Carter recants

Oh, great.  Now Carter says his remarks about Bush were "careless."  He was willing to embarrass his wife by telling Playboy that he lusted after other women in his heart.  Why's it so hard for him to tell it like it is about a POS jerk?  His wife has done good for the world.  Bush - the reverse.  

Interviewed on the TODAY Show about the comments, Carter said, "They were maybe careless or misinterpreted." He said he "certainly was not talking personally about any president."

Bush may be the patsy of Cheney et al., but Bush is responsible for what has happened.  He wanted the office, he wanted the perks, he is therefore responsible.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

Edit - The video of it is available here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/...

•  Yikes,

  by Desert Rose on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:20:25 AM PDT

  •  He should've stuck to his guns.

    What a shame

    by Desert Rose on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:21:34 AM PDT

    •  It just goes to show

      what happens when Democrats "apologize" for telling the truth. Dem's will think they're weak, and Rethugs will smugly point to the error in their ways. You can't win. Say it, with no apologies and move on.

      by KnowVox on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:28:46 AM PDT

      •  Exactly, Apologies are for losers.

        Just smash 'em in the face and run over them.

        Screw the consequences.

        Man, the Dems have so much to learn about fighting for keeps.

        by Bush Bites on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:32:43 AM PDT

        •  Tell that to John Edwards

          by Free Spirit on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:00:39 AM PDT

      •  And it was liberal Meredith Vieira...

        ...who phrased her question to Carter in a way that would please conservative Republicans--something like "do you think it's appropriate for a former president to say what you said about President Bush in a time of war?" (not her exact words, but similar).

        And Carter's response should have been, "In Bush's case, yes. He's an utter disaster."  [Close mouth]

        Instead, Carter dissembled and said he was only criticizing the policy, blah, blah.

        This is a pattern we're going to see lots of in the next administration, if a Democrat is elected.  The Press will suddenly find its skeptical, critical voice and hold the Democrats to a relentlessly higher standard than they held Bush to, just to re-establish their professionalism.

        by PKinTexas on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:48:08 AM PDT

        •  The "time of war" kicker...

          is so trite. Didn't that rheotoric of not standing up to and questioning the President get us into a war in the first place?

          by KnowVox on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:02:04 AM PDT

        •  I see nothing wrong with this.

          Its called nuace, and the media loves to run rough shod over it. I think, putting a public face on it, Carter is right to clarify that this is not a personal attack, rather an attack on the policies of the administration. For us in thre trenches, I feel that it is less inappropriate to get personal in our venting, but by attacking the person, one often deflects from focus upon the harm that the person being attacked has caused.

          by Krum on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:08:55 AM PDT

          •  I meant to write nuance. Sorry.

            BTW, It pisses me off that such issues get forced by the media. All I was saying in the above post truly amounts more to my anger at the media. If Carter had said "Yeah, I meant what I said, This saucy little fuck in the White House is the poorest excuse for a human being that the world has ever known". Well we all know he wouldn't phrase it this way, but by the time that his commments passed through the MSM megaphone, this is what people would hear. As gratifying as it is to make such statements, however, it deflects from dealingn with solutions, even impeachment.

            by Krum on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:13:52 AM PDT

            •  There might be a lot of adjectives

              to use for Bush, but "saucy" ain't one of them! LOL!

              by KnowVox on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:18:31 AM PDT

          •  One clarification

            To call Bush "the worst president ever" is NOT a personal attack.  It's the truth. You can't separate the administration from the office-holder.  Sure, Bush isn't really in charge, but he sought the office, he enjoys the advantages, and he must therefore be responsible for all its failures.  And he should be blamed - as president - for the failures.  (Although he is not president IMO and and I can't bear that anyone thinks I would ever refer to him as "president" - because he's a usurper.)

            A personal attack would be to call him "the worst person ever" or to say he has a pea-brain.

            by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:32:15 AM PDT

        •  Viera is really a poor interviewer,

          although when I watch an interview like that, I wonder how much of the reason she (or other tv talking heads, for that matter) interrupt or seem not to listen is caused by some producer yelling questions in her ear. Instead of having someone with great journalism chops up there in the first place, who could form questions and structure an interview on their own, we have to have all the pretty faces in front, with the Cyranos hiding behind the camera.

