Jimmy Carter's heart of dorkiness

[barb162]

Jimmy Carter's heart of dorkiness
By Spengler
Jan 17, 2007
Jimmy Carter's timing is dorky, as always. The same sanctimonious ineptitude that made him the least successful president in US history prompted him to wager the remains of his reputation on advocacy for the Palestinians, precisely when the Palestinians have shown themselves to be their own worst enemies. Carter's obsession with justice in Palestine has the same source as George W Bush's obsession with democracy in Iraq: horror in the face of the alternative has overwhelmed their better judgment.

snip
Some of Carter's Jewish associates have broken with him loudly over his new book, Peace Not Apartheid, observing that it is unfair to Israelis. Carter, though, is more consistent than the Jewish liberals who now reject him. What is happening to the Palestinians is horrifying, by which I mean not simply unpleasant, but subversive of identity, in the sense of Sigmund Freud's das Unheimliche. It is not nearly as horrifying as what will happen next, however. Carter could not bring himself to confront Soviet aggression during the 1970s for the same reason that he cannot abide the predicament of the Palestinians. As he looked down the river to the end of the journey, the former president muttered, "The horror! The horror!" By deluding himself that the Palestinian predicament is something else than it really is, Carter attempts to keep the horror away.

It is easy to dismiss Carter as the most egregious dork in US politics. He nearly lost the Cold War, and nearly destroyed the US economy. By the most objective measurement of failure, namely margin of loss in a failed bid for re-election, Carter stands at the absolute bottom of the list of all US presidents. In 1980 he lost to Ronald Reagan with 49 electoral votes to Reagan's 489. The next-worst performer, Herbert Hoover, had a stronger showing against Franklin D Roosevelt during the depths of the Great Depression in 1932 (49 electoral votes to FDR's 472).

snip
Where the Palestinians are concerned, Carter keens the same trope. It is repulsive to think that a people of several millions, honeycombed with representatives of international organizations, the virtual stepchild of the United Nations, appears doomed to reduce its national fever by letting blood. The 700,000 refugees of 1948, hothoused by the UN relief agencies, prevented from emigrating by other Arab regimes, have turned into a people, but a test-tube nation incapable of independent national life: four destitute millions of third-generation refugees in the small and barren territories of Gaza, Judea and Samaria, which cannot support a fraction of that number.
snip
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA17Ak07.html

[mazzarro]

1. RW anti Carter BS IMHO -- n/t

[Tom Joad]

2. of course.

[barb162]

7. Of course NOT

Read it again, Tom

[barb162]

4. Straight from Asia?

I think not

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

14. Is Spengler RW? Is he in Asia?

And Violet, my name is barb162.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

38. As far as stupid comments are concerned, yrs takes the cake

I believe there are "no RWers in Asia"? You have no idea what I believe about RWers in Asia or anywhere else. And neither do you know if Spengler is getting his "jollies" about his opinion piece here. Since when is criticism of a Democrat "smearing"? Criticism is done here on DU all the time especially when there are candidates for election or posters don't like particular actions of elected Democratic officials. Check the hundreds of anti-Hillary Clinton threads, the anti- Reid threads, etc., on DU. I criticize my elected Democrat officials directly by mail or phone when they vote for matters I don't like, especially when they side with Republicans.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. This is why yr comment was incredibly stupid...

You appear to have forgotten yr stupid comment that I was replying to, which was: 'Straight from Asia? I think not.' As for defining smearing, I've been told in a recent thread that I'm smearing Israel by criticising it, and while I think that sort of stuff is complete nonsense, I find the attempts by some to label Carter as a terrorist supporter and antisemite (which, btw, is definately not legitimate criticism) to be a clear-cut case of smearing Jimmy Carter...

[barb162]

53. Yr comments were incredibly stupid and mine weren't

And I wonder if you have forgotten yrs which, as I notice, are now deleted. I have no concern at all for what you were told on some other thread, especially since my thread's author doesn't discuss Carter as a terror supporter or anti-Semite. My thread delves into Carter's Southern origins, identity, roots, etc. and what may be going on with him psychologically in that context as it relates to Israel and Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. I wouldn't expect you to say anything else...

