The Class of All Living Ex-Presidents (Save One)
Writing about an article in the Washington Post on Attorney General Eric Holder’s attempts to cover himself on CIA prosecutions, Michael Barone makes an interesting observation about the letter that seven former CIA directors wrote to the President, urging him “to call off Holder’s investigation“:
That [letter]’s mentioned, briefly, in the second and third paragraphs. And the article mentions as well that the seven directors served under presidents of both parties, but it denies the reader the information that the seven include all living former CIA directors except the nonagenarian Stansfield Turner and former President George H. W. Bush. Turner may be in no position to sign such a letter, while Bush, like living former presidents of both parties except for Jimmy Carter, can be presumed to be adhering to a policy of not criticizing the current incumbent.
Recall, how back in March, H.W.’s son refused to criticize the incumbent President, his successor, saying he “deserves my silence.” Like Jimmy Carter, H.W. was voted out of office by a decisive majority (62.5% ) even greater than the percentage rejecting Jimmy (59%) and yet he managed to befriend his successor.
Why is it the Georgian, alone among ex-presidents, has continued to nurse his sour grapes. It’s like a child throwing an extended temper tantrum . . . but for 28 years?
Well, Jimmy’s petulance does have some precedent. Achilles refused to fight in the Trojan War for some time, nursing his grudge against Agamemnon. But, in depicting the great warrior’s childish behavior, Homer means him to look petty, sulking while his fellows suffer and died. The poet is setting his hero up for his ultimate transformation at the end of the epic (The Iliad). Perhaps, Mr. Carter will experience a similar metamorphosis.
But, to do so, he must first see the folly of his ways. Perhaps, were he not such a bitter man, filled with bile against Jews, he could learn from what we do this time of year, engaging in T’shuvah, reviewing our deeds, atoning for our faults, our sins and taking action to better ourselves.
19 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“filled with bile against Jews”
You just cant stop, can you? This is a vile libel. How many thousands of words have been written on this site by this community lambasting those on the left for reflexive and inappropriate uses of the charge “racism”. You yourself have just posted another picture that makes that point.
And yet you dare to spread this libelous crap – that any criticism of the policies of Israel is anti-Jewishness, antiSemitism? This is pure intellectual thuggery of the worst kind.
“reviewing our deeds, atoning for our faults, our sins and taking action to better ourselves.”
You got a long way to go yourself buddy, before you start criticizing others.
Comment by Tano — September 20, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - September 20, 2009
#1
Could you be even more pathetic?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 20, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - September 20, 2009
So do you, Tano, so do you.
You will note “bile against Jews” links you to a page, an article in a paper whose words you may well treat as gospel. I do not use that term lightly.
Oh, and, where did I say “any criticism of the policies of Israel is anti-Jewishness, antiSemitism”? Never. I’m singling out one particular critic of Israel for the manner he has criticized the Jewish State and the ways he has faulted Jewish defenders in general which suggest an animosity toward both. No, criticism of Israel is not tantamount to anti-Semitism, but the way Jimmy Carter has criticized the Jewish State is certainly indicative of such.
I do hope you’ll apologize for misrepresenting my views. Given how regularly this occurs, I don’t expect it to happen this time.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 20, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - September 20, 2009
Tano perhaps you might be so good as to give us a quote from Jimmy Carter that you consider to be even-handed in his representation of the state of Israel and its citizens.
Comment by Not Always Right — September 20, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - September 20, 2009
#2: “Could you be even more pathetic?”
Completely agree, TGC. Tano’s Orwellian whitewash of Carter’s incompetent Presidency and his shameful, misguided crusades since leaving office is a chilling illustration of just how sick and hopeless liberals are. (Apparently, Carter’s vile collusion with Hamas is “controversial.”) The only thing Tano left out was that the release of the American hostages minutes after Reagan’s inauguration was actually intended as a farewell gesture of goodwill directed toward Carter, I suppose. At least Tano and his ilk are consistent–they can always be counted on to act as apologists for evil, defending the indefensible.
Comment by Sean A — September 20, 2009 @ 7:23 pm - September 20, 2009
Tano, even in his infinite folly, does make a valid point. The ‘anti-Semitic’ cudgel is sometimes wielded against any criticism of Israel. Just like criticism of Obama is ‘racism’. I’m probably an anti-Semitic racist for even mentioning this.
