, a crisis in which all hostages lived, and several have spoken supportively of Jimmy Carter, we currently have not done so well with soldiers and civilians who have ended up hostages. To blame President Carter for hostages in Iran would require you to blame the current President for hostages taken next door in Iraq. Is that fair to President Bush? I don't think so. So why blame President Carter for hostages taken during his presidency? Do we blame President Bush for the hostages in Chicago yesterday, or the Amish school months ago? Of course not. I believe we have beaten this poor horse into the dust. But all of your points are taken.

Cheers,

Hack

Bad_ptc, the argument was whether or not Carter was a bad president--not, whether or not I support everything that Bush does. Bush is not a classic conservative and has disappointed me and many others who hoped for more. I can agree that both are bad, but at least our economy is rocking along well at this time; and, while people of other nations may not agree with us, they don't laugh at our impotence and unwillingness to defend ourselves.

Regarding helping nuclear nations, Carter interfered with Clinton's dealings with North Korea and allowed that country to continue processing nuclear material until it had a nuclear weapon while it continued to violate agreements with us. I would have more respect for Carter if he were honorable enough to quit attacking succeeding administrations, which was the norm until he came along.

-----

Hack, Carter decided that bad leaders in other nations had to go, even if they were OUR bad leaders. He didn't back the Shah of Iran and opened the door for Ayatolla Khomeini, leading to the embassy takeover. I do blame Carter for not stopping the hostage crisis. He could have closed our embassy or taken the same actions as the Russians when faced with the same situation--shoot at the demonstrators trying to break down the gates, which stopped them. Carter ordered our Marines to not fire and to set down their weapons during the attack. That was a disgrace and must have been hard for those Marines. At least Carter ultimately approved a rescue mission, but that ended in the desert with eight American soldiers dead. The world has changed since Carter was President, especially starting on 9-11-2001, so I don't think comparisons on matters of hostages are meaningful. I still think that an honest historical appraisal of an administration can only be made years later, which is one reason that it goes to an extreme to judge Bush as the worst while there are several innings left in the game.

Anyway, I appreciate your views.

Woody, I believe that your assertion about North Korea is in error. The 1994 Agreed Framework locked up all of NK’s plutonium under the supervision of IAEA inspectors and closed down the reactor at Yongbyon. NK did start reprocessing uranium but because of the technical difficulties, DoD estimates they were at least ten years (a 2004 report so 8 years now) from developing the technology for producing a weapon from uranium. The weapon that they tested was from plutonium from the Yongbyon reactor that they reprocessed after the administration abrogated the Framework. A complete chronology can be found in Fred Kaplan’s article “Rolling Blunder.”

However, if you want to read a chilling account of NK’s malfeasance, check out this report “North Korea: No bygones at Yongbyon” in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists from one of the scientist who first arrived at the reactor site to secure the fuel rods at:

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja03alvarez

Anybody who can read this report and not be frightened by the North Korean’s is in serious denial. This is the stuff of nightmares.

Jeff, here's my understanding. Clinton was dealing with North Korea when your dad put himself into the negotiations, much to the chagrin of Clinton, who seemed to feel as if his handling of that dictator was being undermined. I didn't agree with your dad doing that. We have a State Department. Then, we made and kept promises to help North Korea with their energy needs while they continued to sneak behind our backs and continued their nuclear weapons research and production. That's very general and sums up my understanding of something that has been a problem since Truman. I suspect that details would clear up some questions and issues. I'm not familiar with the book that you cite, so it would be interesting if the author could actually trace the specific plutonium to its source.

One thing that bothers me about your dad is his trust of world dictators and his telling us that we should trust agreements with them (and actually believe that they were elected fairly.) We cannot trust Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Palestinian leaders, etc. to act honorably.

You can bet that I'm nervous about North Korea. Not only is its leader nuts and could disrupt that region, he can also tranfer his atomic resouces to terrorists, who can bring those bombs here.

You do a good job of defending your father, and I hope that you realize that I'm disagreeing with his decisions without meaning anything to be considered a personal attack.

Fred Kaplan’s piece is available on the web. It’s an article he wrote for Slate magazine (I think). The article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is available too; it describes what the scientists saw when they arrived at Yongbyon. The fuel rods were in rotten casing, radioactive algae in the holding tank, gravel covering radioactive spills, dosimeters that didn’t work, contamination everywhere and other shocking stuff.

The North Koreans only had one source of plutonium which was the fuel rods from the Yongbyon reactor. It was widely publicized (and announced by the North) when they threw out the IAEA inspectors and broke the seals on the storage tanks and removed the fuel rods. I have tons of research on it and the US government was well aware of it and issued several public warnings. Other warnings followed the NK announcements that they were reprocessing and that they had developed the Nuclear weapons. Of course all of the warnings went unheeded by NK. DoD issued a report confirming that the bomb they tested was a plutonium device, ostensibly from the Yongbyon reactor fuel rods.

As to trusting dictators, I would point out that in North Korea; the 1994 Agreed Framework specifically mandated that the North abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty which mandates on-going inspectors. North Korea did comply and allowed IAEA inspectors on the Yongbyon site full time. The Framework also called for intrusive inspections into other sites, storage of the fuel rods and a ban on reprocessing them. All of this was in effect under supervision of IAEA inspectors when the US administration withdrew from the agreement. These provisions were in the Framework specifically because Kim Jong-il could not be trusted. I really do not believe that you can find an example of an agreement negotiated by my father that does not have adequate safeguards and verifications in it. I would be glad to research and respond to any that may have given you concern. The Framework is available on the web and is only four pages. I must say that I found it ironic in the extreme when Condoleezza Rice recently announced that the US may provide enticements to lure NK back to the six-party talks and the enticements closely paralleled the provisions in the Agreed Framework.

As to the elections, I am well aware that certifying an election is construed as supporting the winner, although I would strenuously disagree. I was an International Observer in Palestine during the last election when Hamas was elected and was distressed when Hamas won. However, the election was undoubtedly free and fair. Every voter had a letter from the election commission verifying their identity and voter ID. Every voter was required to present the letter along with a picture ID and be checked against a public voters list before they could vote. I personally visited 15 polling sites and at every one there were at least three observers who stayed at that site all day. I believe that over 96% of the polling sites had observers representing both Hamas and Fatah who were and are bitter rivals. In Venezuela, voters were also required to present a letter and picture ID and the certified recount was broadcast on television live. It is indeed unfortunate that certain leaders are elected but that does not preclude the elections being free and fair. I can point to a number of examples like Charles Taylor in Liberia and Chavez who were and are disastrous for their countries. If you have specific concerns about an election which was monitored by the Carter Center, I would be glad to try to address them also.

Jeff, thanks for the comprehensive response. With my schedule, I can't do justice at this time in researching the links you provided and preparing an adequate response, but I will briefly mention a couple of points.

For one, I think that your dad said that the election in Venezeula (I believe it was Venezeula) was more fair than recent ones in the U.S. Just because the Democrats lost recent U.S Presidential elections doesn't justify that statement, which seems to be related to Florida and Ohio. I believe that we are light years ahead of others in voter controls, even though other nations require picture ID's that the Democrats oppose here.

