From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
May 26th 2007 | 1:34 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Quesnel_Joseph/2007/05/26/4209765.html
Carter's attack worth peanuts
By JOSEPH QUESNEL
Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
Carter is on the loose again.
It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
especially in terms of foreign policy.
While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.
"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.
Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.
I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
magic from this administration.
I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.
Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
judgment.
It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.
Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.
Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
countries behind the Iron Curtain.
So, this is the man criticizing the current president?
Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
hostage crisis.
Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.
One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.
Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.
Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
behind the helm during 9/11.
Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
of attacks.
Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.
While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.
After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
America.
Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.
Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
attacks again
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Quesnel_Joseph/2007/05/26/4209765.html
Carter's attack worth peanuts
By JOSEPH QUESNEL
Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
Carter is on the loose again.
It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
especially in terms of foreign policy.
While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.
"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.
Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.
I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
magic from this administration.
I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.
Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
judgment.
It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.
Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.
Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
countries behind the Iron Curtain.
So, this is the man criticizing the current president?
Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
hostage crisis.
Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.
One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.
Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.
Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
behind the helm during 9/11.
Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
of attacks.
Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.
While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.
After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
America.
Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.
Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
attacks again
May 26th 2007 | 2:31 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>
> http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>
> Carter's attack worth peanuts
aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
He must now be SLANDERED!!!
> By JOSEPH QUESNEL
>
> Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
> Carter is on the loose again.
>
> It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
> by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
> especially in terms of foreign policy.
>
> While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
> achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.
>
> "Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
> includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
> Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.
>
> Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
> ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.
>
> I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
> become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
> Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
> magic from this administration.
>
> I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
> should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.
>
> Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
> judgment.
>
> It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
> when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
> Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.
>
> Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
> strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
> communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
> it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
> Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.
>
> Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
> countries behind the Iron Curtain.
>
> So, this is the man criticizing the current president?
>
> Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
> American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
> hostage crisis.
>
> Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
> his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.
>
> One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.
>
> Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
> assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.
>
> Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
> behind the helm during 9/11.
>
> Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
> about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
> of attacks.
>
> Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.
>
> While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
> spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
> War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.
>
> After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
> the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
> sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
> America.
>
> Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.
>
> Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
> attacks again
> Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>
> http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>
> Carter's attack worth peanuts
aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
He must now be SLANDERED!!!
> By JOSEPH QUESNEL
>
> Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
> Carter is on the loose again.
>
> It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
> by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
> especially in terms of foreign policy.
>
> While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
> achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.
>
> "Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
> includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
> Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.
>
> Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
> ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.
>
> I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
> become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
> Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
> magic from this administration.
>
> I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
> should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.
>
> Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
> judgment.
>
> It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
> when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
> Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.
>
> Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
> strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
> communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
> it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
> Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.
>
> Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
> countries behind the Iron Curtain.
>
> So, this is the man criticizing the current president?
>
> Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
> American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
> hostage crisis.
>
> Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
> his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.
>
> One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.
>
> Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
> assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.
>
> Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
> behind the helm during 9/11.
>
> Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
> about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
> of attacks.
>
> Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.
>
> While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
> spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
> War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.
>
> After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
> the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
> sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
> America.
>
> Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.
>
> Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
> attacks again
May 26th 2007 | 3:53 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
"Pajamas O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
[email protected] m...
>
<snip>
By LUBNA TAKRURI
Associated Press Writer
May 4, 2007
WASHINGTON- The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their
American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven
years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however,
they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million
lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.
Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are so disheartened
that they're considering moving back to Seoul, said their attorney,
Chris Manning, who spoke on their behalf.
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly
disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their
lives."
The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative
hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the
case.
Pearson did not return phone calls and e-mails Wednesday from The
Associated Press requesting comment.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when
Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to
Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized
regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of
pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later,
and was deemed to be missing.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than
$1,000.
But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused
to pay. That's when Pearson decided to sue.
Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson.
First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson
wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of
pants.
Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner,
part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000-the price to rent a car every
weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry
cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.
But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict
interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines
violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers,
Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied
that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once
had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."
Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the
pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud.
Pearson has appointed himself to represent all customers affected by
such signs, though D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, who will
hear the June 11 trial, has said that this is a case about one
plaintiff, and one pair of pants.
Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Association, has written
a letter to the group of men who will decide this week whether to
renew Pearson's 10-year appointment. Joyce is asking them to
reconsider.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment regarding
Pearson's reappointment.