I haven't forgotten my deleted comments, and are still wondering why pointing out that there are RWers in Asia is suddenly against the rules. It doesn't surprise me that you have no interest in being consistant in the use of the term *smear*, btw..

Just curious, but why have you suddenly taken to saying 'yr' instead of 'you're' when replying to me?

[barb162]

60. I have forgotten yr deleted comments

Smear versus criticism? There's no "smearing" done when I write directly to or about my Congress people. I tell them what I think they are doing wrong and what I want them to do and that is healthy criticism, not smearing. I am really sorry you are having problems with the difference between the two words.
Now do you want to discuss the article?
edit (sp)

[Violet_Crumble]

69. You've forgotten? But only half an hour ago you were calling my comments stupid...

I do remember, and I don't recall saying anything about you smearing yr congress people, and to be honest, aren't the slightest bit interested in what you write to them. I was talking about the smearing of Jimmy Carter that has been going on both in this forum and in the real world. But speaking of not being able to tell the difference between healthy criticism and smearing etc, I was just reading a post from someone on another board who's been going on that those here in the I/P forum who criticise Israel are Arab propagandists :)

You must have missed my post where I discussed the article. Will you be needing directions to get to it?

[Porcupine]

8. The RW has it's fascist toadies in Asia. Singapore.....

for instance. Now also Thailand. We dont' see the Bush administration objecting to the true dictatorships in Asia one bit.

[barb162]

11. And who does Spengler represent?

[barb162]

12. Do you have anything substantive to write about the article content

[barb162]

15. self delete; dupe

[niyad]

3. how many times are we going to have to see this sort of BS? "dorky"?? and from that, we are

supposed to take anything in that piece seriously?

[barb162]

5. Read "Heart of Darkness." It's a pretty good book

Dorkiness / darkness... get it?

How many times have you seen it? It was never posted before as far as I know. BTW, dO you have anything substantive to write?

[niyad]

23. I read "heart of darkness" decades ago, thank you. and that has NOTHING to do with "dorkiness"

which is an incredibly stupid word for what is supposed to be a serious subject.
do I have anything substantive to add? there would have had to be something substantive in the OP, woouldn't there, in order for me to add something?

[barb162]

36. I think he was using sarcasm. Don't you think?

And sarcasm can be used in any serious subject.

[cool user name]

31. I'm wondering if the author of the article has anything substantive to write.

:eyes:

[barb162]

35. If you can't see it , read it again

[cool user name]

37. Read it again and I'm still wondering.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I read the article and it's nothing but mindless jibberish...

The attacks by the writer on Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, coupled with the more generous portrayal of Bush eg 'The difference between Bush and Carter is that Bush is horrified by the prospective fate of the Iraqis, whereas Carter is horrified by his own history.' makes me wonder why anyone would read this nonsense and take it seriously. And it gets more ridiculous the more of it I read.

'Jimmy Carter knows better than that: the Palestinians are not in the position of southern American blacks, but rather of southern American whites, the exemplar of a self-exterminating people in the modern period.'

and

'The Palestinians are not an oppressed people, but rather the irreconcilable remnants of a once-victorious but now defeated empire, living in an irredentist dream world in which a new Salahuddin will drive the new Crusaders into the sea.'

While this crap would obviously appeal to the sort of folk who label the Palestinians a 'pathological sick society', most folk are a bit moe discerning and objective than that and rue the few minutes wasted in reading such an article....

[cool user name]

61. You are a better person than I, Violet.

I would have simply called it shit and moved on (so as to not waste my time). You, however, took the time to appreciably demonstrate how empty the piece (pun alert) actually is.