As to monitoring foreign elections, there are many ways that cheating can occur, and I find it hard to accept that spot checking could catch all of that and would allow someone the confidence to state that the election was fair. In my work, I conduct financial audits of companies and government, and I know how much checking we have to do to certify results of data, which couldn't possibly be matched by the Carter Center covering an entire nation.

I don't believe personally that certifying an election is the same as backing the winner. I just expect the people doing the certification to be unbiased, independent, and competent.

In the meantime, people better wake up to threats from North Korea and Iran. The U.N. sure doesn't seem capable of dealing with them.

Just curious, if you don't mind...do you work at the Carter Center yourself or do you do another type of work? However, I won't take it as you're being rude if you would rather not answer.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It does clear up some questions, even though I still support the Republicans over the Soros Democrats.

I could not find a direct quote in which he said the US elections were not fair. I may be splitting hairs here because he has said that aspects of US elections are not fair compared to international standards used by the Carter Center (TCC), EU, UN and others. Specifically, under the international standards definition there must be uniformity in voting procedures (and, of course, in the US we have 50 different standards), there must be equal access to media (whereas in the US candidates buy what they can afford), and there must be a nonpartisan national election commission to resolve disputes (which the US does not have). I am almost certain that he has not called for that definition to be implemented in the US. He has, however, called for the creation of a nonpartisan election commission to resolve disputes and if such a commission did exist, I believe a lot of the fury and angst over the Florida and Ohio returns could have been avoided. As to media access, this is clearly not applicable to the US whereas in a lot of foreign countries, the ruling party owns or controls the media, particularly in Africa; and such a rule makes sense. He has called for picture IDs for all voters in the US, which makes sense to me and with which you probably agree also. Also, FYI, TCC and the EU do not just show up on election day to monitor the election. They are there for usually six months prior to the election monitoring aspects of the election, interviewing candidates, following up on complaints, etc. During the recall election in Venezuela, the EU was not officially represented because there was not enough time between declaring the recall and election day to fit their rules so their people joined with TCC’s people. I take your point about TCCs coverage of an entire nation but we join with literally thousands of certified local observers and international observers. During the time before an election, TCC trains local observers and tries to have locals representing each political party at every polling station, a huge task not always accomplished. However, the bottom line on whether an election is “fair” is whether or not the losing side accepts the result (not referring to the US here).

Please see my reply to Tug13 in this blog as to my job.

Merry Christmas Woody, and a Happy New Year!

Jeff, thanks for the comprehensive answer. If you gave me half a chance, I could probably blow holes through any voting methods that are monitored and approved by observers. I've audited enough books to know that there are many ways to steal and that our audits are effective in great part because of pure bluff.

I don't remember the specific quote about voting fairness in the U.S., as it is just one of those things tucked away in my memory.

We do have uniformity in voting, if you accept that states are separate units and have the right to handle many government functions not usurped by the federal government. The votes just have to be accurate--not uniform. And, remember, the states elect Presidents through their electors--not through popular vote, and each state should determine how it wants to conduct those votes. I highly object to Oregon's method, which negates the secret ballot, but that's their business. Likewise, how Georgia does it is our business and no one elses.

I saw where you described your job. It sounds the same as budgets and forecasts that we do for the banks. Any resemblance between anticipated results and actual results is purely coincidental. Nevertheless, your job sounds interesting and I would enjoy myself the regions that you cover.

Remember, the Lord loves a working man, don't never, ever trust whitey, if you catch it, see a doctor and get rid of it...and, never trust a communist dictator.

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,yourself, and I hope your bowl team wins as long as it's not Nebraska.

In no way should you consider that I am critizing the US voting system, simply pointing out that we don't follow international standards. Our system is tried and tested and the standards were established for countries that are starting out from zero, like Congo or Liberia, or for that matter Venezuela. I'm sure you'll agree that its nice for those types of countries to have some starting point reference standards. But to be clear, in no way do I think the US should adopt all of the international standards nor is that advocated by TCC or for that matter anyone I know.

However, thats not why I blogged back. If you don't have Google Earth, go to Google and download it sometimes (it's free and way cool). Go to Yongbong North Korea and look at that marker to the left (you may have to zoom out a bit) and you can see high definition sat pics of the NK reactor site with all the anti-aircraft placements and stuff. The cooling tower is at: 39 47 44.44N 125 45 19.28E if you have trouble finding it. At work, I have the coordinates for the site where the test explosion was set off. It took me two days to find it (but I got paid for looking... what a great job!). I'll post them for you sometime if you're interested, though there's not much to see. I you like this stuff, look at Pyongyang, one of the most heavily guarded city in the world. You can see over forty anti-aircraft emplacements (turn on the layers: Google Earth Community). I think this is really cool stuff. In fact, Pyongyang is so heavily fortified, they could probably last well over five minutes if we attacked them and they were really lucky. Although, I guess they really wouldn't be that lucky then, would they?

Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!

Jeff, do you ever feel guilty taking money for an interesting job? I had never used Google Earth, as my last computer could not run it, so I forgot about it. Thanks for the link and references. North Korea is so out of control, that I don't know what we can do, and China isn't much help. Maybe we could get college football's BCS to take over world affairs and replace the U.N. and have a playoff system. BTW, I didn't mean to come across as criticizing your position on voting procedures as much as I was saying that I'm happy with the way that we have been doing it (with the exception today of not having a paper trail.)

MC & HNY

Doesn't anyone remember Pres. Ford and his button to solve the problem? Whip Inflation Now. Carter inherited 2 previous mis-guided efforts at a "police" action. You can't have Guns and Butter. Just like you can't fight a war without having a draft and making the population vote by sending their sons (& daughters) to the sound of guns.
We won't git into w being a "classic" conservative. You think Bush the Elder was? How about Granddad Prescott? That dude supported Planned Parenthood.
Sux it up...You and Newt had 12 years to deliver and you didn't; Clinton looks pretty good at this point in "history." And Carter will look much better than w when the final hymn is sung.

Newt didn't deliver? Even Clinton had to go along with Newt and the Republican's Contract with America. Regarding Clinton's place in history, he was only the second president to be impeached.

You do understand that being "Impeached" is not a conviction. You do understand that being in the same company as Andrew Johnson is not a disgrace? The fact that Clinton "had to go along" shows that he was more a centerist than he is given credit and that our gov't. works best by compromise not by shoving it down the minority party's throat.
Gee, all the qualities that may have been found in the Carter Presidency. I have always thought the only dif between Jimmy & Raygun was that One was using a scapel & the other a battle axe.

You do understand that being "Impeached" is not a conviction. You do understand that being in the same company as Andrew Johnson is not a disgrace? The fact that Clinton "had to go along" shows that he was more a centerist than he is given credit and that our gov't. works best by compromise not by shoving it down the minority party's throat.
Gee, all the qualities that may have been found in the Carter Presidency. I have always thought the only dif between Jimmy & Raygun was that One was using a scapel & the other a battle axe.

You cite the success of Clinton and Carter with the benefit of historical perspective. Shouldn't you give Bush the same benefit and wait? The fact is that if the voice of opposition wasn't SO loud from the onset of the war - things might not be as bad as they are.
I don't remember Bush saying it would be easy. I remember him saying it would be a long struggle that would outlast his lifetime and that history will determine how effective he was - a struggle like none we've seen
So give the guy a break. The best defense is a good offense.