The association, which tries to police the kind of abusive lawsuits
that hurt small businesses, also has offered to buy Pearson the suit
of his choice.
And former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law
judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "any bar to
which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District
to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge."
"There has been a significant groundswell of support for the Chungs,"
said Manning, adding that plans for a defense fund Web site are in the
works.
To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects
of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found a week
after Pearson dropped them off in 2005. They've been hanging in
Manning's office for more than a year.
Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red
pinstripes.
"They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants match his
receipt," Manning said.
---
On the Net: http://www.CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com
[email protected] m...
>
<snip>
By LUBNA TAKRURI
Associated Press Writer
May 4, 2007
WASHINGTON- The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their
American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven
years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however,
they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million
lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.
Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are so disheartened
that they're considering moving back to Seoul, said their attorney,
Chris Manning, who spoke on their behalf.
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly
disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their
lives."
The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative
hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the
case.
Pearson did not return phone calls and e-mails Wednesday from The
Associated Press requesting comment.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when
Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to
Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized
regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of
pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later,
and was deemed to be missing.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than
$1,000.
But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused
to pay. That's when Pearson decided to sue.
Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson.
First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson
wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of
pants.
Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner,
part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000-the price to rent a car every
weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry
cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.
But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict
interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines
violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers,
Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied
that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once
had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."
Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the
pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud.
Pearson has appointed himself to represent all customers affected by
such signs, though D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, who will
hear the June 11 trial, has said that this is a case about one
plaintiff, and one pair of pants.
Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Association, has written
a letter to the group of men who will decide this week whether to
renew Pearson's 10-year appointment. Joyce is asking them to
reconsider.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment regarding
Pearson's reappointment.
The association, which tries to police the kind of abusive lawsuits
that hurt small businesses, also has offered to buy Pearson the suit
of his choice.
And former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law
judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "any bar to
which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District
to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge."
"There has been a significant groundswell of support for the Chungs,"
said Manning, adding that plans for a defense fund Web site are in the
works.
To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects
of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found a week
after Pearson dropped them off in 2005. They've been hanging in
Manning's office for more than a year.
Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red
pinstripes.
"They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants match his
receipt," Manning said.
---
On the Net: http://www.CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com
May 26th 2007 | 4:11 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>
> >http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>
> > Carter's attack worth peanuts
>
> aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
> He must now be SLANDERED!!!
>
>
No, Carter has SLANDERED. He now must be CRITICIZED.
> On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>
> >http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>
> > Carter's attack worth peanuts
>
> aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
> He must now be SLANDERED!!!
>
>
No, Carter has SLANDERED. He now must be CRITICIZED.
May 26th 2007 | 5:50 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
zorba wrote:
> On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>>
>>>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>>
>>>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>>
>>aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
>>He must now be SLANDERED!!!
Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to
him, and made him recant.)
>>
>>
>
>
> No, Carter has SLANDERED. He now must be CRITICIZED.
>
> On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>>
>>>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>>
>>>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>>
>>aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
>>He must now be SLANDERED!!!
Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to
him, and made him recant.)
>>
>>
>
>
> No, Carter has SLANDERED. He now must be CRITICIZED.
>
May 26th 2007 | 7:37 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
On May 26, 1:50?pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> zorba wrote:
> > On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>
> >>>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>
> >>>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>
> >>aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
> >>He must now be SLANDERED!!!
>
> Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! ?(Too bad "they" got to
> him, and made him recant.)
>
Speaking lies IS slander. It's especially obscene when the worst
president in U.S. history, whose actions (or lack thereof) brought
about many of today's problems, has the effrontery to call anyone else
"the worst president." Hey, we're talking about Jimmy Carter
here!!!
<[email protected]> wrote:
> zorba wrote:
> > On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>
> >>>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>
> >>>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>
> >>aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
> >>He must now be SLANDERED!!!
>
> Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! ?(Too bad "they" got to
> him, and made him recant.)
>
Speaking lies IS slander. It's especially obscene when the worst
president in U.S. history, whose actions (or lack thereof) brought
about many of today's problems, has the effrontery to call anyone else
"the worst president." Hey, we're talking about Jimmy Carter
here!!!
May 26th 2007 | 8:58 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>
>
>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>
>
Did you check Memri.org as well?
