Shame on Carter for blaming Bush's disasters on Cheney. I mean come on, who's the decider?

To answer your question, Cheney. Familarize yourself with John Deans writings of late. Or Cheneys history (along with pal Rumsfeld going back to the Nixon Whitehouse.) Or Gerald Fords comments that "listening to Dick Cheney was the worst mistake of his life". Or Cheneys involvement in the founding of the PNAC or his avoidance of military service...5 times...because "he had better things to do". Or his 100% inaccurate statements about Iraq. (WMD's. Greeted as liberators. Insurgency in its last throes, etc.) Or his stovepiping of intellegence during the run up to Iraq. Or his claim that his office not being a part of the
executive branch. Or his staff having access to Bushes staffs emails and documents but not the other way around. Or the 4 part Washington Post article which was run this past summer. Or his picking himslef to be the VP to a vacious, intellectually incourious funtional moron how butchers the English language when every he speaks in public. (Except about torture. Then he is as eloquent as a nobel laureate.)
Shall I continue?
Yeah, Carter was weak and he did the USA no service but drawing attention to Carters failures does not deminish the truth of his comments about Cheney.
Cheney has zero credability. There is a movement afoot to introduce legislation to impeach him which is supported by a majority of Americans.
Not by you all, but then again, this group is an aboration and does not reflect the views of the mainstream...which you so clearly dispise.
It is too bad too, since the authoritarian mindset of an imperial presidency as advocated by Cheney is the antihisis of what you all claim to be truly American. Namely the upholding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Folks that think like you remind me of how one boils frogs.

Jimmy Carter performed so poorly as President of the United States (especially with "The Iranian Hostage Crisis"). It is truly sad when he mouths off in the media about issues that he does not have any first-hand knowledge of... as though he is a renown international expert.... Jimmy Carter should "quietly" continue to build homes for the homeless and work in the Carter Center.

A couple of quick comments (and I am not a big fan of Carter by any stretch).

1) Carter also said that he was very proud of that fact that in his four years we never fired a missile or attacked a country in angry. I would think any Christian would take pride in that.

2) Cheney has made some very profound statements (circa 1994) -

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

Cheney: No.

Q: Why not?

Cheney: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

Carter also spoke the truth when he said the US tortures.

Waterboarding was used during the Spanish Inquisition, and the US is doing it today.
Thanks to that sadist Chaney and idiot figurehead Bush, our country has become the evil empire.

And the hostage situation was Reagan's fault. He told Iran to hang on to the hostages until after the election to make Carter look weak. In exchange he would sell them weapons: Thus the birth of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Cheney has zero credability. There is a movement afoot to introduce legislation to impeach him which is supported by a majority of Americans.

First of all, LEARN HOW TO SPELL, or at the very least use spell check.

I suppose you have evidence of this "movement", of which you speak? And do you really believe that Americans will be interested in a protracted impeachment battle designed to oust a VP that has just 15 months left to serve?

Neo:
1st off, I am dyslexic and I have trouble spelling but my errors do not detract from the content of my thoughts. I do not know how to access spell check on this blog. Maybe you can help. My inablity to spell correctly doesn't rehabilitate Dick Cheney.
That said, American Research Group July '07:
54% favor.17% Republicans, 76% Democrats (go figure!) and 51% Independents. Although I agree that he won't be impeached (for many reasons) he should, but the 15 months left in office is not one of them. Clinton was impeached (and aquitted I might add)with not much more time remaining in his term.
Dick Cheney's dark, brooding and secretive nature is everything the framers of our constitutuion were worried about and why they built in separation of powers, congress alone being to declare war, a non-monarchial president and, of course, the power to remove an abuser of trust and power. The strength of Cheney and Bush has been to play on the weakness in us all; fear, and they have stoped at nothing to keep (some people) permenently afraid which, I might add, is one of the classsic traits of Authoritarians. As I have suggested, google John Deans work on this subject particularly his book Conservatives Without Conscious and see for yourself.
The aborational form of "conservativism" as is evidenced on this blog is functionally dead as an influence on mainstream social and political direction. People expect an open government and to point out flaws and shortcomings in those with whom you disagree doesn't magically transform those whom you admire into paragons of truth. It just makes you look cheap and petty. (You in the figurative sense, not you Neo personally.)
That is something that I have noticed repeatedly here on B4B. Issues are rarely discussed in depth or dispasionatley, rather the (so called) flaws of Noonans "enemies" whether they be real or percieved are the focal point of conversation. Facts, logic, and reason come second to rigid, dogmatic and extreem right wing ideology. (The tactic being to intentionally skew the correlation between truth and agreement.) Dick Cheney is the worst enemy our constitutionn has and the sooner he is gone the better.