I could give the w a benefit of the doubt but the Voice of the Opposition was so LOUD because it was the Right Voice. I doubt even his own father gave counsel to go at this war even if it was to vindicate him. George 1 (& I suppose Colin Powell) at least understood the value of an international consensus. The rest of us understood that Iraq is not a nation, was never a nation and is a "Balkanized" left over from WW I colonization. There is no history or tradition of democracy (a Greco-Roaman invention) among nomadic Arab TRIBES.
Comforting to know he got us into a 30 year struggle. Send in the Twins or that good lookin' nephew before you ask mine to go.
Hey, but what do I know, I just have a history degree from Northwestern and he's got an MBA from Harvard.

But one thing that is often left out is that we didn't start this fight.

You must mean Pearl Harbor because it was last Thr, right? We did not need to go to Irag. You bought into the WMD argument? So did Colin. The Sadman was being controled w/ a North & a South NO FLY ZONE. His economic options were being held in check w/ allied sanctions. The proof that these were all working is that there were not 50,000 US deaths going against the Republican Guard & the fact that there were no WMD's. Before we get ou there may be 50,000 US deaths.
Maybe you confuse this fight w/ Afganistan. How successful would that operation been if 130,000 boots had been put on the ground to look for Osamma? No, we had to go after Daddy Bush's boogy-man.
Send in the Twins or that good lookin' nephew. I don't want to see in 20 yrs them all running for office talking about how they had better things to do. At least me and Clinton stand up & said Hell No WE Won't GO.

Here's something for you all to think about: People want to complain because they believe this war in Iraq is personal; I say, "YOU ARE DARN RIGHT!" It got PERSONAL when our country was attacked and the American People DEMANDED action, now you all want to criticize Bush for doing precisely what the American people demanded he do. Now you want to say "Oops, no WMD's, sorry guys, we'll just leave now." Just because the U.S. never FOUND WMD's doesn't mean they weren't there and it also doesn't mean that Saddam didn't have access to them. I happen to believe that Saddam was a clear and present threat to the safety of this country. On September 11, I was living in Germany, and let me tell you something about our US Army: They know how to keep people safe. No one, and I mean NO ONE could come or go on or off base until the US had a full understanding of the situation. Those men and women really have that stick together thing down. Maybe the entire US should try that on for size and see if we don't get somewhere better than where we are now. I really had no intention of offending anyone, but I am so thankful that I am an American and I can HAVE my opinion, you should all be thankful, too. Maybe instead of blogging away your evenings, you should adopt a soldier overseas, write some letters, send some packages; I'm sure they would love to hear from you, as long as you keep your politics out of it. No matter what your political feelings are, and whether you like it or not, those soldiers are over there fighting for your rights as well as mine. Consider that for a while.

SouthernBelle, GRACE is a VIRTUE

9/11 was an attack launched from Afganistan. Irag is a country that was not a haven for terrorist (dictators hate anarchy), had no connection to Ossama (now proven but we might want to look at the Saudis), did not have WMDs, and evidently had the regime they deserved judging by the populations current behavior toward the liberators.
Support Our Troops / Bring'em Home ALIVE.

CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."

The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
"In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

Maybe this link will interest you about Terror training befor the war! http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

"The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000."

As for WMD:

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

ArmyMajor, your sources: the Weekly Standard, Fox news and the Worldnet Daily are the worse possible! However, if you really want to find the WMDs try the weapons inspectors reports from the UN. I am truely surprised that conservatives don't read the UN stuff. They found tons and tons of weapons and components and reported it. All kinds of biological components, rocket parts, poison gases, pathogens, weapons assembly plants, all kinds of stuff. I am not kidding. For instance there are over forty pages of biological stuff alone and it is all broken down by category. I can only assume that conservatives don't point out this stuff because it was found by the UN and certified as destroyed before the invasion of Iraq.

My sources popped up first at google. Guess they must hate the UN also.

So are you saying these "conservative/biased sources" were, dare I say, correct, truthful and accurate? Sounds almost fair and balanced to me.

I believe they are perceived as biased and, yes, I believe they are biased. I am familiar with the Sarin gas story. A canister found from the desert used in the Iran/Iraq war that the Department of Defense spokesman testified before Congress was no more dangerous than some chemicals that he had under his kitchen sink. To get serious about certified WMDs found there google this doucment from the UN:
“United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) Reports to the Security Council 25 January 1999.” It is really amazing what they did find. I think we both can agree with the sentiment that "people have no idea."

Merry Christmas Major and thank you for your service!

Good afternoon Jeff. Please don't take the constant bashing of your father here personally. Wingnut Nation as a whole has been convulsing since their putative leader got his comeuppance in the elections last month. As such, they are lashing out literally everywhere and at everything, trying to explain away their disgrace.

Real Americans recognize the good service your father gave to his country. If "only Nixon could go to China", then "only Carter could have gotten Sadat and Begin to talk". Your father's legacy at establishing a framework for a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt is a shining accomplishment that no amount of backbiting and revisionism from your father's detractors will ever overcome.

If you read that lickspittle Hobb's last post, you'll see he is too young to really remember the Yom Kippur War. It's worth noting that your father's initiatives have held up well against the test of time.

Have a happy holiday season!
Bas

Basmati you are quite the Sycophant. I think you have something brown on your nose.

And no one has more nuts than Carter you are on Rich

Jeff,

It must be hard to have to listen and/or read about these comments regarding your father. I think that must be extremely hard to do. So my apologies for ruffling your feathers, however, your father was and still remains a very public figure and many Americans, including myself, have some real difficulties with many of the things he has and continues to do. (Mind you, I have real problems with our current CIC but not near to the extent that I have with your father.)

I campaigned for Gerald Ford against your father. I was too young to vote, but I supported Ford. My mother and, I later learned, my wife, voted for your dad. Why? Primarily because he came across as a Southern Christian, God fearing and proud of it.

I even thought your dad was one of the best X-Presidents we ever had. Going around building homes and generally endearing himself to philanthropic matters. But then something changed, and I think it was that inner voice that moves your dad to seek the spotlight, to seek accolades, to seek admiration that caused him to change. He started meddling in other matters wherein he had little if anything to contribute. I think it started when Clinton chose to invite Richard Nixon to the Whitehouse to confer with him on foreign affairs. So when the chance arose, your father jumped in and embarrassed Clinton in Haiti. Which many believed was a victory for Carter but a sad example of Clinton's leadership ability. Heck, Clinton couldn't even control Carter.

Then your dad screwed around in North Korea, in Venezuela and in almost every country that would invite him. Of course, all of these countries were controlled by some two bit socialist dictator who needed your father to stand next to him to give him some legitimacy.

Your father's legacy as governor and as President will go down as failures. Perhaps not the worst President we ever had, but definitely in the bottom of his class. Again, I'd say your father was so very bright and intelligent but with little common sense or principled convictions. His own party in Congress couldn't understand or get along with him. Instead of books praising him, as Reagan has repeatedly had written about him, your father has had dozens of books which evidence his lack of class and shear egoism.

The books line the shelves which talk about his many personal and professional failures. Sad to say, when his Governor's records and Presidential records are finally opened in another 50 years, my children and grandchildren will learn even more about how incompetent he really was.