>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...6/4209765.html
>
>
and maybe the Diaro de Tierra del Fuego (Chile)
>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>
>By JOSEPH QUESNEL
>
>
>Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
>Carter is on the loose again.
>
>It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
>by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
>especially in terms of foreign policy.
>
>While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
>achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.
>
>"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
>includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
>Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.
>
>Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
>ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.
>
>I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
>become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
>Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
>magic from this administration.
>
>I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
>should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.
>
>Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
>judgment.
>
>It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
>when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
>Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.
>
>Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
>strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
>communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
>it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
>Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.
>
>Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
>countries behind the Iron Curtain.
>
>So, this is the man criticizing the current president?
>
>Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
>American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
>hostage crisis.
>
>Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
>his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.
>
>One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.
>
>Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
>assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.
>
>Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
>behind the helm during 9/11.
>
>Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
>about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
>of attacks.
>
>Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.
>
>While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
>spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
>War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.
>
>After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
>the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
>sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
>America.
>
>Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.
>
>Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
>attacks again
>
>
>
>
>
>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>
>
Did you check Memri.org as well?
>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...6/4209765.html
>
>
and maybe the Diaro de Tierra del Fuego (Chile)
>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>
>By JOSEPH QUESNEL
>
>
>Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
>Carter is on the loose again.
>
>It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
>by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
>especially in terms of foreign policy.
>
>While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
>achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.
>
>"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
>includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
>Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.
>
>Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
>ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.
>
>I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
>become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
>Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
>magic from this administration.
>
>I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
>should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.
>
>Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
>judgment.
>
>It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
>when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
>Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.
>
>Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
>strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
>communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
>it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
>Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.
>
>Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
>countries behind the Iron Curtain.
>
>So, this is the man criticizing the current president?
>
>Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
>American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
>hostage crisis.
>
>Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
>his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.
>
>One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.
>
>Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
>assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.
>
>Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
>behind the helm during 9/11.
>
>Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
>about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
>of attacks.
>
>Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.
>
>While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
>spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
>War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.
>
>After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
>the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
>sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
>America.
>
>Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.
>
>Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
>attacks again
>
>
>
May 26th 2007 | 10:03 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>
> Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
> ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.
>
> I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
> become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
> Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
> magic from this administration.
>
> I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
> should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.
Try arguing that after a few more years, many thousands more American lives
lost and billions of dollars wasted to bring democracy to a land where
democracy is not appreciated, and weigh that against a war that was started
on the basis on lies about a vast arsenal of WMDs that was used to justify
it. Then you can explain that Bush over-estimated the ability of the
Iraqis to learn from their mistakes. Kuwait was a high tech cake walk in
which the US led coalition bombed the bejeepers out of the Iraqis for weeks
before sending in the ground troops. The Iraqis obviously learned a lesson
from that one. They knew they could not match the US military on the
battlefield, so they went underground, hid their arms and ammunition and
opted to fight more of a guerilla war. Bush apparently thought that what
worked in the Gulf War would work again, that he would get rid of Saddam
and Iraqis would be kissing his butt.
Bush ignored the advice of his friends and allies, that they did not think
Saddam possessed a WMD threat, that they did not think invasion was a wise
move (better to have Saddam in there to control those crazy bastards than
to let them rise up en masse), and that removing Saddam was like poking a
hornet nest. But he ignored that advice.
Sorry, but he will go down as an incredible failure, one who lied about his
motives for going to a war that he is likely to lose. Americans love to
support their country and their president, but they will remember Bush as a
cluster****.
>
> Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
> ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.
>
> I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
> become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
> Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
> magic from this administration.
>
> I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
> should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.
Try arguing that after a few more years, many thousands more American lives
lost and billions of dollars wasted to bring democracy to a land where
democracy is not appreciated, and weigh that against a war that was started
on the basis on lies about a vast arsenal of WMDs that was used to justify
it. Then you can explain that Bush over-estimated the ability of the
Iraqis to learn from their mistakes. Kuwait was a high tech cake walk in
which the US led coalition bombed the bejeepers out of the Iraqis for weeks
before sending in the ground troops. The Iraqis obviously learned a lesson
from that one. They knew they could not match the US military on the
battlefield, so they went underground, hid their arms and ammunition and
opted to fight more of a guerilla war. Bush apparently thought that what
worked in the Gulf War would work again, that he would get rid of Saddam
and Iraqis would be kissing his butt.
