Jump to navigation
Incompetence, Sedition, and a Note on Lousiness
John McCain is calling
former President Jimmy Carter a "lousy" commander-in-chief.
That is just plain harsh.
Maybe if Mr. Carter's abortive attempt to rescue the American hostages from the embassy in Iran in October of 1980 had not been disrupted
by the back-door dealings of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan and his running mate, former CIA Director George H.W. Bush, history would have worked out a whole lot differently.
At the very least, President Carter never illegally sold the theocratic loons in Tehran weaponry
that, to this very day, might be in the Iranian arsenal our current President claims
is being handed to insurgents in Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers.
Neither was Mr. Carter in command when 241 U.S. Marines, sequestered in their barracks in Beirut, were slaughtered in 1983 by jihadist suicide bombers
Talk about a "lousy" commander-in-chief.
Oh, wait a minute. Wasn't George W. Bush the commander-in-chief when a handful of crazed jihadists with nothing more than box cutters managed to circumvent the entirety of our NORAD air defense system with four commercial jetliners and blast two giant skyscrapers and the very nexus of our Department of Defense
at the Pentagon?
Mr. McCain, the word "lousy" doesn't even begin
to describe Republican commanders-in-chief of recent American history.
Where are the real Republicans? For that matter, where are the real politicians? What happened? They seem to be an endangered species. Maybe they've already gone extinct and we didn't notice, for all the other distractions?
Flip flopping McSame as Bush III is taking his talking points right out of the Rovian BS handbook. Neo-cons got nothing good going, no good record to run on and only offer a bigger crapfest of more of the same. They've done their party in, and inflicted extreme damage in the process.
Tar, feathers, rail: not anywhere good enough. Orange jumpsuits at Club Gitmo, maybe.
(Geez, I hope I didn't seem a little harsh there.)
Good evening, Moody Blue.
Just yesterday, I was thinking about the old-fashioned tar-and-feathers routine. With appropriate accessorization, it seems to me that we might have a fashion winner for the modern-day chickenhawks.
The Dark Wraith is still not sure if the feathers should be white or yellow, though.
Good evening to you, Wraith.
I'm thinking yellow would be most appropriate, unless lame duck feathers would be better. They're brown, aren't they? That would match their shirts... or *something* they fling.
Quack, quack, quack...
House GOP concludes they failed to sway voters:
Speaking privately, numerous Republicans have long conceded they are well on their way to additional, possibly significant losses in November, given President Bush's low [23%] approval ratings, opposition to the war in Iraq and polls that show a large majority of Americans wanting change.
Karen Hanretty, communications director for the NRCC, reacted to the private report by acknowledging the difficulties confronting her party.
"This is a challenging environment," she said. "Any Republican running for office has to run basically on an independent platform, localize the race and not take anything for granted. There are no safe Republican seats in this election."
Well, duh, you quacker jacks. Welcome to Clueville.
Don't forget that hostage rescue had then Maj. William G. Boykin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw) as one of its leaders.
Yes, the same Boykin who give us our Faith-based Air Force as Lt. General and spent the years after 9/11 uniting the Armed Forces against Al Qaeda the same way he united the Iranian hostage rescue for President Carter.
In sh'Allah, and all that.
White, with yellow underwear feathers, due to the Islamofascist-lovin' Dems' chances for the trifecta.
The GOP has nothing to crow about, mos def. I would also note in Carter's defense that his decision to mount a rescue operation for the hostages in Iran was well-timed and cleverly masked by diplomatic smoke and mirrors; it failed only because he did NOT micromanage it -- in keeping with what all the Deep Military Thinkers advise, he left the implementation to the generals and admirals, who bungled it. Carter graciously shouldered the blame, as a good commander-in-chief should. He also showed his CINC skill in initiating the "two track" solution to the INF problem, which eventually defused the theater nuclear weapons issue in Europe and brought about the INF Treaty, NATO's last great diplomatic triumph of the Cold War. Jimmy Carter had a very respectable record as a commander in chief.
As for the Current Incumbent, I don't blame him for 9/11 -- the terrorists circumvented nothing, merely took advantage of existing FAA carry-on regulations along with al-Qaeda's new "business plan" for hijackings. It's not entirely Bush's fault that the CIA and FBI failed to share information, missing more than one spectacular opportunity to roll up the plot well before it matured. No, I reserve my blame for his unbelievably stupid decision as commander-in-chief (or "decider" as he puts it) to expand the "War on Terror" to include a pointless invasion of Iraq, a grievous mistake for which we will continue to pay for a long, long time -- even if John McCain doesn't get elected.
::::holds out two brown ducks for use:::::
Come On, Oh Dark One, you KNOW it is only "lousy" when a Democrat does it. When a Republican does it, it is "oh so defensible "----it really has become absurdist opera.
Great points, rm hitchens. The media's acceptance of rightwing smears of J. Carter was unreal at the time; Now, it's impossible to change the minds of those who've only heard the BS. Since so little was said to counter-act the propaganda. Just as with Clinton's "legal troubles" in Ark.
Become a Registered Commenter