Kudos to you. :hi:

[PATRICK]

9. Over and under stated

and the strong statements and illustrations are too sophomoric in certitude and extremity. They touch upon memes and generalizations that simply are too much outside of a poly-sci term paper yearning for a B. To characterize the entire Palestinian population- which is larger than the dwellers in the territories- the same way as he goes after Carter with RW talking points misses several points and gets nowhere. Nowhere is exactly the place where the article's comfort zone finds itself in its negation.

Whatever about Carter and the vast Israeli organized reaction against him, the Palestinians are human, are a people, are living on a land, are in an incredibly bad political and geographical location and have much in common in that with Poland, Belgium, denationalized ethnic groups, etc.

What does not appear in this article, which resembles one Israeli perspective toward the Palestinians that politely excludes Israel's role, is that hope is wedded in a death embrace with violence. The simple equation which angers or terrifies Israel is that persistent violence per se will shrink the Jewish population by reversed exodus more than death, while the people with nowhere to go thanks to their neighbors gains just by surviving. Attrition with occasional drama and a lot of peripatetic, spiteful indecisive violence. Every country in the region except Iran is BY NATURE a potential failed state, which is why by sheer animus everyone seems about to beat up on Iran. The Palestinians are well judged to be a pivotal symbol of the whole mess the western corporations helped to forge from the corpse of the Turkish Empire.

This is much more complex than this trite article can cope with. A stand alone piece on Carter as a dork is what this ambitious article should have been limited to. It is something we have complained about with all the seemingly easily victimized Democrats and their worldly judgment. But the article has jumped to the other moral side entirely, or rather plunged "boldly" through muddied shallow waters.

[barb162]

17. I disagree with your analysis.

And what RW talking points are you referencing in the article?

Yours: Every country in the region except Iran is BY NATURE a potential failed state, which is why by sheer animus everyone seems about to beat up on Iran.
"BY NATURE" you mean what? How is Syria a potential failed state BY NATURE?

Yours: The Palestinians are well judged to be a pivotal symbol of the whole mess the western corporations helped to forge from the corpse of the Turkish Empire.

When the Ottomans "collapsed" ( I use that advisedly) around 1918, what western corpoorations were involved?

[cool user name]

32. What Patrick said ...

Definitely well said, Patrick.

[boobooday]

10. Sanctimonious ineptitude?

the least successful president in US history? Almost lost the Cold War?

Crap. Not true, unsubstantiated, unsupportable.

What happens to a lot of Democratic presidents is that their opposition, which always displays sanctimonious ineptitude in abundance, is also inept at Democracy itself, which means standing on your ideas. Therefore, they are reduced to being sanctimonious, and to dirty tricks, at which they are as inept as they are at everything else.

And in the process they fling dirt on everyone, and leave tire tracks on others.

[barb162]

13. Did he win a second term? Was he even close? Not by a mile

or a few million miles. Did he get inflation under control? Did he get the embassy hostages out of Iran? ETC
Actually it is pretty well substantiated. I like his environmental record, however. He was ahead of his time on that

[azurnoir]

19. He did not win a second

because he had the moral fortitude to not campaign on the road, if you will remember or look up the Rose garden campaign, unlike his opponent who was busily arraigning for the Iran hostages to be held another 2 months until he took office.
All of this over a book title? Shakespear said it best best "me thinks they(she) doth protest too much" or truth hurts?

edited for spelling

[barb162]

20. Got a link for how Reagan was doing foreign policy for Carter

and why Carter allowed the ol' Republican gov over in CA to be doing foreign policy for him? IF I were Prez, I wouldn't have been allowing some governor, especially a Republican, to be doing my foreign policy. Me thinks someone is indeed protesting too much and that the truth hurts.

[azurnoir]

21. Links

Although it was Kissinger as Reagan's rep who was doing the dirty work
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

at another link it was theorized that the ground work for the Iran contra scandal was layed out at that time link not included because it extended double page width

[barb162]

39. What does it tell you about Carter that he allowed this to happen

right under his nose? He basically allowed the GOP/ Reagan's people to hijack US foreign policy (though I am relieved the hostages got released)

[boobooday]

22. October surprise

Jimmy just wasn't prepared to swim with the sharks --

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

[azurnoir]

25. I've always kind of thought Mr Carter

lost his second term because he is a better human being than politician

[boobooday]

26. I think you summed that up beautifully

On the nose.