Bush ignored the advice of his friends and allies, that they did not think
Saddam possessed a WMD threat, that they did not think invasion was a wise
move (better to have Saddam in there to control those crazy bastards than
to let them rise up en masse), and that removing Saddam was like poking a
hornet nest. But he ignored that advice.
Sorry, but he will go down as an incredible failure, one who lied about his
motives for going to a war that he is likely to lose. Americans love to
support their country and their president, but they will remember Bush as a
cluster****.
May 26th 2007 | 10:25 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to him, and made
> him recant.)
There you go again...knee jerk reaction whenever the president's name comes
up!
Funny, when faced with the truth, some people will fabricate and believe the
fiction that they spin!
NO body made Jimmy recant, NO body has the power to MAKE Jimmy recant...He
just did not realize what a foolish thing he did until it was too late and
was reminded about his time in the White House...
By the way, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat...but I do try to be
objective.
news:[email protected]...
> Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to him, and made
> him recant.)
There you go again...knee jerk reaction whenever the president's name comes
up!
Funny, when faced with the truth, some people will fabricate and believe the
fiction that they spin!
NO body made Jimmy recant, NO body has the power to MAKE Jimmy recant...He
just did not realize what a foolish thing he did until it was too late and
was reminded about his time in the White House...
By the way, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat...but I do try to be
objective.
May 26th 2007 | 10:30 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
zorba wrote:
> On May 26, 1:50?pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>zorba wrote:
>>
>>>On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>>
>>>>>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>>
>>>>>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>>
>>>>aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
>>>>He must now be SLANDERED!!!
>>
>>Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! ?(Too bad "they" got to
>>him, and made him recant.)
>>
>
> Speaking lies IS slander. It's especially obscene when the worst
> president in U.S. history, whose actions (or lack thereof) brought
> about many of today's problems, has the effrontery to call anyone else
> "the worst president." Hey, we're talking about Jimmy Carter
> here!!!
Who, whatever his shortcomings may have been as president,
is an honest, ethical man who never deliberately lied to the
American people! Bush is a liar and a cheat who got us
unilaterally into a seemingly endless war which we have no
hope of winning, a self-righteous hypocrite who confuses his
personal whims with "God's will", and easily the worst
president in the past hundred years - even taking Nixon into
account. Of course, the real culprits are his stable of
"advisors" who manipulate him for the good of big business
(while paying lip-service to the bigotry and ignorance of
the religious right). After Friday's vote on war funding,
I'm not too thrilled with his Democratic opposition, either
- looks like the whole crew betrayed us (and our
long-suffering troops) in the name of political expediency!
>
> On May 26, 1:50?pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>zorba wrote:
>>
>>>On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>>
>>>>>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>>
>>>>>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>>
>>>>aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
>>>>He must now be SLANDERED!!!
>>
>>Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! ?(Too bad "they" got to
>>him, and made him recant.)
>>
>
> Speaking lies IS slander. It's especially obscene when the worst
> president in U.S. history, whose actions (or lack thereof) brought
> about many of today's problems, has the effrontery to call anyone else
> "the worst president." Hey, we're talking about Jimmy Carter
> here!!!
Who, whatever his shortcomings may have been as president,
is an honest, ethical man who never deliberately lied to the
American people! Bush is a liar and a cheat who got us
unilaterally into a seemingly endless war which we have no
hope of winning, a self-righteous hypocrite who confuses his
personal whims with "God's will", and easily the worst
president in the past hundred years - even taking Nixon into
account. Of course, the real culprits are his stable of
"advisors" who manipulate him for the good of big business
(while paying lip-service to the bigotry and ignorance of
the religious right). After Friday's vote on war funding,
I'm not too thrilled with his Democratic opposition, either
- looks like the whole crew betrayed us (and our
long-suffering troops) in the name of political expediency!
>
May 26th 2007 | 10:54 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
Jean O'Boyle wrote:
> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to him, and made
>>him recant.)
>
>
> There you go again...knee jerk reaction whenever the president's name comes
> up!
> Funny, when faced with the truth, some people will fabricate and believe the
> fiction that they spin!
>
> NO body made Jimmy recant, NO body has the power to MAKE Jimmy recant...He
> just did not realize what a foolish thing he did until it was too late and
> was reminded about his time in the White House...
>
> By the way, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat...but I do try to be
> objective.