"And the hostage situation was Reagan's fault. He told Iran to hang on to the hostages until after the election to make Carter look weak. In exchange he would sell them weapons: Thus the birth of the Iran-Contra scandal."

I didn't realized that a governor of California had so much power! Who wen't to Iran to make the deal? Oh yeah, it was Bush Sr., who in the dead of night boarded an SR-71, flew to Tehran, made the deal and returned. Wow, it makes good spy novel stuff.

The hostage crisis lasted 444 days. So, using your liberal conspiracy logic, in the last 60, Carter was made to look weak by a President-elect? So, what did Carter do that made him strong in the prior 384 days?

I guess you can tell me that double-digit infaltion, unemployment, home mortgage rates, high gas prices, rationed gas, price controls and excessive taxes, whose fault those were?

The man was an incompetant boob.

Alexander,

Your post is rife with hyperbole and little in substance; “Dick Cheney's dark, brooding and secretive nature” is observational, subjective and hardly what the framers had in mind when drafting the protocol for impeachment. Some of the framers indeed where less amiable than Mr. Cheney, Hamilton comes to mind, and none was drawn and quartered for the impertinence of being “secretive”. Unless you can produce high crimes, that being a crime in the judicial sense committed by a person of high office, or a misdemeanor; that is behavior not tolerable in a public figure, you have zero chance of sustaining any movement for impeachment. All your natter does is coarsening the dialogue.

As to your reading of the constitution; I suggest a remedial course, “separation of powers, congress alone being to declare war” is over simplified and sophomoric; Jefferson, you may recall, knew a bit about the intent of the framers and, correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t he send the Marines to Tripoli without Congress’ declaration of War? Didn’t that same Jefferson successfully overthrow an foreign government without Congress’ approval?

You proffer the idea that it is the Administration that plays on the populace’ fears regarding the threat from Islamofascists, but ignore the threat posed by the enemy themselves; it isn’t the Administration that issued the threat, the enemy has explained in detail his intentions; if that doesn’t frighten you then you are intentionally insensate or so blinded by hatred of Bush that you fail to see the threat until it wraps a knife around your throat.

I have no idea what an “The aborational form of "conservativism ” might be, but your debating technique of dismissing all argument based on perceived prejudice is worse than sophomoric; it’s frankly insulting. You have presented neither facts nor logic; only ad hominem.

And, while we’re at it, I find your pathetic reference to dyslexia in an attempt to deflect your inability to form a sentient argument with correct diction somewhat dismal; I don’t know anyone with dyslexia that blames the disorder for their limitations.

"And the hostage situation was Reagan's fault. He told Iran to hang on to the hostages until after the election to make Carter look weak. In exchange he would sell them weapons: Thus the birth of the Iran-Contra scandal."

History lesson; it was Carter who sent Under Secretary of State, Warren Christopher to Paris to negotiate the release of the Iranian hostages, in violation of US policy not George HW Bush whose whereabouts prior to the election was well chronicled. Check the Congressional record from 1993 when the “October surprise” incident was fully investigated.

