I don’t get it. First you speak an important truth to the American people. Then you take it back. Why didn’t you stand your ground?
I’m sure I’m only one of millions who felt heartened to hear the news that the former president, Jimmy Carter, had declared that, the Bush administration was the worst in American history in terms of international relations. But then, Mr. Carter, just a couple of days later there was the news that you’d backed down. Why?
Is it because you decided you should have obeyed that unwritten code according to which former presidents are supposed to go easy on their successors? I’d have thought that this “code,” such as it is, would not be the most important consideration. For one thing, you’re not the first former president to condemn a successor in strong terms (Hoover’s attack on FDR is one such instance). But even more important, does that unwritten “code” warrant being given more weight than helping the American people see clearly how extraordinarily disastrous this Bush presidency has been?
But even if you were going to back down for that reason, I would think you’d have said so. I’d have thought that you’d have protected the integrity of your previous truthful statement by saying something like, “I regret my comment, because it’s not my place as a former president to make such judgments publicly.”
But that’s not what you said. You indicated that your remark was perhaps “careless,” and you tried to pretend that your statement was a less powerful indictment –that Bush’s policies were not the worst in American history, just worse than Nixon’s—than it clearly was.
What was “careless” about your remark? If we look at how the Bush administration has given us this huge and unnecessary disaster in Iraq, how it has besmirched America’s standing in the world, and how it has systematically betrayed so many of America’s basic values and principles, can there be any doubt that your original declaration was correct? What administration since George Washington can possibly compete for being the worst in its conduct of American policy in the world?
So why did you back down?
Is it because the White House started firing back, and you feared that you’d lose in the court of public opinion if you stood toe-to-toe with Bush’s propagandists? But why should you lose such a debate if you’ve got truth on your side?
This was a teachable moment, Mr. Carter. Why did you squander it?
If you’d welcomed that debate, instead of backing away from it, you could have educated the American public about what has happened to the image of America all around the world. It’s a lesson a great many Americans probably need.
In 2004, the great majority of the people going to the polls to vote for George W. Bush believed, falsely, that most of the world had applauded the U.S. invasion of Iraq. With the media all focused on your words, you would have had a chance to make sure that Americans know what polls around the world show, even in nations that have traditionally been our friends and allies: an unprecedented plunge in the regard and respect for the United States because of the disastrous and lawless international policies of this Bush administration.
But, instead of welcoming a chance to help break through the phony postures and lies which have held so many of our countrymen in thrall, Mr. Carter, you backed down. Why?
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
but I guess we all know the answer: the Bush administration is vindictive as Hell and most likely they can use wahtever they got on Carter and they surely have got something: there are no saints. Strictly speaking aside of the noble cause Carter gets nothing for stating the obvious. We all know that he was right. Even those who pretend to disagree, know that.
I would say it is a signal for all of us, not the first and not the last- the game in Washington had always been ugly but it had turned deadly. Carter knows. If that's his signal- we better listen. He might have made us a service.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 1:35:03 PM
(But why should you lose such a debate if you’ve got truth on your side?)
Come on guy since when in the last twenty years did truth have anything to do with winning or losing? Its who screams the loudest and who has the media in its back pocket
by
mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 92 comments)
on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 1:58:02 PM
It is true, the truth has taken a beating lately in America. (Consider the title of Gore's new book, THE ASSAULT ON REASON.)
But there are opportunities to advance the truth, and the way the White House went after Carter dealt him such an opportunity. When there's a fight, the media pay attention. I think that had Carter stood his ground, and spoken his reply in a well-considered and expert fashion, he could have prevailed. And, more important, in the battle between the truth and the propaganda, the power of the truth in the debased arena of American public discourse could have been strengthened.
Do you think otherwise?
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 2:26:25 PM
...there can be no other reason people are so willing to abandon it in order to look good. In Jimmy Carter's case, he had absolutely NO REASON to back down He was clearly speaking the truth! DUBYA needs more in-your-face disrespect to slap him upside his moronic head, not less! Carter spoke his truth clearly. Then he got scared what the monsters in the Republican spin machine would do to him...as if he should even care.
Jimmy Carter is president purity! He has clear moral high ground under his feet. History is sure to prove his original words true.
I just don't get it. Democrats are willing to lose when they have the facts, reality, and the American people on their side. Is DUBYA really that scary?