          Plus--what an ambush. They were doing a profile on the 1001st house Habitat built in Louisiana, and then--"But first, let's talk about..."

          She took his remarks out of context, then kept trying to ream him with them. I think he held up well--it wasn't a recant, he was putting his remarks back in the original context that he made them.

          by cathy b on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:42:36 AM PDT

          •  Carter should have taken a cue

            from Bill Clinton when he was ambushed by Wallace about the "Path to 9/11" allegations.

            Carter is one of the major reasons Democrats HAVE the stereotype of backtracking and not fighting back - that is unfortunately part of his legacy.  Of course, nuance and gray areas do not matter to the general public or MSM.  Everything needs to be black and white,for or against, great or terrible, good or evil.

            I do wish he had just stuck with his words and not tried to explain them away.

            Bush has been a disaster for America on so many levels...and I do not think all of his (or his administration's) damage has even come to light at this point.  It was great to hear someone at Carter's level say it out loud.

            by blue armadillo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:37:18 AM PDT

            •  Carter is that old school, polite

              farmer businessman type. Very reserved, very hesitant to offend. In manner, he is of my grandparent's generation, that sort of soothing, smoothing-things-over personality of a lot of people who lived through the depression and between the big wars.

              by cathy b on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:56:45 AM PDT

        •  liberal Vieira?

          that was snark, right?

          by ubertar on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:15:57 AM PDT

    •  Pres.Carter is a good man, but lacks cajones ....

      you saw it in his Presidency as well.  He at least pught to be able to stand up to idiot Bush.

      by au8285 on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:15:13 AM PDT

      •  He had plenty of balls

        The man was a career naval officer, and one of few Presidents to actually SERVE in the miliary. He didn't need to open the raincoat and flash his cajones to prove his masculinity.

        by KnowVox on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:21:40 AM PDT

        •  exactly,

          head line on Cnn. last night= Administration says Carter is irrelevant.  you go Jimmy. The media is on the attack for their corporate leaders, swine.

          by zenobia on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:50:41 AM PDT

        •  yes he had 'em

          in the Navy but he seemed to lose them in befuddlement during the iranian hostage debacle. not sure what he could have done better, but I wasnt president, he was.  it surely cost him the wh in 80.  IMHO.

          by ratador on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:22:27 AM PDT

          •  What could he have done?

            He could have invaded but then what?

            We had no credibility since we were responsible for overthrowing Mossadegh and installing a monarch - and the Iranians are still pissed about that.  Iran is a big place with lots of people, America was still recovering from the imperial junket in Vietnam, our intelligence services were being neutered because they had been misused and because some outsiders said they were no good (Wolfowitz' first stint at discrediting the CIA as not being alarmist enough - Team B), the Soviet Union bordered the place on either side of the Caspian, no one knew what ME reaction would be to our direct intrusion in the area given that this period was extremely fragile in light of Israel/Palestine relations and the still developing perception that we were in some thrall to Israel, and there was no signal that we would have had any assistance from anyone should we deem such action necessary, and the last thing we needed was a negative hit to the oil market at a time when the economy was stagnating anyway.

            Of course, for the more conspiratorial minded, there was the issue of who may have been pulling the Iran-hostage strings at the time...

            by lgrooney on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:07:52 AM PDT

            •  Of course we know..

              who was pulling the strings. The hostages were released minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.

              by KnowVox on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:45:02 AM PDT

              •  And the evils running Iran

                were sold plenty of military hardware not long after.

                by lgrooney on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:47:31 AM PDT

            •  darned if I know

              I wasnt pres nor should I ever be.  But if you are the pres, I dont care what party you are in I would hope that failure is not an option.  even middling success or do no harm can be good.  in any case jimmy paid the price.

              by ratador on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:47:05 AM PDT

        •  Did Carter learn more in the Navy

          than how to obey orders?

          by corvo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:28:06 AM PDT

          •  You didn't say that...

            that is fairly willful ignorance of the Navy, Academy grads, and Carter's bio.  It's also insulting.

            by lgrooney on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:17:11 AM PDT

            •  I didn't say that was the sum total

              of what Carter was taught in the Navy.  People can be taught all kinds of things; whether they learn them is another matter.