Again, my apologizes. He is your father and nothing, no matter how harsh or how true will ever convince you otherwise, as it should be I guess, but certainly you can appreciate why many feel so very strongly about your dad. I wish he had just stayed in Plains picking nuts instead of acting like one.

I love this article

Why should the U.S. be the only country on earth to have a trade embargo with Cuba?

Pres. Carter saw how stupid it was and tried to have it lifted.

I suppose you are in favor of keeping it.

Pres. Carter, yes he carries the title for life by the way, has the ability to see past the current rhetoric and is trying to make this world a better place for all.

What are you doing?

I argued earlier in reply to Father Epps that posts may be both anonymous and worthwhile. And, of course, they can be signed bits of bilious trash.

Richard Hobbs signs his name to his posts, and apparently even offers us his photo. But his venom and invective--particularly here on President Carter--is simply over the top. Like a drunk in an alley fight, he swings wild, and is not above kicking low.

I've often said of televangelists like Benny Hinn or our neighbor, Creflo Dollar, that if I thought this was what Christianity was all about, I would have nothing whatever to do with it. Mr. Hobbs' posts occasion similar thoughts regarding political conservativism.

At least Rich puts his name on there and maybe he swings wild but seems like he had hit his target sure has you muddled. As far as his politics well that just is politics he is not getting into Christianity. And the guy that calls him DICK is a loser Cal should throw him off!!! His name is Richard Hobbs. Like him or not you are the loser to call names like a scared little person in the dark.

My objection is not necessarily to his political views. It is to his stooping to personal attack in order to assert them. Articulate people find polite and civil ways of expressing even the most profound disagreement. Politeness might even allow for a bit of "cheekiness" (or as Basmati might call it, "snarkiness"), but never slander.

My reference to "Christianity" was only by way of analogy. The point of comparison: in both cases it is tempting to say, "If this is what it's all about, I want no part of it."

I will say 10-4 to your last paragraph I do personaly think no one should personaly attack any President and you are correct I want no part of that either. This thing has gotten out of control. Now I have some 40 year old fly boy Kevin the 'Hack' KING wanting to put his fists up, because he thinks he smacked me do you think he is so bad because his name is KING maybe he takes that in a literal sence, but I will deal with him on a later blog. Thank you Muddle no hard feelings and have a great day. Merry Christmas I have read your blogs over the last 6 months do not always agree but I do mostly you are ok with me and again Have a Great Christmas and Happy New Year.

Allow me to assign you a pen name; Fly deek. Dick Cheney; does that offend you? Dick Durbin; Dick Clark. So many Dicks. What do you think their names are? Ohh, throw him off Cal, while this rat of a man calls former president Carter a traitor like Jane Fonda with a special place in his... "well let's just say it's not my heart." Conservative cry babies are we? You guys have lost all of your fight. You post on very inflammatory blogs and wine like girls when you get smacked. Pathetic. Be men! Men I say! If you are going to enter this kind of dirty, seedy room, do it with your fists up and guns blazing. Don't become wusses who say, "Cal, ban him. I don't like what he says." "How can you say that as a military man? You can't say these things we disagree with?"
Where in the world is the insurgent Republican comming from; throw a grenade and run for cover? I liked the old conservatives that would at least go toe to toe. The political smack down of Nov 7, 2006 must be your new Waterloo. But time to shake off the shell shock. Either post in a constructive manor if you want constructive conversation, or prepare to roll your sleaves up when you call men racists and traitors. That's how it be. Thats what it do!

Kevin Hack King (that's my name. Do you sign your checks Flydecajon?)
Not scared
Not little
Not in the dark

You know as well as everyone on this site debating this subject you calling Hobbs Dick we all know what you really mean, do not hide behind some famous people that go by that name. You even capitalized it, you should be warned because of the connotation on how you used the word. You continue to do it the prof is this immature blog to me Fly deek what ever that means. No the name Dick Cheney does not offend me you do again with your immature rage. But remember you actually can't offend me you do not have it in you to actually get to me.

Then you say we guys have lost our fight you are lumping me in with people that I never even associated myself with, I am not crying about the midterm elections I would be the first to say in 12 years the republicans have messed a lot up. Get a grip I am actually sitting here LOL at your blog on how easy it was to get you mad enough to want to roll up your sleeves, does that mean little Kevin is wanting me to actually fight you? Due to the time of day your blog was posted sounds like you have been hitting the bottle a little to much slow down soldier there chief Kevin oh that is KING kevin sorry hacking away.. Oh and no I do not sign all my checks my accountant does at this present day but thank you for asking!!

I read your post twice, but I'm sorry to say I have no idea what it means.

Cheers,

Hack (AKA "idiot" from your previous post)

Look you are a military man I respect you for that and your service to our country. I call a truce Have a Merry Christmas and Happy new year.

You friend The Fly

Merci beaucoup mon ami. I gladly roll my sleeve back down and extend you the warmest Christmas Holiday wishes! Thanks for the sentiments.
You might note the post time. I'm currently in my flying squadron, and if you could see what we've done to the squadron bar/ social quarters, you would think this was a combat zone; the smell of old cigars everywhere!
To try to give you a view of what makes us flyboys tick, we engage in various forms of verbal and aerial jousting all of the time. If someone escalates an argument or takes it to a nasty level (like Pres. Carter having a special place in their you know what), we will typically not hesitate to get in the muck and goo to "slug it out" verbally. The funny thing is, we'll be best friends the next day. Over the ages of combat, there have been occaisions where fighter pilots have engaged in aerial warfare in an attempt to kill the enemy, then, when forced to disengage (break off the fight) due to fuel or other reasons, smiled and saluted the man they were just trying to kill. Strange group we are. I'll be the first to admit it. We are people who would gladly give you the shirt off of our backs, stop on I-85 and help you change a tire, or put life and limb at risk for another's safety. But when our buttons are pushed.... This is a rather necessary trait for people we ask to be like police dogs. Usually very safe to feed and pet, but a bit dangerous when dispatched (but for context, only on the boards, of course. no knocks on your door and such).
At any rate, I thank you for being the bigger person (and I admit that you are). Be safe.

Cheers,

Kevin Hack King

I agree with Git real!! You're alright!

Thanks from a mom and a grandma!! Be safe

Trust me I have a similar backround for just as intense battles you are right,once it is over it is over for what ever reason fuel, ammo, a company comander, or even a whistle. Again I know how the flyboy ticks how about the frase hours and hours of flying bordom and a few minutes pure adreneline (HELL) and then flying once again. I once again SALUTE you and the uniform our sleeves down and in the proper cuffed position, and I meant what I said in my last blog, thank you for the response all is forgivin, once again have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Hope you and your family have a great Holliday

Cheers

Your friend The Fly

You're alright. I don't care what your fly buddies say about you.

after our late night "social roll call" in the squadron last night. Today was a no fly day of briefings on the laws of armed combat, the privacy act, and the current "gulp" don't ask, don't tell, don't participate policy on homosexuality. We were quite a sorry looking group. The bad thing about being a Lieutenant (LPA or junior officer) is they were the ones cleaning up half-smoked cigars and various spilled and half eaten items.
I think that RICHARD Hobbs succeeded in generating one of the longest threaded posts I have ever seen on The Citizen. And thanks to the good nature of our posters, it almost always ends in civility. Is this a great country or what?!

