Article

2007-05-21 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-05-21 01:01|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Sunday's sharp response marks a departure from the deference that sitting presidents traditionally have shown their predecessors.

You'll notice that there's nothing here about Jimmy's blitherings being a departure from the deference ex-presidents have traditionally shown the incumbents.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2007-05-21 01:42|| 2007-05-21 01:42|| Front Page Top

#2 What's sad is that Rosalyn keeps letting him out. He embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth.

Posted by treo 2007-05-21 10:09|| 2007-05-21 10:09|| Front Page Top

#3 ...after Carter described George W. Bush's presidency as the worst in history in international relations.

Sorry, Jimmy. Since time travel doesn't exist and the four years from 1/20/77 to 1/20/81 can't be erased, the face you see in the mirror every morning still retains the title.

Posted by tu3031 2007-05-21 10:09|| 2007-05-21 10:09|| Front Page Top

#4 Former President Carter has backed down. He now says his remarks were careless or misinterpreted. link Clearly he isn't quite sure which, but it definitely isn't his fault. And anyway, his remarks weren't meant to be personal criticism.

The poor man has serious delusions of adequacy.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-21 15:20|| 2007-05-21 15:20|| Front Page Top

#5 The reality is that this bonehead didn't know how to come within rifleshot of doing the job properly when he was President. Consequently, he has no understanding of how difficult the job can be for any of his successors who truly have a clue. What a contemptible fool!

Posted by Graiting Pelosi5237 2007-05-21 18:01|| 2007-05-21 18:01|| Front Page Top

#6 "...this administration has been the worst in history."

"I was certainly not talking personally about any president..."

Oh, no, no, no one in particular in mind there, eh Jimmuh?

You started this whole mess by allowing Islamic thugs to hold American citizens hostages for HUNDREDS of day, you pansy.

FOAD, you toad.

Posted by Parabellum 2007-05-21 19:17|| 2007-05-21 19:17|| Front Page Top

#7 Worst president of the 20th criticizing the one that will arguably be the most hapless of the 21st.

Screw both of them.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-05-21 21:06|| 2007-05-21 21:06|| Front Page Top

#8

The bottom line with the current president, as far as I'm concerned, is that at least President Bush started fighting back against the Islamofascists/Jihadists/Caliphatists, or whatever we're calling them these days. If Al Gore had won in 2000, I don't think he would even have been so bold as his former boss Bill Clinton, who was so terribly good at shooting missiles at empty tents; had Senator John Kerry won in 2004, he'd have invited Osama bin Laden and his top management team to Paris to negotiate a settlement that involved turning over Iraq and the rest of the Ummah to be split between the Al Qaeda and Iran, thus triumphantly going far beyond the betrayal of his callow youth.

The first phase of the War on Terror has not gone nearly as well as our initial hopes, either abroad or at home. But at least we're out there swinging -- and hitting, often enough, at least according to some of the things I've read coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan these past few days. I won't argue that it's been done well. There are enough Rantburgers expert in the various arts and crafts of war and intercultural politics, who've generously explained what's been done right, what's been done wrong, and what critically needs to be done next. But to repeat: At Least President Bush Hasn't Surrendered Yet. And while those who don't look beyond their own personal affairs (which is most people, most places, most of the time) don't know, don't care, and don't want to be bothered, those whose view is bigger keep getting mugged by reality. Shoot, the Arabs are giving up on the Palestinians! That is not something I expected to see before I died.

I'm in this thing for the long haul. And I'm just grateful that, if the Republican Party couldn't come up with anyone better than George W. Bush, at least they didn't come up with anyone as bad as the Democratic candidates he beat. In both Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani the Republicans have candidates who, I believe, can be counted on to continue the fight -- hopefully better -- but certainly effectively communicating about it. And both have a good chance of beating either the honourable Senator Hillary Clinton or the equally honourable, if less experienced, Senator Barack Obama, current leaders in the Democrats' race.

"Let not the Best be the enemy of the Good," as the saying goes. But sometimes Better Than Nothing really is better than nothing, especially if those are the only choices on offer.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-21 22:00|| 2007-05-21 22:00|| Front Page Top

#9 Agreed and seconded.

Posted by trailing daughter #1 2007-05-21 22:04|| 2007-05-21 22:04|| Front Page Top

23:43 Mac
23:30 Zenster
23:20 Zenster
23:15 Anonymoose
23:10 M. Murcek
22:56 trailing wife
22:55 John Frum
22:53 trailing wife
22:50 anymouse
22:48 JohnQC
22:36 Pappy
22:36 JohnQC
22:35 Pappy
22:22 gromgoru
22:22 JohnQC
22:20 Eric Jablow
22:19 Atomic Conspiracy
22:19 Seafarious
22:16 JohnQC
22:10 ptah
22:09 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:08 Procopius2k
22:05 Spolusing and Tenille6935
22:05 Barbara Skolaut