              In any event, he was such a desperately incapable leader that I believe one can assume he learned no leadership skills applicable to the Presidency while in the Navy.

              by corvo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:20:38 AM PDT

              •  That is an astonishingly

                ignorant and malicious comment. Have a donut.

                by KnowVox on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:43:12 AM PDT

                •  I'm sorry;

                  I think Carter was a good man with a lot of right ideas, but he lacked the leadership skills to move the nation in his direction.  

                  by corvo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:00:13 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps, but he is super smart and directed. The

        fact that he is conciliatory is probably the most profound adn illuminating example of why he is the ONLY one to have concluded a peace deal in the ME, and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

        It's the totality of the man that is important.   Not just one moment or the other.

        by Terra Mystica on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:32:19 AM PDT

  •  nothing like a few NSA intercepts...

    ...waved in someone's face.... to make them "apologize" for saying something they "shouldn't have said."  

    I don't doubt for one minute that someone from the Regime called up Carter and read him a few choice lines from one of his personal phone calls.  

    (And I don't doubt that the NSAers who were responsible for collecting the stuff were told that they were helping protect the life of a former president by watching out for threatening callers and suchlike.)  

    Works every time.  Let's not forget the tearful apologies of various Representatives and Senators over the past six years.  

    by G2geek on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:45:01 AM PDT

    •  It's worked for the tsars/

      Soviet premiers/ Russian presidents for 800 years.  Why not borrow from those who know how to manipulate the power they've been given?

      by lgrooney on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:18:42 AM PDT

    •  anthrax

      by theyrereal on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:25:34 AM PDT

  •  He fell for the Bush spin. He did not

    make a "personal" attack. But Fratto accused him of doing so and so he apologized if his remarks were construed that way. When will we ever learn. I say "yes." White House accuses me of saying "no." I apologize for my careless remarks that were construed as saying "no."

    Damn it all to hell.

    by Gary Norton on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:35:08 AM PDT

•  Link for the text?

  What you quoted is only a "recant" if you're a faux viewer.

  Jimmy was speaking of how history will view this administration and this quote does not address that.

  by NCrefugee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:21:13 AM PDT

  •  It was a total recant

    I watched him do it this morning, live.  I was disappointed.  He completely backed down from what he'd said earlier.

    by slippytoad on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:26:34 AM PDT

  •  I don't have the whole text of the segment

    But, yeah, he backed down.  It was massively disappointing.  There are more quotes if you follow that link.  It's not the full text... but at least there is more you can read.

    by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:29:57 AM PDT

  •  Here's a link below

    link

    by Barry Welsh on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:40:21 AM PDT

•  Aw, C'mon!

  Jimmy, what the hell?

  by Dissento on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:23:51 AM PDT

•  Crap

  by bumblebums on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:25:15 AM PDT

•  I really wish he wouldn't recant inconvenenient

  truths after telling them. He did the same after his book. What a shame. For goodness' sake, you're a former President and a Nobel Laureate. When in the world will you learn to stand up for yourself?

  by Diaries on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:26:34 AM PDT

  •  Maybe this is why he lost in '80

    He just couldn't make himself stand up to the Reagandroids.

    by slippytoad on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:27:10 AM PDT

    •  Nope.

      St. Ronnie Raygun's people made a deal with the folks holding our hostages and that cost Carter the election.  

      by MajorFlaw on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:29:22 AM PDT

      •  That was something

        Wasn't it?  Effing amazing, and still almost no one talks about it.  He's "saint ronnie" still.  Unbelievable.

        by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:32:06 AM PDT

        •  My copy of Sick's "October Surprise"

          is badly in need of replacement from being loaned out so frequently over the years.  IIRC, there is a Constitutional provision prohibiting private citizens from engaging in negotiations with foreign powers.  I guess they must have waived it for the actor.  

          by MajorFlaw on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:40:47 AM PDT

          •  Bush 41 was part of the Iran Scam

            And that Casey guy, conveniently died before revealing any of the truth behind the Bush/REagan theft of the election 1980.  Of course the inside criminals stuck around for Bush 43's two election thefts.

            by MD patriot on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:05:10 AM PDT

      •  yup, and if you look back that is exactly what

        nixon did during his run for the presidency against humphry. he promied the president of svn a better deal if he would reject the paris peace talks that johnson started. of course, another 25000 soldier died as a result but who is counting with rethugs when rethugs want to get their way.

        by stodghie on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:26:00 AM PDT

      •  Gas Lines

        We're Uhmuhrkns, damnit.

