Sunday, 20 May 2007


Ken Berwitz

Jimmy carter is the most failed president of my lifetime (which goes back to Truman).  Under carter we had double digit inflation, interest rates that exceeded 20%, and a military that became the laughingstock of the world.  Voters were so impressed with Mr. carter that, when he ran for re-election, they ran him out of office in a landslide.

Since then he has done wonderful work with Habitat for Humanity, for which he deserves full credit.  That's the good news.  Unfortunately he has also given credibility to pretty much any phony election by any USA hating tinhorn tyrant he can find (think Haiti, think Venezuela). 

And, just as unfortunately, carter has made it his life's work to sabotage Israel any way he can, while blaming every failure in Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank) on Israel rather than the palestinian Arabs who run the show there. 

It isn't their thieving "leaders" who squirrel aid money into Swiss bank accounts, you see. It isn't the fact that every neighborhood is an armed camp where people live in fear of venturing into the street, let alone daring so speak against the violence and hatred that is their way of life.  It isn't the children's TV shows that teach children Israel doesn't exist, Jews are the spawn of apes and pigs, and that to die killing Jews gets them a one-way ticket to paradise eternal.  It isn't the "clerics" who teach even worse to the adults, while looking the other way as everything civilized humanity considers worthwhile crumbles around them. 

No, in the happy horsemanure world of jimmy carter the problem is Israel -- a country, incidentally, which has almost 1,500,000 palestinian Arabs within its borders (we're not talking Gaza or west bank here, we're talking Israel proper) who live in peace and with a level of freedom and prosperity virtually unknown in the Arab world.  That doesn't count.

With this in mind, you would think that any self-respecting media in this country would praise Mr. Carter for his charitable work and hold their nose at everything else.  But this is USA media we're talking about.  Carter hates President Bush, hates his military decisions and hates his close and warm relationship with Israel.  He also hates the fact that Tony Blair of the UK has supported President Bush through the Iraq war.  For these reasons, carter has become a great statesman to them. 

With this in mind, here are a few excerpts from yesterday's Associated Press article in which carter offers his wit and wisdom.  Read them and think about the stellar record of the man making these judgments: -

 LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.....

...."I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate....

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.

Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone....

...Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. -

I don't know if you are aware of this but, until carter, it was virtually unheard of for a former president to criticize the current one.  Illustratively, think back:  How bitter do you think President Bush's father, our 41st President, was over the abusive campaign run by Bill Clinton in 1992, in which Clinton lied about the state of the economy and called Bush 41 "pathetic".  Do you recall even one instance of  Bush 41 lashing out at Clinton for it, during the 8 years he was in office?  Look all you want, it isn't there; even though there certainly was ample reason and ample opportunity for Bush 41 to do so. 

Former (thank God) President carter, however, has no problem at all with attacking the current President.  And since mainstream media in this country are hell-bent to rehabilitate carter, he is home free.  That is because jimmy carter is a protected species of the Democratic party.  He can say whatever he wants, however ridiculous and dishonest, and will be revered for it.

No, Mr. carter can do no wrong - unless, of course, he ever has a change of heart and praises the courage of conviction it takes President Bush to stand for his beliefs today and/or criticizes the palestinian Arab culture of hatred and violence and/or notices when a USA hating despot rigs an election.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any of this to happen.  It will most assuredly be hazardous to your health.

UPDATE:  jimmy carter was on the Today show this morning (Monday, May 21) and claimed he was misinterpreted -- that he only compared the Bush administration to the Nixon administration, rather than saying it was the worst in history. 

Be advised that carter is lying.  Here is the audio clip so you can hear for yourself.  The QUESTION asked him to compare Bush and Nixon.  His ANSWER was that Bush's administration was the worst in history:


Ken Berwitz

A short time ago I blogged about the fact - at any rate I think it is a fact - that a disquietingly large number of people on the left would rather see the USA defeated in Iraq than win a victory there, if winning meant President Bush would get credit for it.  In other words, losing a war to terrorist insurgents is preferable to George Bush being seen in a positive light.

As if to second the motion, today I see this in Jeff Jacoby's latest - and, as usual, excellent - column.  The bold print is mine: -

At the Democratic debate on April 26, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show-of-hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Only four -- Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, and a noticeably hesitant Barack Obama -- raised their hands. Kucinich, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Mike Gravel did not. Unlike Ron Paul, who holds no important position in the GOP, Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Edwards was his party's vice presidential nominee in 2004. The man with whom he shared the ticket that year, Senator John Kerry, insisted that Islamist terror is merely "a nuisance" that "we're never going to end," like gambling and prostitution.

     What explains the Democrats' unwillingness to acknowledge the gravity of the global jihad? In part, it may stem from the sense that Islamists and the left share common foes. George Galloway, the radical antiwar British parliamentarian, declared in 2005 that "the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies . . . . On the very grave big issues of the day issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization -- the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side."

     But to a large extent, the Democrats' lack of seriousness about the war we are in can only be explained by Bush Derangement Syndrome. The term was coined by commentator Charles Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist, who defines it as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay, the very existence of George W. Bush."

     What if not derangement can explain such fever-swamp nuttiness as the findings of a new Rasmussen poll, which asked whether Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance? Among Democrats, 35 percent believe he did know and another 26 percent weren't sure. Only 39 percent said he didn't. In other words, nearly two out of three Democrats are unwilling to say that Bush wasn't tipped off to 9/11 in advance.

     In another poll recently, respondents were asked whether they personally wanted Bush's new security strategy in Iraq to succeed -- not whether they expected it to, but whether they wanted it to. Among Democrats, a stunning 49 percent either hope that the United States will be defeated in Iraq or cant decide one way or the other. Only 51 percent, a bare majority, want the American effort against al-Qaeda in Iraq to end in victory.

     As long as the 43rd president remains in office, it seems, a significant number of Americans will be so consumed with Bush-hatred that they will be unable to acknowledge -- let alone help defeat -- the real evil that confronts us all. Will they come to their senses after Jan. 20, 2009?  And even if they do, will it be too late? -

How important is partisan politics?  How important is political maneuvering?  Is it important enough to literally risk this country and its culture?  To risk western civilization?  To make it more possible for radical Islam to make good on its dream of world conquest?

These are not pie in the sky questions.  They are real.  The threat is real.  The people threatening us are busily doing everything they can to make good on their threats.  And yet we have significant Democratic officeholders either burying their heads in the sand, or more involved with hardball politics than protecting us.  And if the data cited by Jacoby are correct, they have managed to convince a large segment of their voter base that this makes sense.

I urge everyone who reads this to think long and hard about the consequences of such behavior.  Elections are never far away.  And the stakes have never been greater.


This is as close as Ken and I will ever get on agreeing on anything

barry Sinrod
We both hate Jimmy Carter, as President and as a person. He has provided zero of anything to this world in his 80 something years.  But, I do agree with him when he says
Former President Carter Blasts Bush
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (May 19) - Former President Carter says President Bush 's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy..

See what's free at

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!