Hack

May I add this to the last sentence in your post?
(Is this a great country or what?!)

Yes, this is a great country Hack. One of the reasons is because of people like you, who risk your life for us!

Be safe. God Bless.

This is a great nation my brother you are correct on all facets of that blog. Once again have a great one my friend.

Your Friend The Fly.

Conservative cry babies are we? You guys have lost all of your fight. You post on very inflammatory blogs and wine like girls when you get smacked. Pathetic. Be men!

Let's just say that this Conservative is not a cry baby nor have I lost my fight. Congratulations you guys won. The fight is getting really nasty between your side and my side. At this point might you agree it ain't worth it. I say let's give your side a couple of months (after entering office)to really see what their true agenda is. Lest we look like Jones & Snitch who have already determined that Maxwell needs to brought before a Grand Jury before he even takes office. We'll see if their legislative direction reflects the promises they ran on. Time will tell.

As far as President Carter goes I respectfully have to differ with many of his tactics though I will not question his heart. Guess we could get into that one but that's not why I'm blogging you. I'm going to take a different approach than our friend Richard. I'm going to wish Jimmy Carter a long and healthy life and I hope that Jeff Carter gets to enjoy the relationship and presence of his dad for many more years. In the last couple of years I've come to realize how important it is to value the time we have left with our parents.

When President Carter passes I will bow my head with Jeff in my thoughts and prayers. With that said I will try hard not to make disagreements of ideology with the Carter family and my views personally. Former President Jimmy Carter deserves the same dignity and respect that any deceased president deserves and I honor his service and his life on that day.

On another note Hack....I enjoy my anonymity here on the Citizen. I have found no reason for me to assign my given name to this forum. It's not about me but rather about the ideas we debate. Unless you're Richard Hobbs who is weighing the idea of entering the political arena and need the publicity and name recognition. Or...chuckle..chuckle... Father Oops who would benefit from an anonymous moniker as he trashes on the rest of us but yet gets duped by the deceased Robert W. Morgan. Sorry...I couldn't resist.

I have a honest question why do you think Maxwell should be put in front of the grand jury do you know something we do not? I am not being a smart but I am asking you of your fact and opinion I value it. I hope you have a great night and I will look for your reply.

Your buddy the Fly

Read this again please:

I say let's give your side a couple of months (after entering office)to really see what their true agenda is. Lest we look like Jones & Snitch who have already determined that Maxwell needs to brought before a Grand Jury before he even takes office.

I don't think Maxwell needs to be brought in front of a Grand Jury. I am just saying that sore losers like Jones, Snitch and Lawblowhard keep slamming and condemning Maxwell and Smith and the poor guys haven't even had the opportunity to take their oaths yet let alone screw the taxpayers over which is what these clowns are already insinuating.

Sorry bout the confusion.

Thank for the clearification you are 100% right, thank you for the speedy reply.

Your buddy the Fly

By posting in this local, small town forum, Jeff Carter accomplishes more than he may realize with his posts.

If President Carter is the fraud and scoundrel (and senile old man) that some here have suggested, then who, more than a politically astute adult son would be in a position to know?

What we have seen in Jeff C's posts is a consistent and dogged defense of his father as both his father and our former President.

If the fraud charge sticks, then, given Jeff C's defense, we must conclude either that (a) Jeff does not know his own father or (b) Jeff is also a fraud and a scoundrel.

But neither (a) nor (b) is plausible. (a) is ruled out from a common sense view of what we know about families--not to mention his obvious intimate knowledge of the goings on in his dad's political life. (b) is ruled out by the tenor and obvious sincerity of Jeff C's posts, as well as his expressed respect for his own father. Beyond these features of the posts, they have been replete with appeal to verifiable (or falsifiable) facts and at least plausible arguments from those facts.

Whether you like our former President's politics or not, as a participant in this forum and privy to Jeff C's blogs, the most reasonable conclusion is that our former President is, at the very least, a man of conscience. I've always believed this of him despite my own political differences. For this reason, and for reason of his office and accomplishments, he is deserving of our respect--not our slander.

I suspect that all the arguments being made here for respect to be shown for presidents and former presidents, no matter what they have done, is an automatic reflex for some people who do need a figure to look up to that can do no wrong. Many religions are that way.
That is why some still want kings, and pricesses and so forth.
If we can't argue the occasional idiocy of people like Carter, Clinton, Reagan, and Bush, then all is lost. We can also talk about their obvious good points.

You have missed my point--as is your wont.

No social science explanation is necessary to explain a moral objection to slander.

As you can see this clown really ticked me off. I hate when that side of me comes out, but at times it is needed. Thanks for the balance, calm, and measured post. At the end of the day, human relationships do outweigh political posturing. I'll probably take a vacation from here to meditate and do some Tai Chi. Take care, and all the best to you and yours this Christmas and New Year!

Cheers,

HAck

You seem to have this problem quite often. Have you considered anger management?

No.

Cheers,

Hack

Chuckle...Chuckle..

Cheers

The Lion

At the end of the day, human relationships do outweigh political posturing.

I have to remind myself about this often and it doesn't always work. LOL

Merry Christmas!

Dear Git,
You have indicated that you know me. I suspect I may know you but you do a good job of masking your identity which is fine. But if you truly knew me then you know that my ambition for higher office is less than my ambitions to pay my taxes.

I sort of think of myself like Groucho Marx. I'd never belong to an organization that would have someone like me as a member.

In reality, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm very opinionated but I doubt I have the skin thick enough to do the job that needed to be done and then not let it eat at me for days on end. I'd mull it around way too much.

So again, my occasional letter to the editor may be construed as an attempt at getting my name out there, when in reality it is just my way of expressing my opinion about matters that I want to share. Besides, I run a small law office with about 7 employees and a website or two for lawyers, including one for Republican Trial Lawyers. I don't have the time nor inclination to do anything more than I already do. I'd rather be playing the game than coaching it. So instead, I enjoy helping others who have character and integrity get elected. Sides' I can't remember anyone's name at all. And to be electable you have to be extremely outgoing personality wise, and I am by no means that.

Oh and I can't type very well either, so that every letter or word I write is not perfect. Therefore, I'd be hard pressed to avoid the witty digs by such people as Geoff(sic)Carter or the "bombastic" comments by Hack.

So Git Real, from what you know about me personally, do you really, really, think I'm posturing? If so, copy this blog entry and save it for when I decide to run. That should embarrass me enough to stay out of the race, because if I were to be running in the future, I sure as heck wouldn't be writing such opinions. Instead, they would less caustic and more charitable. Don't you think?

Well now we know. Thanks for the clarification. Let it be know this day that Richard Hobbs and Git Real are not candidates for any office. I couldn't do it either. Can you imagine my big mouth when some idiot came up to podium to address the commission with some unintelligible babbling remarks? Like an old friend told me one time... wanna make enemies? Run for the school board or the county commission. LOL

Now if Lynn Westmoreland goes unchallenged it the Republican primary then maybe that;s a different story. Then maybe I'll take him on for the good of our country and the credibility of the Republican Party. Gosh...guess I'd have to become a Republican again. Oh well...that's easy. Just have to give Marilyn and Lane Watts $25 bucks for a membership.