        The only thing we wait in line for is to go through security at the Super Bowl and buffets in Vegas if we haven't gambled enough to be VIP's.

        We've had hostage crises before like the Pueblo, the Mayaguez and nobody remembers the air crew that was held hostage in China before Sept 11.

        But having to wait in lines like Cubans or East Germans defeated Carter.

        by Utahrd on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:45:59 AM PDT

  •  I wouldn't call it recanting.

    He's just being polite after a bit of unguarded candor.

    So what this amounts to is: "You suck!  But I didn't mean that persionally."

    This makes absolutely no sense, unless you realize that this is a polite fiction.  Most of the supreme acts of politeness are fictions, often transparent ones as in this case.

    People raised after the let it all hang out 60s are generally unaware of this concept of politeness.  They have been raised to value unvarnished candor as the most honorable way of communicating.   In an era of the anonymous Internet flame war, it is necessary to be case hardened and easily forgetful.  We've come to presume this in our political discourse -- that offense is not something an individual is entitled to, but a tool of swaying opinion.  This tool is supposed to be wielded impersonally by the "wronged", who is no case really "wronged" but receiving exactly the same coin which he is expted to deal.  

    In times past, interactions were much more personal and itimate.  It was necessary to work with the people physically near you, you could not sort yourself into a homogenious online "community".

    In those days, politeness was a necessary lubricant to keep the wheels of society turning.  A falsehood, even a transparent one, was often the responsible thing to do.  On the other side it was expected that the fiction should be accepted graciously, and not to whip yourself into an orgy of self-pity and resentment.

    Carter is a true, old school gentleman.  Those who remember him well know he was much testier than may have been good for him, as intelligent men marching against the tide of history and culture often are.  But it is not dishonorable by the old way of thinking to offer a rhetorical olive branch to those you have offended, however justified that offense may be.  Since President Carter is retired from politics, he is fully entitled to maintain his old fashioned values and manners with no reproach from us.

    by grumpynerd on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:17:11 AM PDT

    •  Thoughtful comment

      and I think you're right. I might also add there's a cultural element--maybe southern manners, but what I'm really thinking is it has been/was an American style to be indirect both in personal dealings and in politics. This is much harder to understand than directness; I think to some extent this style is passing out of mode.

      by sillia on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:08:56 AM PDT

•  i'm a strong Democrat, but this is typical

  of Democratic tactics against Bush.  Always goes like this:

  1. Cemocrat: "Bush is bad, his policies are bad, we MUST to do xxxx instead."

  2. Bush:  "Hell No! You're ___"  Insert 'weak on terror', 'giving into the enemy', 'irrelevant'.

  3. Democrat:  "oh, sorry Mr. Bush, you're absolutely right"

  Happens every time.  I wish Dems would get spines.  

  by NorthlandLiberal on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:29:53 AM PDT

•  Blech n/t

  by nhcollegedem on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:30:41 AM PDT

•  C'mon President Carter! Keep at it!

  We need someone out there telling the truth.

  God knows, Clinton is too worried about his wife's career to mix it up with the criminals and criminally negligent Bush Regime.

  by Bush Bites on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:30:59 AM PDT

•  He didn't say he was wrong

  This is a big "so what" in my view.

  by astoundedstill on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:32:29 AM PDT

•  Here's coverage of Carter comments this morning

  NewsMax story

  Carter clarifies his remarks but prefaces them by saying

  Asked about the White House's comments about relevancy, Carter said "I don't claim to have any relevancy. I have a completely unofficial capacity. The only thing I lead is the Carter Center.

  Bush never seems prompted to take responsibility. Rather, he humiliates and terrorizes those who would criticize him.

