12.04.2006

Racist, Bigot, Anti-Semite

If you ever wanted to see President Jimmy Carter called those words on live TV, here ya go. I think the caller was voicing compassionate conservatism, but I'm not sure.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

Classic. This socialist who never met a tyranical dictator he didn't like is the same reason that I am now a Republican. I'm sure all you liberals yearn for double digit interest rates and gas lines. Just turn down your thermostats and wear sweaters.

Anonymous said...

The caller is an ignorant jerk, proving the point that there aren't many humanitarian Republicans.

Anonymous said...

All those humanitarian Republicans that spear headed charity drives for all the Katrina victims and took in all those dead beat losers were just doing it for a tax write off.

Anonymous said...

carter is a good person, but it took reagan a long time to straighten his mess up.
i baought a used car during his term and the interest rate fwas 21%.

Anonymous said...

So, Democrats have cornered the market on morals and ethics?

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, the very high interest rates in the 80's were due in large part to the huge expenses of the Viet Nam war run up by Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Carter was stuck with dealing with that mess. There's plenty of blame to be passed around but blaming Carter for financial policies set in motion years before is over simplistic.

Anonymous said...

10:30 Am

Is history repeating itself with Bush putting the cost of this Iraqi war on the credit card?

Anonymous said...

10:30, Hey Eisntein, Ford had nothing to do with Vietnam. The war was over when he took office. Can you explain the long gas lines during Carter's term with more insight and intelligence?

Anonymous said...

Spot on 10:30 AM, and definitely yes, 10:33 AM. And Clinton did his part to improve things during his tenure, while now, we are watching Bushco drive us ever deeper into that good ol' quagmire again.

Anonymous said...

When are we going to declare defeat on Johnson's war on poverty? What a quagmire. Do we still have troops in Bosnia? I thought Clinton said we would only be there for a year? Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Anonymous said...

10:36, Ford was vice-president on October 12, 1973. Vietnam "officially" ended April 30, 1975. Nothing to do with it, eh?

Anonymous said...

He was not the commander in chief, just vice president.

Anonymous said...

The basic and missed point of Carter's new book is that we should start treating Israel and Palestine even handedly not one sidedly. For this he is a biggot, racist? Until someone decides to make up energy independent, we are going to have to deal with what we have wroght in the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

If the liberal weenies would let us build more refineries and drill in Alaska and offshore, we could become energy dependent. Why do you want to deal with terrorists? Let Jordan take the Palestinians back from where they came?

wordkyle said...

Liberal Democrats are objecting to name-calling? Next thing you know they'll be criticizing people for ethical failings (unless you're able to go off a bridge and drown the victim.)

Carter's presidency was a miserable failure. His neglect of the rise of the ayatollahs in Iran resulted in the strength of Islamic terrorism today.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you sign up to be a World Policeman, Wordkyle?

Anonymous said...

Better yet ... Why not sign up with the Army and go over there and kick some butt. Or is it just as easy to sit and hide behind your computer and let the long arm of the republican party stick out of your ass as they use you for a puppet?

Anonymous said...

(a) Wordkyle, EVERYONE should object to name-calling, because that is always simplistic and counter-productive.

(b) 11:09 - Your typo was perhaps a subconcious acknowledgement of the truth ... that merely drilling more in Alaska and offshore would STILL leave us energy dependent. And by the way, the Palestinians are not from Jordan; they are from "Palestine" (the Arab predecessor state to Israel). The Israeli's evicted them all when they established the Israeli state, which is the genesis of the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

(c) Wordkyle - As usual, you are oversimplifying in order to lay all ills at the feet of a (any) Democrat. The root of our problem in Iran is the CIA-run overthrow of their democratically elected government, and forcible re-installation of the Shah. THAT is what laid the groundwork for the rise of the Ayatollahs. What would you have had Carter do during Khomenei's revolution ... invade Iran?? Isn't that the kind of Republican-think strategy that has us in our present mess?

Anonymous said...

And don't forget Reagan's October Surprise.