I agree with Muddle on both counts. Father Epps was criticizing anonymous bloggers by praising an anonymous blogger who duped Father Epps into thinking he was for real.

Mr. Hobbs is obviously running for office. So, he is playing the safe Republican crowd by bashing Jimmy Carter. It is safe--- like wearing a flag lapel pin. But just like Lynn Westmoreland's zealous Christianity marred by the tens of thousands in liquor industry contributions, Mr. Hobbs is also a neo-Con since he makes his living as a trial lawyer (which is legal) but yet a repudiation of the central Republican goal of tort reform. Oh well, voters only see the lapel pin and the Carter bashing. That'll work.

Oh, yeah, that Christianity thing gets forgotten when we start trashing on former presidents because (a) they started it and (b) they are public figures.

Under Hobbs' logic, George W Bush should be making arrangements to be buried in Iraq or Afghanistan, whose regimes and accompanying mess he helped to create. It is just a matter of perspective, you see, Jimmy Carter stands as a human rights advocate for many peoples overseas while considered almost a traitor in the USA, while Bush is the champion of rednecks, bigots and obtused minded right wing people in the U.S. (Yes, the Hannitys, O'Reillys, Limbaughs and Hobbses) while being considered a disgrace by and for the rest of the world (literally), the WORST president in U.S. history.

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

For looking scary you sure are articulate. Good job.

Rich he put you in the same perspective as Hannity, and Limbaugh now that is a compliment you must have a 22 million dollar house too you go boy.

He is one of the only people I ever have seen defend Carter on TV - when did he get thrown in with right wingers?

Oh, you may wish to know that obtuse cannot be past tense.... it's usually and adjective but sometimes an adverb or even a noun.

By the way DragNet your extreme rants are making most of us democrats look bad. Further below I asked after your comment if you thought being gay was a bad thing - I would appreciate your answer.

No Mr. Hobbs, it is not hard at all to listen or read harsh comments about my father. Truly, we are all used to it and we consider the sources. I do get aggravated when people attack aspects of his Christianity, which you did not do; but other than that, he is a public person putting forth public ideas open to public debate, so have at it. Having said that, I reiterate that I consider the source. You began this blog with the following sentence: “I was watching the news over the weekend and saw how Jimmy Carter is trying desperately to get people to come to his funeral.” To me, that displays a lack of class that instantly allows me to categorize you as an uncultivated boor with whom I might clash with in a contest of wits and facts but whose personal opinions of my family just join a long line of others whose opinions are irrelevant to me. So again, have at it. Really, after 40 years of it, it does not bother me at all.

Another aspect is the specific instances which you choose to perceive as failures. It may surprise you, infuriate you, or you may be indifferent to the fact that I perceive these as great successes. In Haiti, Carter, Sam Nunn and Colin Powell went there at the behest of President Clinton and convinced the strongman dictator to leave the country and go into exile. Here is the beginning of President Clinton’s speech the next morning: “Good morning. I'd like to begin by thanking President Carter, General Powell, and Senator Nunn for their extraordinary work in Haiti. They got in very early this morning; they have had hardly any sleep for the last 2 nights, as they have worked virtually around the clock. The peaceful solution they helped to work out is another major contribution in all their careers, which have been devoted to the pursuit of peace and democracy. They have done a great service to our country, as well as to the people of Haiti, the people in our hemisphere, and the efforts of the United Nations, and we owe them a great deal of gratitude.” Some NYT headlines: “Words of Clinton and his Envoys: A Chance to Restore Democracy,” “In Congress; Resolutions Abruptly Change from Opposition to Praise,” “Carter, in Haiti, Pursues Peaceful Shift.” Etc., etc., etc.

In Venezuela, the Embassy of the United States issued a press release entitled: “US Supports Efforts of OAS and Carter Center in Venezuela.” Amnesty International’s report: “Venezuela Human Rights under Threat,” credits negotiations mediated by the Carter Center and the OAS led to an agreement between the government and the opposition umbrella organization, the Coordinadora Democrática, committing both sides to seek a "constitutional, peaceful, democratic and electoral solution" to the crisis.” The US representative to the OAS, in a State Department information report praised the Carter Center and OAS for “consummate diplomatic skill and political savvy” in surmounting “the obstacles placed in the path of the recall referendum by Chavez and his supporters.” The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs released a document, “Canada Reiterates support for OAS and Carter Center Efforts in Venezuela. The EU expressed support as did many other organizations. Conversely, two Venezuelan reporters, supporters of Chavez, repeatedly attacked the Carter Center negotiators, incensed that they would call Chavez a “pariah” and accuse him of deliberately provoking the US. Referring to the Carter Center’s criticism of the Venezuelan government’s election council, Prensa Latina, Castro’s Havana newspaper, called for Chavez to reconsider having the Carter Center as election observers and called for the retraction of the “gross and irresponsible” declarations supposedly made by our representatives.

In my opinion, one of the greatest achievements was the 1994 Agreed Framework negotiated in North Korea. At the time, an attack by the US under President Clinton was imminent because the leader of North Korea was on the verge of moving spent reactor fuel rods from the Yongbyon reactor to a reprocessing plant to extract plutonium to build nuclear weapons. The Agreed Framework caused the North Koreans to lock up the fuel rods, recommit to controls under the NPT, placed IAEA inspectors in the country at the site and, had it been further implemented by the US, would have caused the fuel rods to be removed from North Korea by now. This held for eight years until the current administration renounced the Framework; and what has happened now to the fuel rods? They have been reprocessed into North Korean nuclear weapons with no consequences to the leaders of North Korea. The United States has been immeasurably harmed and the current administration has been reduced to subjugating American foreign policy in the region to the Chinese, begging for them to control the situation. This is immensely disturbing to me.

I can, as you say, appreciate why many feel so very strongly about him. He wins because he is almost always right. That must be frustrating for you but it is hardly his fault.

Perhaps you will post specific reasons why the removal from Haiti of the strongman dictator disturbs you so much. Why you are so frightened by people in South America, Africa and the Middle East electing their leaders in free and fair elections? Chavez is a very aggravating person but do you really think he is a threat to the US? Are you pleased that the North Koreans now have nuclear weapons as a direct result of the agreement my father negotiated being abrogated? And given the lack of substance in your arguments and what I perceive as a lack of knowledge and understanding of foreign policy, do you really think I care that you “wish he had just stayed in Plains picking nuts instead of acting like one.”

Jeff

Jeff,

Your volumnous response is too much to handle. I could nit pick each "fact" that you mention, but I dare say we would never agree.

Off the cuff, I will mention these matters. My recollection re: Haiti is Clinton had told Carter to get out. The troops were already in the air and he had made the call to use force. Your father ignored him and continued to try and barter with these men. Fortunately, your father was able to do so, however, he disobeyed a direct order by the President. He ignored him. Clinton publically praised aside, in reality he was furious that your father grandstanded him, but then he realized its hard to be angry when the results were good.

As to Clinton, North Korean and your father, I'll just have to slap my leg and say my God, do you really believe this stuff. The fact is Clinton was no where close to using force against North Korea. The only time he ever used force was when he could lob a cruise missle into some camel tent in the middle of the desert or to blow up an aspirin factory. So your father coming to save the day was stupid. The North Koreans were violating this "framework" before it was even signed. We basically helped support the North Korean regime with our money for 8 years with nothing to show for it.