Comment by Brendan In Philly — September 20, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - September 20, 2009
#6: “The ‘anti-Semitic’ cudgel is sometimes wielded against any criticism of Israel.”
Very true, Brendan in Philly. However, with Carter, it fits like a glove. He’s aligned himself with a group officially recognized as a terrorist organization dedicated to the extermination of Jews. He knows it, we know it, and he’s stuck with it. Hamas produces TV shows for children teaching them to hate Jews, encouraging them to martyr themselves, and showing skits where fluffy, jolly bumble bees and mice play-act the murder of “evil Jews who stole their land.” For Carter to meet with those maniacs and spread the lie that they are open to a two-state solution and living in peace with Israel as their neighbor makes him a knowing accomplice in their endgame. To call him a useful idiot is an insult to useful idiots everywhere. Carter is NOT a useful idiot. He knows what Hamas is about because it’s impossible for him not to know.
Comment by Sean A — September 20, 2009 @ 9:35 pm - September 20, 2009
not always right,
Carter has been very critical of Israeli behavior in the Occupied Territories. He has never criticized Israel with regard to how it treats its own citizens, including Palestinian Israelis, nor has he ever denied or denigrated its democracy and the freedom its citizens enjoy.
His objections, like the objections of many others, is totally focused on the illegal theft of land on the West Bank, and the continued occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.
The only solution, besides ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians, is to find a peaceful solution. Keep the settlers coming, and pretty soon a two-state solution will be impossible, because there will not be contiguous land left for a Palestinian state. If it is to be a one-state solution, then Israel will either no longer be a democracy (if the Palestinians remain an occupied and disenfranchised population) or will no longer be a jewish state (if the Palestinians are given citizenship).
Many of us understood this looming dead-end decades ago – and there has been always some who have called on Israel to stop the settlements and to show leadership towards a peaceful settlement. Finally in the nineties it seemed that the Israeli left and center came to understand that, but unfortuantly the right rose up and murdered Rabin. By 2000, some of the right (like Sharon) came to understand this, but unfortunatly, he was struck down by a stroke – and was probably one of the only rightwingers with credibility amongst the settlers to make peace happen.
With weak leadership in Israel, and absolutely stupid leadership in Washington for the past decade, things have stagnated and festered. Carter has been amongst the very few people who have made the case for what is really going on, and the need to address the problem.
Of course he advocates talking with Hamas. What utter lunacy it is to imagine that a peace can be achieved without negotiating with your enemy. Those who criticize him for that have no interest in acheiving a peaceful settlement – they either want the status quo to continue because they support further land grabbing, or, like so many on the American right, they are clueless – and just accept their talking points without thought.
Comment by Tano — September 20, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - September 20, 2009
Of course he advocates talking with Hamas. What utter lunacy it is to imagine that a peace can be achieved without negotiating with your enemy.
Of course he supports and endorses an organization whose stated goal is to completely destroy and kill all Jews.
Of course he supports and endorses an organization that brainwashes children into being sucide bombers and spreads the blood libels about Jews.
Of course he supports and endorses an organization that uses murder as a means of silencing political opponents.
Hamas is what Obama and Carter and the entire Obama Party support. The Israelis realize that Obama and Carter literally don’t care what Hamas does; in their eyes, Israel is to blame for everything. Everything is the fault of the Jews, as Obama’s spiritual mentor Reverend Wright says; nothing Hamas does is wrong. Indeed, Obama’s church glorifies and praises Hamas, as does its close associate Louis Farrakhan.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 20, 2009 @ 10:22 pm - September 20, 2009
“Of course he supports and endorses an organization ”
Now this is REAL lunacy. To talk with an adverssry is to support and endorse that adversary. I guess that makes Ronald Reagan a soviet communist, eh?
Comment by Tano — September 20, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - September 20, 2009
Dan,
I would be pleased to apologize to you if I misrepresent your thoughts. BUt you did write – “bile against Jews” – your words, not some quote from the linked article, and it is a libel. Why dont you apologize for that?
