Open mouth, insert foot- Carter does it again

There is something seriously wrong with James Earl Carter, Jr. There has to be. Jimmy just can't keep his mouth shut. (Though it looks like he's doing a pretty good job in this photo.) You would think as an ex-President he would have a deeper understanding of the whole notion of protocol and diplomacy, but it's obvious he hasn't a clue.

So, this time, Carter told the Democrat-Arkansas Gazette that President Bush's international relations is the "worst in history". In addition to bashing Bush's environmental policies he criticized the administration's faith-based initiative funding, calling it "quite disturbing." He also had the gall to criticize Tony Blair, when asked by BBC radio what he thought of Blair's support of Bush, saying it was "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient. And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world." Carter also faulted Bush

"for having "zero peace talks" in Israel," adding that the current "administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement....by other Presidents."

Perhaps he feels compelled to criticize Bush because he doesn't want to go down as "the" worst President in U.S. history, as so many already maintain. In fact, some have pegged him as "the worst" ex-President ever. Or maybe he's just stupid, or thinks we're stupid. As if claiming someone else is "the worst" will somehow make it so. Regardless of what you think of GW Bush, he's by no means worse than former Prez Jimmah Carter. In fact many of the major tragedies of the world today, can be directly linked to Carter's Presidency. Besides the onus of having the resurgence of Islamic Fundamentalism commence on his watch, let's take a look at a few instances of Carter's brilliance in foreign policy, both during and after his Presidency.

A few from CommonDreams.org:

President Carter, who came to office in early 1977, not long after Indonesia invaded and annexed the tiny island nation of East Timor, increased military aid to the Indonesian dictatorship by 80%. This equipment including OV-10 Bronco counter-insurgency aircraft that was crucial in the rounding up of much of the country’s civilian population into concentration camps. Most of the 200,000 East Timorese deaths as a result of Indonesia’s occupation took place during the Carter Administration, in large part as a result of this military aid.

Carter also dramatically increased military aid to the Moroccan government of King Hassan II, whose forces invaded its southern neighbor, the desert nation of Western Sahara, barely a year before the former Georgia governor assumed office. Carter fought Congress to restore military aid to Turkey that had been suspended after their armed forces seized the northern third of the Republic of Cyprus in 1974. Carter promised that the resumption of aid would give Turkey the flexibility to withdraw. Turkish occupation forces remain there to this day.

Under President Carter, the United States vetoed consecutive UN Security Council resolutions to impose sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Ignoring calls from the democratic South African opposition to impose such pressure, Carter took the line of American corporate interests by claiming U.S. investments – including such items as computers and trucks for the South African police and military – somehow supported the cause of racial justice and majority rule. (Barely five years after Carter left office, the United States imposed sanctions against South Africa by huge bipartisan Congressional majorities and no longer vetoed similar UN efforts.)

Carter sent military aid to the Islamic fundamentalist mujahadeen to fight the leftist government in Afghanistan in the full knowledge that it could prompt a Soviet invasion. According to his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, it was hoped that by forcing the Soviets into such a counter-insurgency war would weaken America’s superpower rival. This decision, however, not only destroyed much of Afghanistan, but the entire world is feeling the ramifications to this day.

As president, Carter opposed Palestinian statehood, refused to even meet with Palestinian leaders, and dramatically increased military aid to the right-wing Israeli government of Menachem Begin. When Israel violated an annex to the Camp David Accords by resuming construction of illegal settlements on the occupied West Bank, Carter refused to enforce the treaty despite being its guarantor. Carter also dramatically increased military aid to the increasingly repressive Egyptian regime of Anwar Sadat.

Carter was also a strong supporter of Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos, Pakistani General Zia al Huq, Saudi King Faud and many other dictators. He blocked human rights legislation initiated by then-Congressman Tom Harkin and others. He increased U.S. military spending, militarized the Indian Ocean, and withdrew the SALT II Treaty from the Senate before they even took a vote.

From SFGate.com:

When it comes to the belligerence of North Korea, Carter's past involvement has done considerable damage. In the early 1990s, Carter traveled to North Korea on another of his "peacekeeping missions" and brokered a deal with dictator Kim Il Sung. He did so without the blessing of the Clinton administration, although, at the behest of then-Vice President Al Gore, President Clinton later agreed to adopt Carter's deal. The United States ended up providing aid, oil and, incredibly, material for building light-water nuclear reactors to the North Koreans in exchange for their abandoning their nuclear weapons program. The problem is they didn't abandon their nuclear weapons program; they just said they did. And in 2002, they admitted as much. Still, to this day, Carter claims that his approach was a success and that it was President Bush's inclusion of North Korea in the famous "axis of evil" speech that led to current leader Kim Jong Il's hostility toward America.