Anonymous said...

anon 11:49 the israeli/palestinian conflict goes back a tad bit before 1967 ,perhaps a few thousand years. to say this is the genesis of their conflict is way off.
did we invade anyone during clinton's administration?

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:12 - The Israeli-PALESTINIAN conflict dates to 1948. I am not taking sides in this matter, just reciting history (in which I have a degree). The Palestinian Arabs had nothing to do with the conflicts of pre-diaspora Judea. The Romans evicted the Jews from Judea in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. The arabic ancestors of the Palestinians filled the vacuum left in "Palestine" after the defeat of the Crusader/Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem by Saladin in the 12th Century. These two peoples came into conflict with the post-WWII Jewish Return in 1948.

wordkyle said...

ANON 11:49 AM: What "CIA-run overthrow?" Do you mean the Shah's constitutional and legal dismissal of Mossadegh?

I will agree with one thing: the ayatollahs fomented hatred of the West for many years prior to Carter. However...

Carter's failure to take decisive action during the 1979 hostage crisis was the beginning of their perception of the US as a "paper tiger." Was military action called for? Maybe. Perhaps diplomacy. Whatever Carter did (or didn't do) didn't work, did it?

It can be argued that the Islamic terrorists feared what Reagan might do, and thus freed the hostages upon his inauguration. That's a good indication of what works.

Anonymous said...

anon 1:35
i agree 1948 is the correct date not 1967 like i stated.
you are right and that was an intelligent response.
what are you doing on this blog?
nearly everyone else is a friggin loone

Anonymous said...

Oh please tell us about Mr. Reagan's October Surprise, Uncle Word Kyle. I know you are the only one here who can tell us the truth. The part the liberals tell me where "members of the Reagan-Bush campaign secretly negotiated an "arms-for-no- hostages" deal with representatives of the Ayatollah Khomeini" just can't be true.

Anonymous said...

Hey 10:55AM - take the Kool Aid test:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/do_you_drink_republican_kool_aid

Anonymous said...

The Shah's "Constitutional and legal dismissal of Mossadegh"?????????

So, Wordkyle, you believe the Shah, as an absolute monarch, had the constitutional and legal right to dismiss a duly elected government. (Which, by the way, is the kind of government I thought Bush said we were trying to FOSTER AND SUPPORT in the middle east.)

Then I suppose you think the founding fathers should have been hung as traitors by George III, and we should all start singing God Save the Queen?

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the Jews returned in 1948 after the United Nations created that state with Jewish Lands, Palestinian Lands, and Jeruselum as an international area.

wordkyle said...

ANON 2:38 PM: From a NY Times article by Ardeshir Zahedi, son of Fazlollah Zahedi who replaced Mossadegh (Mussadeq):

"Mussadeq was overthrown on 18 August when hundreds of thousands of Tehranis poured into the streets to demand his departure and the return of the Shah. This was not a military coup d'etat since there was no change in the constitution or any of the structures of the Iranian state. Nor was the Shah's position as the head of state affected. Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers. He simply exercised that power by dismissing Mussadeq and nominating Zahedi in a perfectly legal and constitutional manner."

wordkyle said...

ANON 2:14 PM: You need to take off your tinfoil hat. Newsweek and The New Republic (neither of which friendly to Republicans) determined that the "October Surprise" (Reagan version) never happened. So did two separate Congressional investigations.

So yes, Virginia, your little Liberal kook friends are wrong.

Anonymous said...

wordkyle: a little cut and paste from Wikipedia on the Iranian government overthrow...
"During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an Axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The Allies forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive. In 1951, an eccentric pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) that had controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain immediately embargoed Iran. In 1953, members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States under President Eisenhower to join them in Operation Ajax to overthrow Iran’s democracy. President Eisenhower agreed, authorizing the CIA to take the lead in the operation of overthrowing Mossadegh and reinstalling a US-friendly monarch. The CIA faced many setbacks, but eventually succeeded.

Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh founder of Iran's first democratic government, overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.. Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost three hundred dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle hath no faith in thy cut and paste, 3:45PM. He only gets his information from reputable, conservative sources.

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anyone can edit or add info to the site without it being verified. Please use reputable sources next time and maybe someone will agree with you.