He has continued to set a great example as an ex-president for what meaningful work can be.

:applause:

[Zandor]

27. Who is Spengler exactly?

Never heard of this writer nor can I find anything on him/her.

[Tom Joad]

28. A right-wing, anti-Arab-Muslim nutjob. Likes Bush. and his brother.

[barb162]

43. Prove it

[Englander]

67. Why Americans love George W Bush

">snip

Attacking President Bush for his failure to win European support for his Iraq venture may be the stupidest idea ever advanced by a major-party presidential candidate in a US election. Jokes about French cowardice were standard in the American repertoire for half a century before the US invasion of Iraq. "What's the salute of the French army?" (Raise both hands in token of surrender.)

After the end of the Cold War America's strategic interest in Europe withered away. As Muslim immigrants replace the infertile Europeans over time, European and US interests will diverge. It is meaningless to speak of America's "European allies" at this juncture. It is much more likely that the Europeans will become America's enemies a generation from now as Muslims emerge as a new majority.

Once attacked, Americans want to fight back. George W Bush may have attacked the wrong country (which I do not believe), and he may have mistaken the US mission after the initial fighting was over (which I do believe), but Americans are quite willing to forgive him. They understand that it is hard to track down and destroy a shadowy enemy, and do not mind much if the United States has to trounce a few countries before finding the right ones.

The attractive, witty and affluent elite who support John Kerry cannot bear the idea that the overweight, dull and impecunious commoners of Middle America will give Bush a second term. I am reminded of the fictional Franz Liebkind in Mel Brooks' 1968 movie The Producers. Brooks' slapstick Nazi complains, "Hitler was a better dancer than Churchill; Hitler was a better dresser than Churchill; Hitler was a better painter than Churchill: he could paint a whole apartment in one afternoon, two coats."

As for the other countries of the world, it is an inconvenience that George W Bush will pursue the "war on terror" to its bitter end, namely civilization war. It doesn't matter. They don't vote. My advice: suck it up and prepare for the second Bush administration.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI14Aa01.html

[Scurrilous]

29. The Commandant...

...on Malcolm in the Middle?

[oberliner]

34. Right Wingers are popular today on DU

I wonder if "Spengler" was a Republican House member for over 20 years like the guy who wrote that editorial you posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=166132&mesg_id=166132

[barb162]

47. I don' t think so; of course I haven't been all over DU today.

I think Spengler is a life-long Democrat born in the South. He hasn't lived in the South for decades if he is who I think he is.
The link you posted... I think Scurrilous was the OP

[barb162]

48. ? ? Actually he is someone famous and a life-long liberal

I have a strong suspicion who he really is.

[barb162]

44. He operates under that pseudonym

I have had my suspicions about this writer for a while. I believe he was born in the South, is a life long-Democrat, is about 70, etc. I will not "say" his name but from his writing style I think I know who he is.

[barb162]

40. Carter's " moral fortitude"

He should have forgotten that and campaigned. Eight years of Reagan got us Iran Contra, the S & L scandal, huge increases in wasteful defense spending like Star Wars and a host of other messes. And Reagan smiled the whole eight years, told the USA how good things were and people bought it.

[Porcupine]

33. You forget that little Iran/Contra treason....

engineered by the BFEE to sabotage Carters campaign. I wonder also if the Desert One fiasco wasn't also part of an engineered screwup that went worse than planned.

[barb162]

41. No I didn't

see post 40. Reagan should have been impeached for that and they should have gotten Bush on that too.

Desert One is what? Are you referencing Desert Storm?

[RubyDuby in GA]

16. Well, I'll believe that "dork" anyday over these stupid pundits

Jimmy Carter has been working tirelessly towards peace in the middle east for over 30 years and if there is anyone's opinion I trust about what is really going on over there it is Jimmy Carter's.