The fruits of Carter's history with Iran are even more rotten. Carter's abandonment of the shah in 1977-78 helped lead to the Islamic revolution (and the murder or imprisonment of many of the Iranian leftists who had supported overthrowing the shah), the emboldening of the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and the rise of radical Islam worldwide. His botched approach to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 inspired Islamic terrorists all over the world, culminating in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Besides the dictators mentioned above, Carter has cozied up to a bevy of others from Cuba's Fidel Castro to Venezuela's charmer, Hugo Chavez.

Now, let's take a look at the Misery Index, an economic indicator (created by economist Arthur Okun) to assess the nation's economic health. It's the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate. Obviously, the higher the rate, the worse the economy. There also seems to be a correlation between increased crime and a higher Misery Index. So, take a guess, was it higher during Carter or Bush's administration (2001-2005)?

Bush had a 7.98% M.I. average during his first term, and as of April 2007, it was 7.07%! Carter, on the other hand, had the highest M.I. average of all Presidents since Truman, with a whopping 16.27%. More than double Bush's average! So it looks like there was more economic misery under Carter's rule, than Bush's.

And all this venom came spewing out of Jimbo's mouth during a promotional junket for a new audiobook series, "Leading a Worthy Life: Sunday Mornings in Plains: Bible Study with Jimmy Carter." Um, Jimmy, I think you could learn a few things from your own book!

What I have to deal with in the Arts

So, today, we had an unofficial 1st 'read-through' of a play I had not actually committed to, because I wanted to read it first. Most actors blindly accept work without knowing what they're getting in to, because......they want to work. I have done so in the past, and have lucked out, for the most part. Nothing too terribly bad. But this time, I wanted to make an educated choice. Not that I can be that picky, considering I need to get those work weeks to continue qualifying for health insurance, but I'd rather get a root canal than sit through a bad play, so I wanted to make sure it wasn't hideously bad. Which they can be. Believe me.

Unfortunately, the play is a world premiere so it's not like I could find it at Borders or Samuel French (a Drama Book Shop), so the director/artistic director of the theatre promised to FedEx or messenger a script over last week. Well, it never arrived. I don't know if he assumed (yup that nasty word) that just because I had said I would attend the read-through, it implied I was accepting the job, but I went in cold today and, well... let's put it this way, had I read the script last week I probably would have declined. Graciously, of course. But it's too late now to say no, because word gets around about actors who drop out so close to the beginning of rehearsals, which start in a few weeks, so it's going to be quite a ride, in more ways than one.

The cast is great, though a great cast does not a great production make. I've seen amazing actors in plays that made me want to slit my wrists. So I worry. The subject matter is crude in sections, but my part is workable. Thankfully we are work-shopping the play and they are open to suggestions and cuts, so anything I don't like is going to go bye-bye. Too bad I'm so well known in these parts, otherwise I'd consider an alias.

Apart from the script being somewhat questionable, we were sitting around chatting before we started, and suddenly it turned to politics and what actors love best: the inevitable Republican bash-fest. I think they covered everyone and their mother, including the Queen 'mother' gaffe. Personally, I thought it was funny. They were absolutely horrified.



So, there I was listening to them rail against all things Republican, suffering through a load of rubbish until the talk turned to Sarkozy and that was it. The Director is very sweet, but an old lefty, who laughingly and rather proudly told us he considers himself "left" of Lenin so, needless to say, he started on how unhappy he was that Sarkozy had won. Then, suddenly, everyone joined in, blabbing about how terrible it was and how scared they were for France, bla bla bla. After several minutes and unable to bear it any longer, I finally jumped in. As I have mentioned before, I choose my battles carefully, and this one was worth the effort. Surprisingly, they listened and backed off immediately. They actually agreed, for the most part.