  Methinks Bush is afraid that Carter speaks the truth.

  by hmbnancy on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:33:30 AM PDT

•  Has anyone gone after the

  f***ing f***er who said he was irrelevant?  I have no tv and haven't read anyone slamming that spokesperson.  It was an idiotic thing to say about a past President of Carter's stature and about someone saying the truth.

  It smacked of total desperation to me.  I'm sorry to see Carter thinks he has to take the high road here, when he was already walking on it.

  by Naranjadia on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:34:20 AM PDT

  •  The irrelevant one

    is Bush.

    by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:39:05 AM PDT

  •  Here is the one that said it.

    On Sunday, in a biting rebuke, the White House dismissed Carter as "increasingly irrelevant."

    "I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there," White House spokesman Tony Fratto responded Sunday from Crawford, where Bush spent the weekend.

    "I think it’s unfortunate," Fratto said. "And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."

    Carter made the comments to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper’s Saturday editions.  

    MSNBC Link

    by Barry Welsh on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:44:35 AM PDT

    •  So, bushbots pushed Carter to say he didn't claim

      "to have any relevancy..." as hmbnancy quoted above.

      Oh man, now is not the time to be humble.

      Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

      by bronte17 on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:06:56 AM PDT

•  What is Carter recanting?

  This?

  JIMMY CARTER: The war was unjustified, unnecessary and has worked a tragedy on the Iraqi people, on the American people, on some of the British people and has caused deep schisms on a global basis.

  BARNEY PORTER: But President Carter hasn't stopped there. He has also commented on British Prime Minister Tony Blair's unconditional support for President Bush.

  JIMMY CARTER: Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient and I think that 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.

  No, I know.  He's just recanting the "worst ever" bit.  The problem is that recanting that also blunts his more substantive blows.

  by LithiumCola on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:35:48 AM PDT

•  You know what Republicans are thinking...

  Good thing we don't have to depend on him to stand up to al Qaeda.

  God help us if we have to depend on Democrats to stand up to ...

  The more we capitulate to Republicans, the more it looks like we'll capitulate to terrorists.  That's the frame, like it or not.

  by think blue on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:36:10 AM PDT

  •  Interesting take

    I think you are right.  Must be why I so dislike it when our side waffles.  Indeed that's one reason I liked Howard Dean so much from the start - he just called it like he saw it without apologizing or going into long-winded explications of what he "meant" to say.

    by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:43:15 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely right...

    ...which is why if Kerry had just put on the brass knuckles against the Swiftboaters, he would have won.

    Republicans always have a field day making Democrats look like wimps, and they know instinctively that Americans love a winner and hate a loser.  Ideology is quite secondary to the average Joe.  He wants to know if you're strong.  If you can't stand up to a Republican, how are you going to stand up to a terrorist?

    The next Democrat in the White House is going to have be either very tough, or very funny.  Because the rightwing attacks will be withering from the start. The Democrat will have to either fight back hard, or parry the attacks with clever humor (like Reagan did much of the time).

    by PKinTexas on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:57:22 AM PDT

•  At the '04 Convention, Carter was the only...

  prime time speaker to even fire a rhetorical shot across W's bow.  In describing Kerry, he stated: "When he was called to service, he showed up."

  The Kerry people went out of their way to avoid rhetorical attacks on W at the Dem Convention while Zell Miller ended up eviscerating Kerry at the GOP Convention.  Carter was the only one to slightly deviate from the script.  I was hoping that he would do the same thing here.

  How many parades does the Emperor have to conduct before people will publicly acknowledge the fact that he's naked?  Anyone who has suffered through even 10-15 minutes of W trying to speak w/o a script knows that something's clearly missing there.  The fruits of his ignorance are obvious in NOLA, in Iraq, and in countless other places.

  I really wish that Carter hadn't backed down.

  by RFK Lives on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:37:35 AM PDT

  •  I wish he hadn't backed down, too, but...

