Amy Wilentz has a compelling piece on Jimmy Carter in New York Magazine that includes this ringing praise:
What’s most interesting about Carter at the age of 83 is… that his mind-set and his policies seem to jibe
so well with the attitudes of young people, students, and the
blogosphere. In many ways, Carter seems more relevant than George W.
Bush, his ideas more contemporary, his interests more outward-looking…. In
the news-grabbing drama of Carter’s single term in office, his
longer-lasting achievements were obscured, but they look today like a
blueprint for the future…
Most
characteristic of all was—and is—Carter’s fundamental belief that
parties who disagree must talk to each other, and that the higher the
stakes the more important such negotiations become. “One of the most
counterproductive things this administration has done,” Carter says,
“is abandon the U.S. commitment to have full-fledged discussions with
people who are crucial to the conversation if they won’t submit in
advance to our policies. This leads to isolation and makes it
impossible to reach agreements.” It is an argument the Obama campaign
has taken up and defended repeatedly.
Again
and again, the actions Carter takes that are most controversial are the
ones that place him at the vanguard of today’s politics.
Beautifully put. The problem with the article is that the reader is forced to crawl under the concertina wire of criticisms of Carter by Alan Dershowitz, Eli Lake, Zev Chafets and the like. Even Aaron David Miller, whose recent book demonstrates the incredible courage and persistence that Carter required to overcome the Israel lobby in American life and devote himself to justice in the Middle East, takes a shot at him. In that sense, the piece reflects the politics of the Jewish community. Because he has met with Hamas, because he used the A-word in the title of his book, Carter is compelled to run the gauntlet of conservative/ parochial Jewish opinion before Wilentz herself, who has written one of the finest books on the occupation, is allowed to give us the lowdown: the guy’s a prophet.
"…abandon the U.S. commitment to have full-fledged discussions…"
That's because the new priority is appointing jews as heads of diplomatic missions in order to advance the international interests of Judonia. Controlling access to the empire elite through diplomatic and business contacts is the means by which Judonia gains influence in foreign countries. For example, in the international media two weeks of access to insider coverage of american presidential election related events gives israelis two years of palestinian killings unreported in the media, or such. And there is a bonus, when confronted with the crude reality of his unfair dealings during negotiations a jew ambassador always has the possibility of faking personal ultrage and escaping through the holocaust-made-me-do-it thing.
Got to love the Phil Weiss fan base.
You want prophecy? Here's Carter in 1977, playing Cassandra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y6pPF_lzsU
Avnery must be the jewish equivalent …But the jewishcabal will amputate their own.So the tightrope is higher and narrower.
If you are in need of love, swordy, go ask the next jew ambassador for a package of ecstasy. I'm sure he will have one for you, along with a pair of underage native girls and an escape route to israel if the natives become restless. But if you are a lowly jew reporter in the third world and want to be anchor and editor of a major tv-news all you need is to beg the elders to include your name in the negotiations when the tv-boss comes to them asking for open access to american politicians during the big show of empire elections. In fact, swordy, the international Obama show will be the greatest opener of anchor doors for international media jews ever. And guys like you will be left out of it. No drugs, no girls, no glamour, only old rites and eternal hate. Pity.
Got to love that SOG–Israel uber alles!
SOG, you never told us why you don't go live in Israel. Too easy living with the goys?
In theory, anything is possible.
But in practice, too many people have bad memories of the Carter years for Jimmy to ascend very high in Presidential ratings.
I'd tend to give Reagan a pass on not concentrating developing alternate energy sources. We had enough to worry about in the early eighties.
But the way subsequent presidents ignored the energy question is going to count against them.
And for now Jimmy at least has the satisfaction of having bested George W. Bush.
Carter was a mediocre president, but only part of that was his fault. He had bad luck on the economy (in general, Presidents have less to do with the economy, good or bad, than they are given credit for).
But his biggest problem was being too far ahead of his time. In other areas if you're too far ahead of your time you'll be called a prophet, but a president who is too far ahead of his time is a bad leader. Unfair, but that's how it is.
Of course, it's also what makes Carter such a great ex-president.
'criticisms of Carter by Alan Dershowitz, Eli Lake, Zev Chafets and the like. Even Aaron David Miller'
They are pygmies; he's a giant. Who will remember their names in a hundred years? They'll be as anonymous as the Sword of Gideon.
.
Carter was a Giant? Sorry but thats not how I remember it. I would say he was in the great tradition of presidential War Criminals that followed unbroken from Harry Truman.
He was a Christian gentleman until he allowed the Commie hater Zbignew to hijack his foreign policy after Russia invaded Afganistan. He then ratcheted up the Cold War and started us down the hideous path of cynical manipulation of Afghani interests that led them to the present dreadful situation. Maybe later he repented, but that was not much use to the Afghanis.
.
and how come all this drunken creaching at sog to the detriment of the topic? sog is no worse than us, he just has a different opinion. you are like a tribe of apes whose terratory was violated by an alien ape.
"and how come all this drunken creaching at sog to the detriment of the topic? sog is no worse than us, he just has a different opinion. you are like a tribe of apes whose terratory was violated by an alien ape."
If you mean that anti-semitism is the same as SOG's anti-arab racism, I agree. If you're saying that all opinions are equal and deserving equal respect, then you're full of manure.
Posted by:Anonymous | July 22, 2008 at 08:02 PM – I agree with you. When Carter was in office I thought he was weak, but now I see how very strong he is.
Carter actually regularly read the Torah and the New Testament (not the Talmud) and applied it's moral lessons–shame on him.
Carter facilitated the Iranian/Islamic Revolution, and famously failed to see through Khomeini – I'd say that's one mark against, in the 'Prophet?' column.
He tried to be fair-minded, though, in his own way. However, his recent 'Peace not Apartheid' book is seriously flawed, and shows that he's abandoned fair-mindedness, and honesty for that matter.