Carter attacks Blair's Iraq role

[Gunny]

Former US President Jimmy Carter has criticised outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his "blind" support of the war in Iraq.
Mr Carter told the BBC Mr Blair's backing for US President George W Bush had been "apparently subservient".

more ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6672035.stm

The great James Earl, once again running amock at the lips.

 

[red states rule]

more ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6672035.stm

The great James Earl, once again running amock at the lips.

Does anyone pay attention to Pres Peanut anymore?

He was a miserable President and has turned into a cranky senile old fool

 

[onedomino]

Delightful to see that Carter has interrupted his attacks on Israel to deliver a cheap shot to Tony Blair. Carter is one of the worst mistakes that Americans have ever made at the polls; all these years later we are still paying for it. Thanks for yet another disturbing headline, Jimmy. Who would have guessed that “Billy Beer” Carter was actually the most gifted Carter family member?

 

[red states rule]

Delightful to see that Carter has interrupted his attacks on Israel to deliver a cheap shot to Tony Blair. Carter is one of the worst mistakes that Americans have ever made at the polls; all these years later we are still paying for it. Thanks for yet another disturbing headline, Jimmy. Who would have guessed that “Billy Beer” Carter was actually the most gifted Carter family member?

I do not understand why the left holds a bigoted old goat like Peanut Carter in such high esteem

 

[red states rule]

Editor & Publisher: Ignores Carter’s Lie in Quote Flap, Focuses on 'Bush is Worst' Instead
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on May 21, 2007 - 18:28.
The left never ceases to amaze and confound an honest man. As we have seen reported on Newsbusters, Jimmy Carter called President George W. Bush the “worst” president in history then lied about it claiming that his words were "careless or misinterpreted.” Carter was seen on the "Today" show trying to get the nation to imagine he didn’t really say what he said attempting to make it seem as if the newspaper that first reported his outrageous, intemperate language had somehow gotten it wrong. In essence, Carter was trying to make it out as if the paper was doing the lying, not him.

The newspaper, however, can prove without the shadow of a doubt that it is Carter who is lying. He did say what was first reported and there is no “carelessness” or “misinterpretation” over his words.

The fact that a former president is caught in a bald faced lie should be big news. You’d think the MSM would be all over the lies of a man who lost his office in one of the biggest landslide elections in history. Yet, here we have Editor & Publisher compounding Carter’s lies by assisting him to avert the subject from his own culpability and to reinforce the “Bush is worst” theme Carter was trying to develop in the first place by obfuscating the fact that Carter was caught in a straight out lie.

So, apparently as far as the MSM is concerned Carter’s lies aren’t the story. That Bush is still evil is. Which begs the question: are there any immoral acts a Democrat can do that will bring condemnation from the MSM?

Obviously not.

The original quote where Carter said Bush was the worst president in history came from a small paper in Arkansas who felt the disgraced former president’s anti-Bush words were too explosive to ignore. That paper was contacted by E&P for their reaction to the Carter back-track on the Today Show.

Frank Lockwood, religion editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, says that Carter’s claims that his words were somehow taken out of context is incorrect and that the ex-president was “accurately quoted, he's quoted in context, and it's fair.” He also reveals that the audio is preserved and is posted on line for all to hear – and it clearly proves that Carter said that Bush is the worst in history. No equivocation, no specificity or tighter context to the claim is possible.

This should be astounding news. E&P has a story where an ex-commander in chief is caught in a lie. So, what is the story they publish? The angle they chose to go after is Bush sucks, naturally.

Nowhere in their story is their any condemnation of Carter’s lie, nor any reaction from the newspaper on the fact that Carter is saying it is they who are the liars by supposedly misrepresenting what he said. The whole point that Carter is lying about the quote is incredibly muted in this report.

The point that Carter is trying to lie his way out of a fairly reported quote is stunning, but after reading the E&P story, one would be excused for not realizing what was at issue. After saying Bush is worst several more times reinforcing that the subject at issue is Bush being “worst”, not Carter’s lie, E&P ends the piece with a completely irrelevant poll that was taken on Lockwood’s blog.

Could the poll be asking if readers think the quote flap shows Carter is lying about having said it?

No, the poll is about… You guessed it… how bad Bush is.

Readers of Lockwood's blog apparently agree with Carter's assessment of his successor, Lockwood noted. An online survey that had attracted 241 votes by early Monday afternoon showed 73.8% of respondents agreed Bush was "'the worst in history'" as far as having 'an adverse impact on the nation around the world.'"

So, the leftist readers of a leftist blog think Bush is evil?

Shocking.

And thanks to E&P for helping get that point across… ad nauseam.

Now, can anyone imagine if it were a GOP past president that was lying so obviously in a similar situation? Can anyone doubt that the story would be “Bush lied” if the situation were reversed?

You tell me.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12913

 

[red states rule]

more ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6672035.stm

The great James Earl, once again running amock at the lips.

Reuters’ Absurd Double Standard Concerning White House's Response to Carter
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 21, 2007 - 13:56.
By now you’ve probably heard about former President Jimmy Carter’s absurd comments to the BBC regarding President George W. Bush’s foreign policy being the worst in American history.

You may even have seen Carter on the “Today” show Monday morning saying that his statements were “maybe careless or misinterpreted” (video available here).

However, did you read the following absurd double standard crafted by Reuters about the White House’s response (emphasis added):

Carter has been an outspoken critic of Bush, but the White House has largely refrained from attacking him in return. Sunday's sharp response marks a departure from the deference that sitting presidents traditionally have shown their predecessors.

Well, how about the deference that former presidents traditionally have shown for sitting presidents? Isn’t Carter’s continual lambasting of Bush a departure from that?

Obviously, the folks at Reuters must not be aware of that tradition.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12903