I mean, DUBYA doesn't scare me in the least. If anything, I find him completely ridiculous, worthless, and far too in love with himself. No, it's not just a summer thing; DUBYA does love himself! He's a joke, and the worst thing is the joke is on the Demo-creeps.
They cower to a complete turd! The cower to a coke-head. They are cowering to a man that makes Dan Quayle look like an absolute genius, and accomplished speller. They cower to nothing!
I am just blown away by that!
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 2:09:54 AM
Jimmy Carter Simply said it. Why he'd rather not continue and point a public debate is his business. Jimmy Carter also said some things about Israel that ring true. We all saw what Jimmy Carter received for that effort. Really I think that No one backed Jimmy Carter then and now. He probably feels and rightly so, that no one truly understands what it is he is trying to say.
Gerald Ford said it too. It was revealed Post Death.
GW's father, GHW also has said it. The Iraq Study Group said it.
Does anyone really think that Carter and GHW Bush don't understand the Economic Oligarchy that brought down their Presidencys? But does anybody else? THey're trying to tell Americans a lot of things that Americans just can't hear for some reason.
It's not so hard to understand the Congress's capitulation to the War Funding and lack of meaningful investigation of the Oil Price fixing when you look at it right. Throw in the New Banking Scandals and the 9/11 War on Terror mess and the picture is clear. And even where the "picture" is coming from.
They're waiting for us. Not the other way around.
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 6:30:56 AM
Andrew, poor you! You just missed the obvious before asking Carter your polemic question. He could have stood his ground on whatever he said about Dubya's presidency and still can. What he could not stand his ground on what he had said about Israel, for the fear of his life & his yet untainted legacy. For one he could be put on their hit list and terminated just as they have been doing, without regrets or shame, in Palestine and the Arab World for decades and still going strong. For another, Israel's partners in crime, the US Zionists and Neo-Theo-Cons must have threatened him with their DEMONIZING BLITZKRIEG, telling him, that by the time their FOXs, CNN's, Pat Pat Phut Robertsons and Rogues (oops Roves) were done with him, Carter would be atomized and hurtled in to outer outer outer space of American memory! Poor Jimmy! This is what happens to US politicians who are on NOBODY'S Pay Roll! Sad day for American Democracy and the US Constitution. May they both R.I.P.
by
syed mahdi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 126 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 9:44:40 AM
Carter should not have said his stinging critique of the Bush Regime was "careless," but he was quite right in not retaliating against the Reaganites/Bushites who fired back at his original critique. It stands by itself, and it sufficed.
Please let me direct your attention to an even more stinging critique of the Bush Regime and the entire "Religious" Right, whether they claim to be Christians, Muslims or Jews. And the author will not back down. In fact, he makes a startling claim of prophetic prerogative.
Bush got you into 2 wars that are really minor, less deaths each month than Wilson's inflicted in a day. The results of Bush's war will be bad, but nowhere near as bad as being the major cause of the Great Depression, the Soviet Union and Nazism. Carter's comment was careless, but only because he forgot just how bad other Presidents were.
by
Michael Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Sunday, May 27, 2007 at 10:09:21 PM
Carter would be atomized and hurtled in to outer outer outer space of American memory! Poor Jimmy! This is what happens to US politicians who are on NOBODY'S Pay Roll! Sad day for American Democracy and the US Constitution. May they both R.I.P.
Forgive me, but unless you are being incredibly sarcastic, I think your hyperbole is a bit...ok, more than a bit over the top. While it's surely no picnic to be on the business end of the Repuli-fucks smear machine, did Jimmy Carter stand to lose all that much by standing, as all men should, on principle? His legacy is pretty much carved in stone. Considering his honesty as such, for him to say what he said was well within his character.
There is a childhood axiom that I believe most people here know: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." When you cut through all the bullshit, all the Republi-fuck smear machine does is call people names. That's their entire job! No two ways about it.
So why is it kids have the right idea on this? How is it kids know what Jimmy Carter seemingly didn't? Is Bill Clinton the only Democrat that's not afraid of the smear machine?
I suppose the fact that President Clinton has been at the focus of this machine for most of his political career, he's grown a thick skin against their abuse. He had to deal with it from day 1. He even had to deal with it when he handed right-winged mouthpiece Chris Wallace on Fox News. How is it Clinton can stand up to this shit, but no one else in the Democratic party can?
Mr. Smith left Washington
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 2:31:32 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