    ....this is a former President speaking...a man who's been more courageous and brutally honest in giving his public opinion, given his formal position as former U.S. President, than other living former U.S. Presidents. I don't mean just now, but all through the Iraq War debacle. His book, Our Endangered Values, is a blast to the Bush administration without having to be naming names. President Carter has my respect. I think he realizes that the media will make such a circus of his recent commentary that the truth, however sickening and on-the-money it is, will further make a mockery of the reputation of the America that is languishing under Bush.

    by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:45:38 AM PDT

    •  He has our respect, too...

      but this is about politics, not statesmanship.  If you're going to say publicly that Bush's policies are the worst in history, you're obviously trying to have an impact.

      So, why dilute the impact? It makes the whole exercise worthless.

      by PKinTexas on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:02:32 AM PDT

      •  I'd beg to differ

        With President Carter, it's about both politics and statesmanship. As a former President, he's treading what I see as a fragile line, and I'm always pleased, personally, when he steps over that line and tells the God's honest truth. If some of the incumbent leaders in Congress today would be that honest once in a blue moon, we may not be in the pickle we're in as a nation today.

        by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:12:46 AM PDT

        •  Well, he has treaded that line for years...

          already, and been quite diplomatic. I certainly respect and agree overall with your sense of decorum.

          But as the outrages and disasters have continued to mount, the time for decorum has passed, which I believe is why Carter used the superlative "worst" in the first place. Clearly, his own frustration got to the point where it boiled over.

          That happens to all of us, even good and otherwise judicious people. For many of us, it's time to let them see us sweat, if we love our country.

          Forgive me if I sound preachy, but we can never be quite as good as we wish. High principle in politics can't avoid some sullying by political street fighting, from time to time.

          It's brass knuckles time, in my opinion--long past time, actually.

          by PKinTexas on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:24:04 AM PDT

•  He hasn't recanted re: Blair as lapdog

  He has blasted Tony Blair for his "almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush." He hasn't gone back on his feeling that Blair's subservience to Bush regarding Iraq "has been a major tragedy for the world." It's what we all know, isn't it? By this time, he's stating the obvious. We know the way President Carter feels, regardless of the brakes he's put on for the media circus. Whether or not he's backed off on the extremity of the wording of some of his opinion, we all know how he feels.

  by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:38:03 AM PDT

  •  Carter blasts Blair but backs down on Bush

    I call that being a chicken.  If you can't talk about your own side's failures, it's just petty to go on about someone from another country.  Blair is not only no worse than Bush, he's not nearly as bad.

    by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:44:59 AM PDT

    •  I respect your opinion

      I'm just not sure that I completely agree.

      by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:46:41 AM PDT

•  Why say anything at all

  if you're just going to back down when you're challenged? C'mon, get a pair.

  by maralenenok on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:41:27 AM PDT

  •  ShouldFormer Prez Get a Pair or Maintain Decorum?

    In the case of a former President whose heart I think most of us know is good as gold, I vote for decorum. Considering the pragmatism of realpolitik, and considering tact & good old-fashioned grace, I think President Carter handled it well. He didn't abandon his overall opinion. We're talking here as if he did.

    by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:56:07 AM PDT

    •  I've nothing against maintaining decorum.

      I do agree with you overall. But in that case, he should have been a little more diplomatic in expressing himself in the first place. Words matter.

      by maralenenok on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:04:55 AM PDT

      •  Same thing occurred with Carter's recent book

        In Carter's most recent book on the Middle East, he conceded to clumsy wording about Israel when pushed by people like Dershowitz and company. It doesn't water down the overall points he's made, but it shows that he's a former President with a heart and mind for diplomacy, justice and peace who wears his heart on his sleeve quite often.

        by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:08:37 AM PDT

        •  And I find Carter likeable.

          But this is frustrating. When criticising Bush & Co., you have two choices : choosing your words carefully all the way, or taking off the gloves and then not backing down. Obviously it's disappointing that he didn't stick to his guns.

          by maralenenok on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:46:43 AM PDT

          •  I do understand the frustration

            I happen to think it's highly likely that Jimmy Carter is very glad that we're here to say what he often cannot say himself. In speaking out more strongly against the Bush administration than any other former President (stronger even than former President Clinton), he risks being chastised by the elite mainstream and by the droning echo chambers of the right.