What about your father's reported attempts to encourage the Soviet Union to indirectly participate in both the 1980 and 1984 elections? Their ambassador's records, now exposed to the light of day after the fall of the Curtain, reflect your father's continued prodding for the Soviet's to assist him in beating Reagan. Your father repeatedly told our enemy that Reagan was not to be trusted and that Peace was at stake.

Prior to the first Gulf War, your father was contacking China and France and several other leaders to get them to Veto the move by George H.W. Bush from kicking Sadamm out of Kuwait. Yeah, your dad was making even more stupid decisions 11 years after losing his job. Thank God he wasn't making the decisions then, and thank God no real world leader would listen to him. (The people of Kuwait are also thankful too.)

In other words, your father has shown a continued and maniacal obessession with finding his "recognized" place in this world. He desires notoriety. He lobbied extensively for the Nobel Peace Prize. He catered to despots all over the world and has meddled in the affairs of every President since he left office, a tradition that is new, and one that I suggest not be continued.

You say you can handle it Jeff, so handle this. Your father is a sad and bitter old man that never should have been elected Governor or President and he screwed it all up by his constant meddling around with everything everyone was doing. I'm told he even had to approve the use of the White House Swimming pool. His ego is insatiable so he needs to get attention through control. Ergo, why he needs to believe that his funeral will be as grandious as Ronald Reagan's was. Well, the only attention it will recieve of any notoriety will be from the third world socialists dictators that your father loved to kiss up to.
Instead of Margaret Thatcher or Brian Mullhoney speaking of what a great leader he was, your dad's speakers will be left wing socialists who oppress their own people partly due to your father's prior help.

I sincerely believe that if your dad had brought you up in South America or Africa, that he would have created his own dictatorship. The result would be the same as all of the others wherein Jimmy, who knows so much more than everyone else, will be there to take care of us and make our lives so much better, as long as we never challenge him.

My earlier class-less comments about him lobbying people to come to his funeral, was made in jest, but was in reality an hyperbole of sorts. I sincerley believe he is doing his best to grease the skids for that underlying reason. Hells bells, even Nixon's funeral, as discreet as it was, will hold prominence over your fathers funeral, and that alone drives him insane, if thats even possible.

Again, you asked for it, so I gave it to you. Your father is a public figure. I for one, can not understand why you would want to stand up to this, since the vast majority of Americans consider your father a dismal failure, but then again, a third of our population wasn't even born when your dad was President, so maybe you can help "re-write" the truth for his legacy.

And finally, if you Google "Jimmy Carter" and "traitor" you'll get 184,000 hits. He and Jane Fonda will always have a special place in my. . . well lets say its not in my heart.

Dick,

I am in awe that you are so devoted to following the failures of Jimmy Carter that you actually know more intimate details about his policies and the inner workings of Washington than his son! However, I must admit that your discussion of Carter’s policies both during and after his tenure do lack a bit of sustenance. As an accomplished lawyer, I can understand how the line between ‘claim’ and ‘fact’ became a bit blurry. So, as an engineer and ergo a member of the scientific community, allow me to remind you how to differentiate between a ‘claim’ and a ‘fact’. Once mastered, Mr. Hobbs, you will find that even the most inconceivable ramblings, once supported by facts, have the capability of resembling parts of the reality based society in which we all live, albeit to the disdain of many.

Merriam-Webster defines a ‘claim’ as “[an assertion] in the face of possible contradiction”. The great thing about a claim is that you can state anything you want to without any regard to authenticity. Therefore, a claim is easy to use because unlike a fact, you can just make it up. In fact, you can even claim a claim as a fact! It is obvious from reading your diatribe Mr. Hobbs that I need not elaborate any more about the benefits of using claims, but of course, their Achilles’ heel is that claims can be either proven or disproven by the use of a fact. This limitation is important because most scholars hold that the one who asserts a false claim, once facts are provided to the contrary, is thus proven wrong.

The same covey of lexicographers that gave us the ‘claim’ defines a ‘fact’ as “the quality of being actual”. Therefore, a fact has a sustainable relationship to the real world. Admittedly, facts are more difficult to use than claims because you simply cannot make them up. The use of a fact generally requires research, which involves seeking information about statistics or events that actually happened.

For example, when you say, “The fact is Clinton was no where close to using force against North Korea”, that is actually a claim; Jeff has disproven your claim by uncovering the fact that President Clinton, at a security forum in Rotterdam on December 15, 2002, was quoted as saying, “We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and destroy their reactors and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear program.” Now, even though that quote was directly from President Clinton, it should be considered a secondary fact, being that just saying that they had plans to attack weren’t the actual plans themselves. However, as secondary facts go, that one was pretty good.

Now, a primary fact is special because its mere existence is self vivified as an irrefutable account of reality. You seemed to have gotten it right when you said, “if you Google “Jimmy Carter” and “Traitor” you’ll get 184,000 hits.” There is no denying that assertion, so therefore you can correctly claim that you used a primary fact. Your fact was about search engine results, but nonetheless irrefutable. However, with a consider-the-source mentality, among the first of the 184,000 hits you so fervidly championed are from websites like newsmax.com, american-partisan.com, and probush.com, whereas Jeff’s sources are from the United States State Department, Amnesty International, the Canadian Department of Affairs, and the European Union to name a few. I leave it up to the reader to determine whose argument is more credible.

So now, Mr. Hobbs, instead of just having a knee slapin’ good ole’ time repackaging the same rhetoric you said before, you can start off using this knowledge to support your claim that Jimmy Carter “lobbied extensively for the Nobel Peace Prize.” It should be easy enough to find at least one single fact to support this. I mean, come on! You get 9,660 hits when you Google “’Jimmy Carter’ lobbied ‘Nobel Peace Prize’”. There’s got to be something there that’s slightly more credible than discoverthenetwork.org.

Good Luck!

Josh.

Mr. Hobbs:

You wrote that my, “volumnous (sic) response is too much to handle.” I am sorry to have overwhelmed you with facts. You can skip this rather long post. However, if you feel that you can concentrate for more than a few minutes, I will endeavor to respond to the points you feel you have made.

I have some knowledge of the occurrences in Haiti. President Clinton told Carter, Nunn and Powell to be out of the country by nightfall, which they were. The delegation in Haiti was in almost constant contact with President Clinton and as any reasonable person could figure out, under the circumstances President Clinton would not want to bomb Haiti while a former President, a former US Senator and General Powell were there nor would a former President, a former US Senator nor a General wish to be there while the place was being bombed. This would explain the need for communication. I have been assured by both my father and Senator Nunn that there was constant communication between them and the White House and I do not believe there was any direct order from the President that was disobeyed. I hope this eases your concerns. You further state that: “Clinton publically (sic) praised aside, in reality he was furious that your father grandstanded him, but then he realized its (sic) hard to be angry when the results were good.” Although your sentence is almost incomprehensible, I will focus on the fact that you believe the results were good and so comfort myself that you and I are in agreement on this.