Anonymous said...

All you need to do is point out the errors in the article, and I'll forward them to the site.

...I'm waiting.

Anonymous said...

And while you are waiting, please point out the errors of Wordkyle

Anonymous said...

wordkyle's basic error is the argument thet the overthrow of Mussadeq was a spontaneous Iranian event. Actual historians and even the CIA agents involved, all understand that the overthrow and installation of the exiled Shah was a foreign effort. It now forms the basis of the Islamic hatred of America and other westerners. We can't change history, but we need to understand it to recognize where we now are.

Anonymous said...

Relying on wikipedia for all your info is like a carpenter relying on Time Life books for his.

Anonymous said...

still waiting for corrections to the article...

wordkyle said...

ANON 3:45 PM: From Wikipedia: "There is disagreement among scholars and political analysts as to whether it is correct to call the 1953 plot a coup. The term is commonly used in media and popular culture, though technically the overthrow of Mossadegh neither was purely military in nature nor did it lead to a change in the form of government or the constitution in the country. Technically, in fact, it led to the preservation of the constitution, which Mossadegh had been repeatedly neglecting during his term in office.

Therefore, legal and constitutional, as I said originally.

Wikipedia also states that Mossadegh was named prime minister by the democratically-elected Majlis, the legislative body. So Mossadegh did not "found" Iran's first democratic government.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle ...
"Scholars disagree..." does NOT lead to "Therefore, legal and constitutional, as I said originally." And outlandish of you to suggest that it does.

Your own quote from Wikipedia merely refers to the scholarly disagreement as to whether a FOREIGN PLOT (by U.S. and British intelligence services) which successfully stirred up conflict in the streets may be charaterized as a "coup", because the term "coup" usually refers to internal military displacement of an existing regime.

Of course the Shah had supporters during Mossadegh's regime, who could be taken advantage of and supported by the West. I would direct your attention to the fact that during the AMERICAN REVOLUTION at least 35% of the population remained Tory (i.e., loyal to George III). About 40% were "Patriot" (supporters of the colonial rebellion), and 25% were neutral. In every society, in every social condition, there are "opponents of the status quo" who may be supported and promoted so as to artificially raise them to an elevated status which they do not deserve.

To do so does NOT make their actions "legal", except in the light of a history written by the victors.

wordkyle said...

ANON 9:21 AM: Mossadegh's ouster was "legal and constitutional," in that it did not violate the Iranian constitution. Mossadegh was dismissed, but refused to resign and prepared to fight the Shah. "One view is that the forceful ousting of Prime Minister Mossadegh was a counter coup after Mossadegh's dismissal." - Wikipedia

The prime minister was ousted (legally), but the Iranian government itself was not overthrown.

The Muslim hatred of the West comes from many sources, mainly America's support for Israel. But it was Carter's vacillation in the face of a direct confrontation that emboldened the Islamic terrorists. From that point on they turned their feelings into actions.

Anonymous said...

Horse manure. I say again, what should Carter have done, invade Iran??? Patently, that would have been a catastrophicly bad idea.

Certainly the hostage crisis REVEALED the reality that the U.S., like everybody else, was vulnerable to crazy, terrorist behavior. And that fact may well have emboldened others. But to lay that at the feet of Carter is ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

You may as easily blame Saint Reagan, for doing nothing after the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon.

Anonymous said...

you sombitches are nuts! who cares and no one is going to change the other one's mind. like arguing with my son.

wordkyle said...

ANON 3:14, 3:16: We don't know for sure what would have been a bad idea. We only know what was a bad idea, and that was Carter's (in)action. That's fact. Anything else is "patently" speculation.

AND the Lebanon bombing might not have happened if Carter had reacted correctly in 1979. As it is, yes, there should have been a stronger reaction to every Islamic terrorist act that's been committed for a generation.

At the risk of subject bleed: negotiation, diplomacy, detente, and appeasement have not worked with the Islamic terrorists. The last 27 years has proved that.

anonymouse said...

anony 5:39...that's GOOD...reallll gooood....you know your shit buddy!