            Have you heard his former NSA Zbigniew Brzezinsk speaking out? He's gone as far as to say that Bush’s talk of a "decisive ideological struggle" against radical Islam is "simplistic and demagogic," calling it a "mythical historical narrative" employed to justify a "protracted and potentially expanding war."

            The way I see it, by backing off a bit on the harshness of his spoken opinions, Jimmy Carter is leaving it up to us [and members of Congress, who by their hesitant nature continue to fail us by the day] to be the ones to take up where, by the former U.S. President's grace and statesmanship as a former President who loves this country as much as he loves justice, he felt that he had to "leave off."

            Viera/Carter video here

            by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:53:33 AM PDT

    •  I think we all agree

      that Carter was a good prez and is a good person.  We are always more disappointed by the failures (as we perceive them) of those we like and admire, than by the failures of those we don't admire.

      But even a former president can help out by speaking the truth.  Do you think Carter does or does not believe Bush is a horrible president?  If he thinks Bush is horrible, he should just step up and say it.

      Decorum and giving in were what gave us Bush to begin with, back in 2000 when everybody was screaming that the system would be destroyed if Gore didn't back down.  Gore won - both the popular and the electoral vote.  As we know.  And yet in maintaining decorum, he backed down.  And we've paid ever since.  I'm not saying Gore had much choice - he was in a horrible bind.  But Carter could sure be more forceful.  We are talking about a person and an administration who are doing massive, massive damage.  Our democracy is not indestructible.

      by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:05:14 AM PDT

      •  I see that in a different light

        I don't think Al Gore had a clue as to just how destructive Bush would be for America. I believe Mr. Gore did what he thought was right for his country at the time. I wish he hadn't - knowing what we all know now. But remember, the proximate cause of Gore's "decorum dilemma" was the Supreme Court's decisions (remeber Bugliosi's "None Dare Call It Treason".) Interestingly enough, it was Hillary Clinton who spoke up about the inherent failures of the electoral college system when the time was ripe for someone to speak out.

        by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:18:37 AM PDT

        •  Hey, even i didn't have a clue

          how destructive Bush would be - until 9/11 when it occurred to me that Cheney would get everything he wanted.

          And yes, Gore did what he thought was right. The bind I spoke of included that the other side just had more of the players on its side.

          I'm a Gore fan.  And nowadays Gore doesn't hesitate to speak his mind and he doesn't back down.

          by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:45:31 AM PDT

    •  He handled it as a Statesman would...

      ...and if Bush were a well-intentioned man, it would have been appropriate for Carter to couch his criticism in statesmanlike terms.

      Unfortunately, Bush is a scoundrel and a guttersnipe, and playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules when dealing with him and Rove gets you nowhere. In fact, it plays right into their hands.

      The only thing Bushites respect is strength. For them, strength is morality. Weakness is immorality in a tough world.

      They are playground bullies, and the only way to get them to go away is to punch them in the nose, every time they stick their ugly mugs in your face.  They mean business, they play for keeps, and they intend to win, whatever the cost.

      What the Democrats need to do right now and for the next campaign, is to put on the brass knuckles. They have the moral high ground already. Now they need some fight...

      by PKinTexas on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:12:05 AM PDT

•  Republican hypocrisy in action

  Agreed, Carter's recant is worded so that it's not really a recant. Still, the Bush Administration lost no time in characterizing Carter himself as "irrelevant." It's utterly typical of the Republicans to decry "personal attacks," then to launch some attacks of their own, almost in the same breath. Hypocrisy is very bread in which the mold that is Republican ideology establishes its fuzzy, greenish-gray colonies.

  Besides, has anyone considered the possibility that someone in the Bush Administration threatened Carter behind the scenes for his remarks? I wouldn't doubt that they did the same thing to Clinton early on, given how quickly he backed down from his criticisms. Wolfowitz's threats to World Bank officials are just the public face of the Bush Administrations strong-arm tactics. Remember--the Bush Adminstration runs like the Mafia, only they've killed far more people than the Mafia ever did.  

  by Hafez of Shiraz on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:57:49 AM PDT

  •  Bush admin pushback shows they're scum

    the Bush Administration lost no time in characterizing Carter himself as "irrelevant."