I think what I hate most, is the blanket statements liberals make about conservatives, both American and foreign. Without thinking, they rush to judgement without giving someone a chance to prove themselves. Because Sarkozy is a conservative and is pro-U.S., they immediately jumped to the conclusion that he would become Bush's push-over. I reminded them that Bush was out in 2008, and that Sarkozy has emphatically stated he will not be anybody's poodle. A fact they had conveniently forgotten. I remember having a similar conversation about Schwarzenegger (when he first won the California governorship) with a group of actors and designers, whilst doing a show out of town. I told them they needed to give the man a chance. That he was an amazing business man, because it certainly wasn't his acting abilities that garnered him such success, and that he would probably use that business acumen to straighten out the problems California was having at the time. And he's done a far better job than his predecessor. Plus he won re-election so he must be doing something right. Though I know most here wouldn't consider him a true conservative.

So, this is what I have to look forward to, for 8 weeks. Wish me luck!!

1st Democratic Debate or let's bash Bush on MSNBC cos we have no answers

So, the Dems had their first debate, tonight, and I was totally underwhelmed. Not one candidate I could like, let alone trust.

LIST OF CANDIDATES: (not in order of any preference, obviously)

Sen. Hillary Clinton, NY
Sen. Barack Obama, IL
Fmr. Sen. John Edwards, NC
Sen. Joe Biden, DE
Gov. Bill Richardson, NM
Fmr. Sen. Robert Mike Gravel, Alaska
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, OH
Sen. Chris Dodd, CT

The candidates, a smorgasbord of the loony left, took full advantage (any chance they had) of bashing Bush and the current administration, from the war in Iraq to domestic policy. In fact, they spent more time censuring GW and his policies, than responding to the various questions asked, and most found ways to avoid answering questions directly, particularly those "let's make 'em squirm" assortment of questions. Then again, politicians are masters at evasion, so what else did we expect?!

Not surprisingly, all of them said they would bring the troops home immediately if they were elected President. But, the overt need to discuss the issue, even when asked unrelated questions, just demonstrates how politically expedient it is to be 'anti-war', at this stage in the game. Okay, we get that you all want 'out' of this war because you think that's what the American people want, and you'll say anything to win. We get that. But do you have to be so obvious about it?

The front-runners (or the ones with the largest war chests): La Hillary 'I am woman hear me roar!' Clinton and Barry, I mean Barack 'who am I?' Obama were the most eloquent, but as trustworthy as an ex-con in Tiffany's. Hillary kept her composure, for the most part, standing there in her pant suit trying to look every bit as butch as the rest of 'em, and succeeding quite nicely. There's a harshness to her demeanour that never disappears, which is not a good thing. They both waffled on many of the issues, in a concerted effort to appeal to everyone. Also not a good thing. As for our southern pretty boy, Edwards, there's something too slick and disingenuous about him. He tried his damnedest to appeal to the middle class working shlub (in spite of his $400.00 haircuts, and multi-million dollar mansion) by trying to convince us of his working class roots, with a story about a humiliating experience, as a kid, when his family had to leave a restaurant because his Dad couldn't afford the prices. I didn't buy it.

As for the others, they're all non-contenders, in my humble opinion. Non-descript Biden and Dodd, and blustery Richardson were all pretty much unmemorable, but who on earth is Mike Gravel, and how the heck did he ever get elected Senator???? I thought Dennis Kucinich was nuts but Gravel is wacko. (They both get added to my Idiots Hall of Shame, alongside Jimmy Carter.) Kucinich babbled on about how there is no global war on terror, it simply "doesn't exist", and was the only one who raised his hand when asked if anyone thought Cheney should be impeached. But Gravel takes the crown for being the King of the Loons, he believes we have no enemies. I have no idea what planet he came from. The poor fool needs to go back and stick his head in the sand. Or snow. Or whatever. (I don't think there's sand in Alaska.) Thankfully, he wasn't asked many questions, much to his chagrin, but from the few he was asked: Gravel is a loose canon, that I would fear having as President. (Though there are some fellow wackos who loved Kucinich and Gravel on the MSNBC message boards.)

Of all the candidates, Kucinich and Gravel were the most vocal about their rabidly anti-Iraq War stance, with Gravel emphatically stating, at one point, that "This war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis!" Kucinich concurred, claiming the war was based on lies. There might have been others who mentioned that, as well, I don't recall, but how many times do we have to listen to that crap? I am so totally sick of that argument. Please, something new!

Next week we have the Republican debate. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

In the meantime, I draw comfort from the fact that no running senator has ever won the presidency, since Kennedy in 1960, and I'm praying it remains that way!