Political Bizarro-World

I just had one of those moments, a combination of “Did I really hear what I thought I heard”, and “I’ve just crossed into a parallel dimension, where black is white, stupid is brilliant”: I flicked on the tube, and came across Chris “I’ve devolved to a screaming parrot” Matthews interviewing Jimmy Carter on Hardballs. I am paraphrasing slightly, due to a lack of Tivo or a photographic memory, but here’s the question:

Mr. Carter, do you think it was possible to avoid going to war in Iraq? If they had been able to get in touch with Saddam, LIKE ON A PHONE CALL TO BUSH (my emphasis), and he could have explained to the administration that he didn’t have any WMD’s, would that have been able to avoid the whole military confrontation?

How does this guy have a show on anything other than local-access, 3 A.M. cable? Lex, see what you miss with your stubborn refusal to own a T.V. ?

12 thoughts on “Political Bizarro-World”

  1. Never seeing Jimmy Carter’s face actually in motion again is reason enough not to have a TV.

    If he’d have told the Shah “send in the tanks, put this thing down. Then, we need to talk.” No Khomenei, no most of our problems. Think about it. I don’t care if he builds houses for poor people, I still hate the guy.

  2. Fall of Afghanistan under Soviet domination (over 1 million killed) and all the subsequent problems (collapse of a legitimate state opened the door for Islamic fundamentalists) also happened on Carter’s watch.

    I will let someone else talk about Cambodia as I am not too familiar with the details.

  3. Iran has weighed in, saying that “Bush is the worst.” Probably because he won’t accept their phone calls.
    Anybody keeping track of world leaders and who they are backing? I know Bush has Howard, Koizumi, and Putin on his side. Does Kerry have anyone besides Chirac, Schroeder, Kim Jong Il, and the Ayatollah?

    Iran’s Choice: Democrats or Republicans?
    Sharq, Daily Newspaper, No. 317, Oct. 17th, 2004, Page 1-2
    By : Mohammad Qouchani


    For the first time in the history of Iran-US relations, Tehran favors the victory of Democrats in the November 2 presidential elections. Iran knows well that both Democrats and Republicans bear grudge of the Islamic Republic but reelection of Bush is the worst. John Kerry’s victory would mean the same with more discipline. However, a defeat of George W. Bush is welcome in Tehran because he has become the most detestable conservative in Iran.

  4. Scotus,
    His reply was that nothing mattered to the cadre of idealogues in the administration, that the pre-disposition to war was there already, and nothing would have stopped the sequence of events. On the other hand, I remember it being made extremely clear by the Bush administration what had to occur in order to avoid military action. But then, I don’t have a political axe to grind, or a speaking schedule to maintain and profit from.

  5. Carter is still dining out on the Camp David Accords even though IMNSHO the only reason they are working at all is that Egypt is scared to death of Israel kicking their a@@ again. He doesn’t admit that the murder of Sadat was a result of that Accord at all.

    I saw him on Larry King on the anniversary of that Accord and he spent the whole show telling us why Bush was wrong to attack based on 9/11. That is when he wasn’t basking in the glow of his Camp David Accords.

  6. President Malaise should be an albatross around Kerry’s neck. Islamo fascism is a greater threat than communism, but then again, Carter almost surrendered to that too!

  7. My children just asked me who Jimmy Carter was! Just like they don’t know who Brokaw, Jennings and Rather are. Well they do know who Rather is! President Malaise is so afraid to admit that he created the hostages and all of the former communist Latin America, but he must reflect? What a traitor, President Malaise is the worst President of my life time. Yes I am angry!

  8. Quagmire he says!
    Is anyone else uncomfortable with Carter’s, Kerry’s and (further in that transcript) Susskind’s willingness to analyze and criticize the faith (as they define it) and the acts of faith (as they define them) of Bush?
    I know, the Democrats can describe the Republicans as “unAmerican” in part because no one believes them, but does that also mean they get a pass on the “not a real Christian” because, well, the evangelicals aren’t going to believe them?
    And we are supposed to believe Susskind’s report on Bush’s “January plan.” Give me a break.

Comments are closed.