You claim that you do not denigrate all criticism of Israel, but what is it that Carter ever did or said that qualifies as anti-semitic? Nothing. The people who resigned form the Carter Center seem to object to the fact that he criticized Israel for its occupation, and did so in unflinching terms. They did not accuse him of anti-semitism, nor did they claim he made personal attacks against Jews or Israels. Its the policy. So, as far as I can see, you do denigrate all criticism, or at least any criticism from someone whose character you are determined to assasinate.
Comment by Tano — September 20, 2009 @ 10:33 pm - September 20, 2009
Tano, you wrote:
I never said “that any criticism of the policies of Israel is anti-Jewishness, antiSemitism.
I won’t apologize for saying “bile against Jews,” but might clarify it; he has expressed bile (i.e., anger) against Jews who defend Israel.
So, now, I don’t denigrate all criticism. You should know better that that. Go back scan the comments, find how many times I have responded “Fair point” or something similar to a critical comment.
You misrepresented what I said. And not for the first time.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 20, 2009 @ 10:41 pm - September 20, 2009
OK Dan, I apologize for the exaggeration.
You do denigrate criticism that I feel clearly does not deserve denigration. And if your rephrasing of the bile comment is meant to extract the implications of anti-semitism, then I’m cool with that.
Comment by Tano — September 20, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - September 20, 2009
Thank you for the apology. I accept and appreciate it.
I try to treat criticism fairly, Tano, but do note how regularly you pounce on my posts, often choosing one minor detail for derision while ignoring the broader point of the post.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 20, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - September 20, 2009
The people who resigned form the Carter Center seem to object to the fact that he criticized Israel for its occupation, and did so in unflinching terms.
Which was why he went on TV with Tim Russert and railed about “the Jewish lobby”.
Not “the Israeli lobby”. The “Jewish lobby”.
Carter is anti-Jewish and a bigot. He supports and endorses Hamas, which spreads lies about Jews, supports and endorses genocide of Jews, and carries out repeated attacks to murder Jews both inside and outside Israel.
And it is no surprise that Barack Obama and Tano both support him and his bigotry; it’s the same thing that is baked into the core of the Obama Party and espoused by its base.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 20, 2009 @ 11:03 pm - September 20, 2009
#10: “Now this is REAL lunacy. To talk with an adverssry is to support and endorse that adversary. I guess that makes Ronald Reagan a soviet communist, eh?”
No, Tano, to “talk to” an adversary that is a well-known terrorist organization is to legitimize them. To “support and endorse” an adversary, one has to promote their lies about oppression and victimization and to endorse their lies about wanting peace and being open to a two-state solution, which is precisely what Carter has done for Hamas. And it’s unconscionable because Carter knows that if Hamas was really interested in a future of peaceful co-existence with Israel, they wouldn’t be teaching their children this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0FXUeNeUME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ExZVimjST8&feature=PlayList&p=7B516A37534A00AB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeii225G-HM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hTwDZ1GQxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGc2NJf_QYo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUrAN5z7bm8&feature=fvw
And your “analogy” comparing Carter’s allegiance to Hamas to Reagan’s handling of the former soviet union? Pitiful, Tano. Carter is a willing accomplice in Hamas’ efforts to deceive the world into believing that they are the peace-loving victims of genocidal oppression. Liberals like you were similarly committed to whitewashing the bleak and hopeless conditions of life in the USSR, and Reagan would have none of it. Reagan never missed an opportunity to call the tyrants on the carpet and unequivocally condemn them as the enemies of freedom that they were. He knew who the bad guys were and he had the guts to condemn them as such and he didn’t give a fu*k what the NYT editorial board had to say about it. In contrast, cowards like Carter and your Obamessiah appease and legitimize evil. Nothing that has been said or ever will be said about Carter could libel him.
Comment by Sean A — September 21, 2009 @ 12:42 am - September 21, 2009
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how nomads can claim they own the land.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2009 @ 3:44 am - September 21, 2009
I’m still can’t get my head around the kind of people who declare that Jews building apartments is just as evil as Hamas firing rockets at schoolchildren.
Comment by V the K — September 21, 2009 @ 5:55 am - September 21, 2009
Notice how Tano can’t find an ‘even handed’ quote in reply to not always right’s challenge.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 21, 2009 @ 7:21 am - September 21, 2009