Spengler can kiss my ass.

[barb162]

18. Yes, he has been working for peace

[Tom Joad]

24. Spengler is a wise man. He is predicting Jeb Bush will win in 2008!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IA03Aa01.html
(thanks for the laugh of the day, Barb!)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[barb162]

42. Tom, I find absolutely nothing funny about that prospect.

Another Bush in the WH will do this country no good.

[Tom Joad]

45. I find it amusing that someone can be so stupid to predict such a thing.

Spengler obviously is.

[barb162]

46. It seems that predictions like this are done all the time

by every talk show host, every political writer in every paper, by half the DUers,etc. And he gives himself an out in the first few paragraphs, after noting his prediction about Georgie in 2004 was correct (when I thought Kerry had a good chance of winning). There are so many people talking now about Clinton being the nominee when no one has a clue who will be the nominee. As Tweetie said a few weeks ago, laughing, if we don't talk about who THE nominee will be , what are we going to talk about on my show?

[Tom Joad]

49. I think he wants jeb to win Barb, you don't get it.

[barb162]

55. I don't think so

Just because he sort of "smirks" that he called the 2004 election correctly doesn't mean he likes George (or the brother).

[Englander]

68. "I don't think so."

No comment.

[bemildred]

51. He is wrong a lot.

I used to read him some, but gave it up.

[Tom Joad]

52. Reminds me of Danny Pipes, of "let's arm Saddam so he will kill more muslims" fame.

[bemildred]

57. He writes better than Pipes, FWIW.

Although he gets close to getting down to Pipes level in this piece. Lots of name calling. Not that there is anything wrong with name calling, if you are right, but it's not much of an argument.

[barb162]

59. Saddam seemed to have no trouble killing other Muslims

and I noticed Muslims in the hanging room didn't seem to have trouble taunting and hanging Saddam before he finished his prayers.

I'd comment on Pipes if I knew he wrote something like that. I can't imagine he did.

[Tom Joad]

62. Just look it up in your local library Barb.

He actually did not say it exactly as i said it of course, but he did certainly push for arming Saddam, and he knew damn well what he was going to do with those weapons. The purpose was to cause more bloodshed.

This is, after all, a man who believes "Conditions of peace have, by and large, been created through military victory". Everything good to gain comes through war, in the Pipes (and Cheney) way of thinking. I mean, he was talking about arming Saddam... what kind of insanity was that? At the time, Saddam was at the height of his power, at the height of his brutality... and Pipes was there, cheering on the bloodbath... against Muslims, of course. No wonder Pipes is the kind of man Bush/Cheney and assorted pro-war lobbies would want around.


http://tomjoad.org/pipes.htm

The New Republic on April 27, 1987
It's Time for a U.S. Tilt
by Daniel Pipes and Laurie Mylroie

If you don't believe this source, i suggest you do what i did... walk to your nearest local library, ask for that issue of the New Republic (probably on microfiche), and read the article yourself.

[barb162]

64. Tom, can we get back to the OP?

But before we do that, why get on a Pipes bash. That has NOTHING to do with this Spengler article. Pipes didn't hand Saddam any weapons. Saddam was killing other Muslims all of his OWN accord. Saddam didn't need any prodding, help or anything else from people of other nationalities or religion.

[Tom Joad]

66. You didn't seem to read what Pipes said, or what i said.

you made a point of saying... "can we get back to the OP" and then made point about Saddam and Pipes.
Doesn't seem consistant.
I mentioned Pipes because he has similar views to Spengler, you seemed to doubt my assertion that he supported arming Saddam, so i backed it up. If you read what was said by Pipes, you would see what i mean.

No Saddam needed no prodding in his propensity to kill, but he sure needed military hardware.
Pipes supported arming saddam, and Reagan listened to loonies like Pipes.
Pipes, like Spengler, are just fine with encouraging civil war (Pipes recently said that US goals are being accomplished in Iraq, precisely because there is civil war, which is the same thing Spengler is saying if you looked at his other posts)

My point is simple, Pipes and Spengler are really horrid people, very much war mongers.
anyway, thanks for bringing him to our attention.