However, I must say that we are not in agreement on the circumstances in North Korea in spite of the fact that you are knee-slappingly sure to the point of writing: “The fact is Clinton was no where close to using force against North Korea. The only time he ever used force was when he could lob a cruise missle (sic) into some camel tent in the middle of the desert or to blow up an aspirin factory.” I too was aggravated about the aspirin factory thing. However, the fact is that Clinton's generals drew up plans to send 50,000 troops to South Korea as well as over 400 combat jets, 50 ships, and additional battalions of Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, multiple-launch rockets, and Patriot air-defense missiles. Clinton also ordered in an advance team of 250 soldiers to set up logistical headquarters to manage the massive influx of firepower. You can read about it in Fred Kaplan’s excellent article, “Rolling Blunder” if you are interested in real facts. Alternately, if finding the article is beyond your capabilities, here is a quote from President Clinton himself, speaking at a security conference in Rotterdam in the Netherlands’s on December 16, 2002: "We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and to destroy their reactors and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear program.” As the old saying goes, “You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.” An indisputable fact is that the nuclear weapon recently tested by North Korea was made using plutonium extracted from the fuel rods from the Yongbyon reactor site which were locked up and guarded by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors until the current administration renounced the 1994 Agreed Framework.

I admit I have to pass on your accusation that my father attempted to encourage the Soviet Union to participate in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. I have absolutely no knowledge of this and it is the very first time I have ever heard it. However, in light of the fact that it seems ridiculous to me that involving the Soviets in his elections would be helpful and the fact that he was not running in 1984, I hope you will forgive me for just writing this off as a figment of your imagination and not doing extensive research to debunk this. Perhaps you can provide a reference and we can discuss it at a later time.

You then assert that: “your father was contacking (sic) China and France and several other leaders…” I guess you mean other leaders like Venezuela and Haiti but maybe not; again, I must leave it to you for further clarification.

Moving on further into your diatribe, you write: “your father has shown a continued and maniacal obessession (sic) with finding his "recognized" place in this world. He desires notoriety. He lobbied extensively for the Nobel Peace Prize.” I have heard this before! Not the “obessession” part (nobody has ever heard that before) but the accusation that my father lobbied for the Nobel Peace Prize. In every instance I have challenged the person making this statement to please provide me with one instance, just one single instance, just one(!) to back this up. So far nobody has ever been able to do it and so now Mr. Hobbs, it is your turn! Please don’t let me down.

I am almost half way through with another “voluminous” response. Perhaps you would like to take a break now and come back when your attention deficit disorder allows…

You assert that my father is, “a sad and bitter old man.” Well, I talk to him quite often. In fact, I spoke with him yesterday and he regaled me with stories about his travels around the country promoting his new book. I keep track of him quite closely and have not yet detected the sadness or the bitterness of which you attribute to him. There is a term for the psychological condition where one person projects his own condition, such as “sad and bitter” upon another but I cannot remember it and frankly, if you, as I suspect without a shred of proof, are “sad and bitter” about his multiple triumphs and successes, well, I couldn’t care less. Sorry.

Now we move into your prognostications for the future with, “Ergo, why he needs to believe that his funeral will be as grandious (sic) as Ronald Reagan's was. Well, the only attention it will recieve (sic: “i” before “e” except after “c,” second grade, remember?) of any notoriety will be from the third world socialists dictators that your father loved to kiss up to.” Who knows what the future will bring? Certainly not I, and so I will not dispute your assertion. In fact, my son and I were so impressed with the fact that you used the word “Ergo” that we decided to mostly ignore the misspelling of “grandiose,” attributing it to the possibility that the spittle dripping from the foam from your mouth may have shorted out the keyboard. See, even though you write such vicious things about my family, I am still generously giving you the benefit of the doubt! However, I wish to vehemently object to your use of the word “loved” in the phrase: “third world socialists dictators that your father loved to kiss up to.” Since he is still very much alive, I must insist that you change “loved” to “loves.” We are not discussing the past tense yet.

Then you assert that neither Margaret Thatcher nor Brian Mullhoney will attend his funeral. Maybe not. I don’t know whether Brian Mulroney will be there either.

Almost to the end here you write: “My earlier class-less comments about him lobbying people to come to his funeral, was made in jest, but was in reality an hyperbole of sorts. I sincerley (sic) believe he is doing his best to grease the skids for that underlying reason.” I confess that I may distort the meaning of the last mangled sentence so I will just leave it with the thought that we are both in agreement that your earlier comments were “class-less”.

Before I end though, I would like to answer your final thought, although it was not an explicit question. You pondered: “I for one, can not understand why you would want to stand up to this…” I do it for the sheer fun if it; simply to match wits with other people. Even though I am sometimes left with the Hobbesian choice of matching wits with people who make up their own facts because they cannot compete in the reality-based world versus not matching wits with anyone at all, I still find it an amusing hobby.

For your further edification, here are a few quotes about the specific events we are discussing from reputable sources which you may or may not recognize:

"In undertaking a special mission to Haiti for President Clinton, Jimmy Carter is showing once again that a former president can be a unique diplomatic resource. ... Mr. Carter has not flinched from risk-taking and has played a crucial role as an honest broker, most notably in spurring nuclear talks with North Korea but also in civil conflicts in Ethiopia, the Sudan, and Liberia."
--The New York Times, Sept. 18, 1994

"We owe Jimmy Carter a debt, not just for peace in Haiti, but for the dramatic reminder that difficult goals can be reached with persistence and determination."
--USA Today, Sept. 21, 1994

". . . the violent invasion was averted in part because these men (President Carter, Sen. Nunn, and Gen. Powell) were willing to risk their lives for the sake of peace. The invasion no doubt would have been launched had it not be for Carter's insistence on one last round of negotiations and his stubborn refusal to give up the search for a nonviolent solution."
--The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 26, 1994

A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed "an overwhelming 71 percent of Americans say they have positive feelings toward the role (President Carter) played as Mr. Clinton's envoy last weekend."
--The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21, 1994

"In the recent instances of North Korea and Haiti, the outside world got a good glimpse of the techniques Mr. Carter has been honing elsewhere for years. He comes in with a promise of bringing fresh ideas and impetus to an encrusted conflict. ... In North Korea, he diverted a gathering confrontation into broad negotiations centering on the nuclear threat. In Haiti he got American troops ashore peacefully, without an armed and opposed invasion, to start a climb toward democracy."
--The Washington Post, Oct. 2, 1994

Richard Hobbs: And finally, if you Google "Jimmy Carter" and "traitor" you'll get 184,000 hits.

And to put things into perspective, if you Google "Bush" and "Miserable Failure" you'll get 347,000 hits.

Basmati
*sitting back waiting for Enegroma to call him a sycophant again*

Want to see something hysterical? Google the word “failure” by itself.

OK, Jeff. I tried it and I see what you mean.

Given that this is the official site for the White House, and presumably is not laced with the word "failure," what explains this? 'Taint an accident.

I should have taken a more careful look at the Google site before posting. The answer is there at

Googlebombing

If you google Basmati and Rice you get 916,000 hits...... does that mean the little brown noser is actually long grained rice??

Google "Enigma loves disco music" and you'll find 922,000 hits.

I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation.

1,180,000

1,330,000

Kneel to your God!

You only get 767 - looks like we have it narrowed down.

That was a good one!!

tsk.....tsk....in class who always raised his hand to answer all the questions, maybe just to show off? Maybe that kid grew up to be Jeff!

Whoops! Wrong blog!