Unfortunately, that kind of "objectivity" seems to be
leading the country into a "one party" system where
inconvenient truths are quietly swept under the rug by the
people pulling our chief executive's strings! (I thought
his detractors were exaggerating, too - until I read Joe
Conaston's "It CAN Happen Here", which all too clearly
documents that "it" already IS happening here, with most of
the American people kept in the dark by the failure of our
"free" press to bother reporting it.)
> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to him, and made
>>him recant.)
>
>
> There you go again...knee jerk reaction whenever the president's name comes
> up!
> Funny, when faced with the truth, some people will fabricate and believe the
> fiction that they spin!
>
> NO body made Jimmy recant, NO body has the power to MAKE Jimmy recant...He
> just did not realize what a foolish thing he did until it was too late and
> was reminded about his time in the White House...
>
> By the way, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat...but I do try to be
> objective.
Unfortunately, that kind of "objectivity" seems to be
leading the country into a "one party" system where
inconvenient truths are quietly swept under the rug by the
people pulling our chief executive's strings! (I thought
his detractors were exaggerating, too - until I read Joe
Conaston's "It CAN Happen Here", which all too clearly
documents that "it" already IS happening here, with most of
the American people kept in the dark by the failure of our
"free" press to bother reporting it.)
May 26th 2007 | 11:02 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:30:02 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>zorba wrote:
>
>> On May 26, 1:50?pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>zorba wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>>>
>>>>>>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>>>
>>>>>>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>>>
>>>>>aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
>>>>>He must now be SLANDERED!!!
>>>
>>>Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! ?(Too bad "they" got to
>>>him, and made him recant.)
>>>
>>
>> Speaking lies IS slander. It's especially obscene when the worst
>> president in U.S. history, whose actions (or lack thereof) brought
>> about many of today's problems, has the effrontery to call anyone else
>> "the worst president." Hey, we're talking about Jimmy Carter
>> here!!!
>
>Who, whatever his shortcomings may have been as president,
>is an honest, ethical man who never deliberately lied to the
>American people!
so, your claim is he was, and is, an incredible fool...
not simply a liar
how can you tell which is which?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>zorba wrote:
>
>> On May 26, 1:50?pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>zorba wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 26, 10:31?am, generic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:
>>>
>>>>>>http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...
>>>
>>>>>>Carter's attack worth peanuts
>>>
>>>>>aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
>>>>>He must now be SLANDERED!!!
>>>
>>>Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! ?(Too bad "they" got to
>>>him, and made him recant.)
>>>
>>
>> Speaking lies IS slander. It's especially obscene when the worst
>> president in U.S. history, whose actions (or lack thereof) brought
>> about many of today's problems, has the effrontery to call anyone else
>> "the worst president." Hey, we're talking about Jimmy Carter
>> here!!!
>
>Who, whatever his shortcomings may have been as president,
>is an honest, ethical man who never deliberately lied to the
>American people!
so, your claim is he was, and is, an incredible fool...
not simply a liar
how can you tell which is which?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 26th 2007 | 11:09 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
wrote:
>
> Bush ignored the advice of his friends and allies, that they did not think
> Saddam possessed a WMD threat, that they did not think invasion was a wise
> move (better to have Saddam in there to control those crazy bastards than
> to let them rise up en masse), and that removing Saddam was like poking a
> hornet nest. But he ignored that advice.
As did many Democrats, who were provided the same information at the time,
including those now running for the presidency:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
> Sorry, but he will go down as an incredible failure, one who lied about
> his
> motives for going to a war that he is likely to lose. Americans love to
> support their country and their president, but they will remember Bush as
> a
> cluster****.
Americans love their country and respect its values...If you, as a Canadian,
(from your e-address) don't love and support your country, shame on you!
Some approve and some disapprove of our president. That is a freedom that we
enjoy.
I, for one, have respect for his office and the overwhelming
responsibilities that come with it.
I do not approve of many of the president's views, but I will not stoop to
name calling, ridiculing and fabricating stories about him. Sadly, the media
does more than its share of doing just that.
Unless the people who oppose him, can come up with a better solution (which
so far, the Democrats have not been able to do) they should stop criticizing
and try to unite and work for a better resolution...There is too much
bi-partisanism going on...Both parties have lost sight that the welfare of
the country is the most important and forget about politics...