Maybe he'll get a job in the Jeb Bush presidency... that may be his dream....

[Tom Joad]

63. and yes, Christians have killed other Christians, Hindus other Hindus,

Jews other Jews, Agnostics other agnostics, and almost maybe astronauts other astronauts.. what's your point?

[barb162]

65. My point is Saddam had no problem killing other Muslims all

by his lonesome. Actually, he enjoyed it from what I have read. There's no point bringing in others to explain this man's mental problems, his need or whatever it was in killing his enemies, real or suspected.

[Lurking Dem]

70. I have Googled every permutation of that quote

and pieces of that quote and can't find anything.

A link or citation would be very, very helpful.

[Tom Joad]

72. Lurking, i said it really wasn't a quote, but the essence of the reason

as to why he supported arming Saddam. Even if you have a different interpretation of Pipes motives, the end result of Pipes work to lobby Reagan to arm Saddam resulted in many dead people. I know, Pipes was a mere part of this ... he wasn't even a main player... Reagan, Saddam, Rumsfeld, they were main players... but Pipes helped, his work may have made a difference, and my point is, that Pipes is a very sick man.

it would seem that a person who supported arming Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war would not have much credibility outside the extreme edges of US politics. At the time, the official line on Saddam was much different, and there were no headlines as to his brutality. But now there is general acknowledgment of these things, so with the exception of the most ignorant can see how extreme this is.


The New Republic on April 27, 1987

Back Iraq
It's Time for a U.S. Tilt
by Daniel Pipes and Laurie Mylroie

www.tomjoad.org/pipes.htm

[barb162]

58. He sometimes makes connections that I find fascinating,

especially in this article.
He's human, I agree. But he took the connections here to a highly creative level.

[bemildred]

71. Yeah, I know what you mean.

Like I said, I found him interesting at first. But there is more to this thinking business than just slapping some ideas together in an interesting way. You have to make sense. And for commentary on real-world events, you have to make sense in ways that relate to observable realities, to what really happens. With political writers, when they continually fail to do that, in a predictable way, it's like reading, say, religious commentaries from a religion that you don't believe in, or fiction by a writer whose style you dislike. You don't care what they have to say after a while.

[calzone]

73. A great article on walls & apartheid

Politics and Apartheid
By NEWTON GARVER

"Now everyone is prouder--and poorer."

--Orhan Pamuk

"Jimmy Carter's most recent book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, has raised a storm of criticism from the Derschowitz-AIPAC wing of American Judaism, stung by his even-handed recounting of events and conversations, as well as his straightforward presentation of the failure to implement UN Security Council resolutions. From the criticism one might think that in the book Carter places all the blame on the Israelis, but that is far from the case. There is, in fact, at least one point (page 13) where he seems unbalanced in the other direction, citing the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as among continuing impediments to peace. Fair enough. But is not the rise of Jewish fundamentalism also a continuing impediment, responsible for the persistence and intransigence of settlement expansion, the massacre in the mosque in Hebron, and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin? Of course not every detail can be included. The book is impressive for its plain speaking, its illumination of the big picture, Carter's personal history in the discussions, and its careful attention to accuracy about the facts.

One of the features of Carter's style is to recount sympathetically and without judgment conversations he has had with key figures on all sides to the various controversies. It is this unjudgmental reporting that must be so infuriating to the AIPAC-Derschowitz crowd. One can readily understand that the facts and stories about what has happened and continues to happen in the supposedly Arab land of the West Bank and Gaza are on their face outrageous-unless the victims are themselves to blame for their distress. Carter refrains from expressing outrage, keeping instead his focus on the need for peace and reconciliation. But it is a feature of partisans and their pride in their side to regard evenhanded unjudgmental presentations as themselves intrinsically outrageous.

But what about Carter's opposition between peace and apartheid?..."

Article continued here....
http://www.counterpunch.org/garver02092007.html