Dasein:
Diction is how one speaks, not spells. Belittling me doesn't change anything about Dick Cheney and you school marm, are one of those either living in fear or propigating it. The aborational form of conservatiivism I am refering to is the morphing of traditional conservatives into authoritarians. As I have suggested, investigate it and see just how neatly you fit into the topology.
Have a regular day and keep looking over your shoulder. The government is watching you.

Since the installation of Bush in the Oval Office, the 'Religious' Right has, in its strident & hateful rhetoric, sought to be the voice of America.

Thankfully, President Carter, and those who still believe in the compassion and goodness inherent in the America character, provide an antidote to the poison spewed by this vicious element. An element evil in its intent to disparage the image of the United States in the eyes of the world.

President Carter = National Treasure

Diction is choice of words, not enunciation. Your diction is horrible, and you’re wrong; your poor syntax and inability to properly use the King’s English does reflect on your poor forensic abilities.

You’ve stated no facts relative to Mr. Cheney that supports your contention of impeachment; further you’re ham-handed attempt to hijack the argument from Carter’s incompetence show you to be a virulent partisan with jejune critical thinking skills.

“ aborational” isn’t a word.

CO,
I fully expect you to support the omnipresent Mr. Carter, he like your quisi-socialist France-Lite form of governance is amusing and quant in a provincial sort of way.

Mr. Carter’s well documented anti-Semitism may be heroic to the big-brained liberals, but it hardly qualifies him as humanitarian.

To repose ToLBS’s query; if Carter was the bastion of refuge for the US’s position as the last best hope for humanity, why then would the Islamofascists acquiesce to the political desires of a State’s Governor rather than the leader of the country they have declared war on? Could it be because they recognized what you have filed to see, Carter was (and is) a simple creature, endowed with self-aggrandizement, overpowering anti-Semitism, and little in intellectual discernment.

Jerry Lewis is also a National Treasure, and almost as big a clown as Carter.

Dasein:
You strike me a amother in a long line of condescending sanctimonious gas bags. I will not perform research for you but since you can type like a pro, google HR333 yourself and while you are at, explore the rational behind the resolution. I don't have to proffer anything for you.
Last time I checked, Carter was still an ex-president and private citizen and has every right to call Cheney out for what he is. Just because Carter was a mediocre president, that doesn't disqualify him from calling a spade a spade. Unless you have a problem with free speech.
This thread is about Carter pointing out the obvious in regards to Cheney, not about Carters' competence.
What does your nom de guerre portend? Daisy? Wolfbane? OH! I get it, Lib Bane. Very scary..

Without the least bit of irony, our resident illiterate, alexander refers to the President; a graduate of Harvard and Yale, as ” vacious (sic), intellectually incourious (sic) funtional (sic) moron how butchers the English language when every (sic) he speaks in public.” First rule of holes, Spook?

Lat time I checked, a discredited, failed former President doesn’t deserve any more respect for his incoherent ramblings than he did when he was the most embarrassing American Public figure since Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr another famous anti-Semite.

And you, like the BDS liberal sycophant you are, suck at the teat of Carter’s pontifications as if enjoying the robustness of wisdom while suckling the stench of odium. Good luck with that.

Without the least bit of irony, our resident illiterate, alexander refers to the President; a graduate of Harvard and Yale, as ” vacious (sic), intellectually incourious (sic) funtional (sic) moron how butchers the English language when every (sic) he speaks in public.” First rule of holes, Spook?

Last time I checked, a discredited, failed former President doesn’t deserve any more respect for his incoherent ramblings than he did when he was the most embarrassing American Public figure since Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr another famous anti-Semite.

And you, like the BDS liberal sycophant you are, suck at the teat of Carter’s pontifications as if enjoying the robustness of wisdom while suckling the stench of odium. Good luck with that.