Lastly, as a Canadian, you have no idea or say as to how Americans will
remember President Bush....your view is based on what the media sadly
provides and what a few biased write...that is not how ALL Americans will
judge him.
By the way, I would never presume to judge your prime minister, it is not my
business to do such a thing.
news:[email protected]...
wrote:
>
> Bush ignored the advice of his friends and allies, that they did not think
> Saddam possessed a WMD threat, that they did not think invasion was a wise
> move (better to have Saddam in there to control those crazy bastards than
> to let them rise up en masse), and that removing Saddam was like poking a
> hornet nest. But he ignored that advice.
As did many Democrats, who were provided the same information at the time,
including those now running for the presidency:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
> Sorry, but he will go down as an incredible failure, one who lied about
> his
> motives for going to a war that he is likely to lose. Americans love to
> support their country and their president, but they will remember Bush as
> a
> cluster****.
Americans love their country and respect its values...If you, as a Canadian,
(from your e-address) don't love and support your country, shame on you!
Some approve and some disapprove of our president. That is a freedom that we
enjoy.
I, for one, have respect for his office and the overwhelming
responsibilities that come with it.
I do not approve of many of the president's views, but I will not stoop to
name calling, ridiculing and fabricating stories about him. Sadly, the media
does more than its share of doing just that.
Unless the people who oppose him, can come up with a better solution (which
so far, the Democrats have not been able to do) they should stop criticizing
and try to unite and work for a better resolution...There is too much
bi-partisanism going on...Both parties have lost sight that the welfare of
the country is the most important and forget about politics...
Lastly, as a Canadian, you have no idea or say as to how Americans will
remember President Bush....your view is based on what the media sadly
provides and what a few biased write...that is not how ALL Americans will
judge him.
By the way, I would never presume to judge your prime minister, it is not my
business to do such a thing.
May 26th 2007 | 11:33 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
>> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to him, and
>>>made him recant.)
>>
>>
>> There you go again...knee jerk reaction whenever the president's name
>> comes up!
>> Funny, when faced with the truth, some people will fabricate and believe
>> the fiction that they spin!
>>
>> NO body made Jimmy recant, NO body has the power to MAKE Jimmy
>> recant...He just did not realize what a foolish thing he did until it was
>> too late and was reminded about his time in the White House...
>>
>> By the way, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat...but I do try to be
>> objective.
>
> Unfortunately, that kind of "objectivity" seems to be leading the country
> into a "one party" system where inconvenient truths are quietly swept
> under the rug by the people pulling our chief executive's strings! (I
> thought his detractors were exaggerating, too - until I read Joe
> Conaston's "It CAN Happen Here", which all too clearly documents that "it"
> already IS happening here, with most of the American people kept in the
> dark by the failure of our "free" press to bother reporting it.)
So your venomous name calling and slandering our president is better than
trying to be objective? Put yourself in his place and try to see what he has
to face each day. If you can do better, run for president!
My definition of objective is being fair and not jumping to conclusions
because it suits your purpose...
It is evident that you are a Democrat...which is fine, but can you put aside
your spitefulness and stop believing everything that you read? That is what
the media wants...sensationalism and not thinking for yourself...lets them
do the thinking for you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Conason
Is this the very liberal Joe Conason whom you have chosen to believe?
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to him, and
>>>made him recant.)
>>
>>
>> There you go again...knee jerk reaction whenever the president's name
>> comes up!
>> Funny, when faced with the truth, some people will fabricate and believe
>> the fiction that they spin!
>>
>> NO body made Jimmy recant, NO body has the power to MAKE Jimmy
>> recant...He just did not realize what a foolish thing he did until it was
>> too late and was reminded about his time in the White House...
>>
>> By the way, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat...but I do try to be
>> objective.
>
> Unfortunately, that kind of "objectivity" seems to be leading the country
> into a "one party" system where inconvenient truths are quietly swept
> under the rug by the people pulling our chief executive's strings! (I
> thought his detractors were exaggerating, too - until I read Joe
> Conaston's "It CAN Happen Here", which all too clearly documents that "it"
> already IS happening here, with most of the American people kept in the
> dark by the failure of our "free" press to bother reporting it.)
So your venomous name calling and slandering our president is better than
trying to be objective? Put yourself in his place and try to see what he has
to face each day. If you can do better, run for president!
My definition of objective is being fair and not jumping to conclusions
because it suits your purpose...
It is evident that you are a Democrat...which is fine, but can you put aside
your spitefulness and stop believing everything that you read? That is what
the media wants...sensationalism and not thinking for yourself...lets them
do the thinking for you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Conason
Is this the very liberal Joe Conason whom you have chosen to believe?
May 26th 2007 | 11:49 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts
On Sat, 26 May 2007 23:09:29 GMT, in uk.politics.misc "Jean O'Boyle"
<[email protected]>, wrote
>
>"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>wrote:
>>
>> Bush ignored the advice of his friends and allies, that they did not think
>> Saddam possessed a WMD threat, that they did not think invasion was a wise
>> move (better to have Saddam in there to control those crazy bastards than
>> to let them rise up en masse), and that removing Saddam was like poking a
>> hornet nest. But he ignored that advice.
>
>
>As did many Democrats, who were provided the same information at the time,
> including those now running for the presidency:
>
> http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
>
>
>> Sorry, but he will go down as an incredible failure, one who lied about
>> his
>> motives for going to a war that he is likely to lose. Americans love to
>> support their country and their president, but they will remember Bush as
>> a
>> cluster****.
>
>Americans love their country and respect its values...If you, as a Canadian,
>(from your e-address) don't love and support your country, shame on you!
>Some approve and some disapprove of our president. That is a freedom that we
>enjoy.
>I, for one, have respect for his office and the overwhelming
>responsibilities that come with it.
>I do not approve of many of the president's views, but I will not stoop to
>name calling, ridiculing and fabricating stories about him. Sadly, the media
>does more than its share of doing just that.
>
>Unless the people who oppose him, can come up with a better solution (which
>so far, the Democrats have not been able to do) they should stop criticizing
>and try to unite and work for a better resolution...There is too much
>bi-partisanism going on...Both parties have lost sight that the welfare of
>the country is the most important and forget about politics...
>
>Lastly, as a Canadian, you have no idea or say as to how Americans will
>remember President Bush....your view is based on what the media sadly
>provides and what a few biased write...that is not how ALL Americans will
>judge him.
>
>By the way, I would never presume to judge your prime minister, it is not my
>business to do such a thing.
>
Your whole post: Good for you!
I am afraid that I seldom am moved anymore to reply to these people with bad
cases of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
I will guess that the .wmv you post put the lie to the claims that our
"friends and allies" thought that SH did not have WMD.
FACE
<[email protected]>, wrote
>
>"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>wrote:
>>
>> Bush ignored the advice of his friends and allies, that they did not think
>> Saddam possessed a WMD threat, that they did not think invasion was a wise
>> move (better to have Saddam in there to control those crazy bastards than
>> to let them rise up en masse), and that removing Saddam was like poking a
>> hornet nest. But he ignored that advice.
>
>
>As did many Democrats, who were provided the same information at the time,
> including those now running for the presidency:
>
> http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
>
>
>> Sorry, but he will go down as an incredible failure, one who lied about
>> his
>> motives for going to a war that he is likely to lose. Americans love to
>> support their country and their president, but they will remember Bush as
>> a
>> cluster****.
>
>Americans love their country and respect its values...If you, as a Canadian,
>(from your e-address) don't love and support your country, shame on you!
>Some approve and some disapprove of our president. That is a freedom that we
>enjoy.
>I, for one, have respect for his office and the overwhelming
>responsibilities that come with it.
>I do not approve of many of the president's views, but I will not stoop to
>name calling, ridiculing and fabricating stories about him. Sadly, the media
>does more than its share of doing just that.
>
>Unless the people who oppose him, can come up with a better solution (which
>so far, the Democrats have not been able to do) they should stop criticizing
>and try to unite and work for a better resolution...There is too much
>bi-partisanism going on...Both parties have lost sight that the welfare of
>the country is the most important and forget about politics...
>
>Lastly, as a Canadian, you have no idea or say as to how Americans will
>remember President Bush....your view is based on what the media sadly
>provides and what a few biased write...that is not how ALL Americans will
>judge him.
>
>By the way, I would never presume to judge your prime minister, it is not my
>business to do such a thing.
>
Your whole post: Good for you!
I am afraid that I seldom am moved anymore to reply to these people with bad
cases of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
I will guess that the .wmv you post put the lie to the claims that our
"friends and allies" thought that SH did not have WMD.
FACE