I could care less about Carter, although I admire his humanitarian work and the guts he showed a few days ago in Darfur. It is Cheney whom I find contemptable. Lets look at what Brent Scowcroft said about him, shall we? Or Bush sr. Or Collin Powell. Or anybody else with a connection to reality. But then again, you believe that Bin Laden is going to show up at your kid's soccer game. What's it like being a fear junkie?

Bush and Yale. I am impressed. An eliteist,liberal east coast school (oooo scary) and he STILL butchers English when he talks.
BTW. How did you know I was Jewish??

alexanddesmall...I think either some teacher in the public school system has encouraged him beyond his capabilities or..........
It's that self esteem thing ,run amok!
In reading some of his rhetoric, one could also wonder if he lives in the USA...maybe, maybe not..
If he is in Europe, he just may want to read While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer...talking about looking over your shoulder.

Anne,
Judging by his poor syntax, immature insults, victim mentality, and grammatical errors, I’d say he’s a product of the Seattle school system.

Notice how he cites moderate Republicans in his defense of the indefensible? As if anyone were to believe that anything said or written by Scowcroft, GHW Bush (nee “Sr”) John Dean or Powell would have any sway were it not being contorted to fit his agenda.

I’d also be willing to speculate that he has no post secondary education, at least not in any prestigious surroundings; notice how Yale receives no credit as an institution because Cheney, Bush 41, Bush 43, Ford, Wolfowicz, Alito and Thomas attended. Sad, really.

I'm afraid that Jimmy Carter is a few peanuts short of a full bushel!

I am afraid that Jimmy Carter is a few peanuts short of a full bushel!

I love being talked about and I am laughing at how wrong you are Daisy. Or is it Dazed?
Moderate Republicans? As opposed to what,extreme radicals who call themselves Republicans? Thousands of people have attended Yale but of those that you mentioned all of them can coherently express themselves in public. But again, you prove my point by defelcting attention to me instead of addressing the nature of this thread. And exactly how have I contorted the statements of those individuals that I have cited? I didn't quote any comments, I only mentioned their names.
If you explore for yourself Libsbane what they have said I am confident that you will discover that they too hold Cheney in the same contempt as I. And the same contempt applies to his goon Wolfowitz. (Better check your spelling! Witz with a Z not C.)
Have you bothered to familiarize yourself with Deans writings? If you have, please explain how it is possible to twist what he says?
This attempt at a fact based debate with you is going nowhere. I have even allowed you the 1/2 of my brain tied behind my back advantage and you STILL resort to infantile put-downs and disparaging comments. I guess I should know better than to poke a stick in the animals cage but someone needs to knock you off your ideological high horse.
Where did you graduate from? Bob Jones? It is a sure bet that you weren't a member of the debate club.

alexsmall..
Where did you graduate from??? Do my eyes deceive me..you actually wrote that??
and you little dickens, you are sneaking and listening to Maha Rushie!!! you stole one of his favorite sayings...tsk, tsk, tsk.

Rush, the noted scientist, irreverent comedian and character assassin is the source of some great material. Thank you very much.
But let's examine further Daisychains choice of words. From a psychological point of view, the word "agenda" is very telling. First off, it implies an ulterior motive. Secondly, it does not fit well in the sentence because by definition agenda means a list of things to be done and since I made no reference to any sequence of events in order to accomplish a task logic leads one to the conclusion that Daisychain is paranoid which, by the way is a classic symptom of those whom are victims of Authoritarians or whom are actually Authoritarians themselves. Personally, I don't think Daisychain is smart enough to be carrier, rather he she it is a victim.
But enough about Dickless Cheney. Lets move on to the next issue to rip this country apart. Lets see, Ann Coulters remarks about Jews? Nah, to easy. How about the attack on the 12 year old Graeme Frost by cross eyed Ms. Malkin? That would be interesting. Blackwater? Again, no. They are going to be expelled anyway. I've got it! Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize!! That will get the Pavlovian juices flowing! (No pun intended.)