    Their pushback shows that they are pure scum. Carter's follow-up statements reinforce the fact that he is still capable of being a gentleman, even while being attacked so virulently by the Bush administration and their echo chambers across the talk radio airwaves and the right blogosphere.

    by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:05:09 AM PDT

•  Not happy it was "recanted" BUT

  The original comments made headlines, and got more people tinking about how bad Bush really is, and that he has betrayed basic foreign policy of Republicans, including Bush Sr. We know Bill Clinton can't do it because of his friendship with GHWB, and because Hillary is running. Carter is very measured in what he says, and because of this, his blunt assesment carries some weight. While it would have been better if he didn't recant, overall it's agood thing. And I am SO TIRED of when Bush gets attacked that it's called a "personal attack". It's a "professional attack", as a president is on duty 100% of the time. A personal attack is calling someone immoral, a profesional attack is calling them incompetant.

  by sd4david on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:11:09 AM PDT

•  I watched the video

  Sure we would like to see Jimmy deliver a body blow to Bush, and he did.

  But the Arkansas Democrat Gazette is a right wing paper with a long history of leading questions followed by gotcha editing and the MSNBC news dept is not above asking Carter to talk about habitat for humanity and then ambushing him.

  Carter is indeed one of the former Presidents who attempt to follow the long standing tradition of not personally criticizing current presidents, and he was expressing regret that his out of context comment was portrayed or interpreted that way.

  Also note: the same bunch of criminals currently infesting the executive branch were personally responsible for the delay of the hostage release and the "negotiations with terrorists" arms swap that sank Carters second term campaign.

  If you want to see Jimmy or even Bill Clinton stand up and point out Bushs personal failures and incompetence, it ain't gonna happen. But they will both criticize his policies and decisions.

  by NCrefugee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:15:36 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    ...the MSNBC news dept is not above asking Carter to talk about habitat for humanity and then ambushing him.

    ..and we know, all too well, that it's their JOB to ambush him. Precisely why he elected to tap into his inner grace and shut their circus down.

    by Iddybud on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:22:25 AM PDT

•  Nooooo! somebody got to him.

  by tgray on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:07:56 AM PDT

•  It's a Disappointing Display of Cowardice

  That is the bottom line.  There is NO EXCUSE for this type of mealy-mouth backtracking in the context of an Administration like this. No excuse.

  And I have great respect for Carter. But clearly he is hewing to a different era.  If he doesn't understand the nature of the Bush Horror and the sheer malevolence of the right by now, he never will.

  by Dartagnan on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:20:21 AM PDT

•  Damn Jimmy, you're better than that. Stick

  by your position. He is the worst. He has damaged us more than any other President. Recanting now puts you on the side of the 20 or so percent who would support him under any circumstances.

  by Gary Norton on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:22:05 AM PDT

•  What Carter did and didn't say.

  Carter said, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

  This is a far cry from "Worst President ever" or even "Worst administration ever."  It doesn't even say whether Carter feels Bush's policies are "right" or "wrong," merely that they are having an adverse impact that are the worst in history, etc. etc.

  That being said, people are pulling things out from this that just aren't there and Carter is clarifying his words.  I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't do the same.

  It's not so different from when 'Little Nicky' came out, Roger Ebert said something to the following effect, "This film is awful, and yet the worst part is that it may be the best Adam Sandler film yet."

  Commercials featured the following: "Roger Ebert praises 'Little Nicky' as, '...The best Adam Sandler film yet!'"

  You get the idea....

  by Poingly on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:46:12 AM PDT

  •  I never said that he recanted on

    "worst president ever."  He didn't say that phrase.

    Carter made a strong and important statement.  Then the moment someone invited him to admit he was "careless" in his statement, or that his comments were somehow beyond the pale considering who they were about, he immediately acquiesced.  This is NOT what is needed.  This is why BushCo keeps ruining our country - because over and over they play this game, or their media buddies play the game, and good people acquiesce.

    Carter wimped out right when wimping out is a cowardly thing to do.  He could have clarified his statement in a different way.  I watched him, and he was backing down when he should have been forcefully clarifying how horrific BushCo has been for the world, not clarifying how he didn't intend to be so mean to poor little Bush.

    Reviewing a mass-market entertainment vehicle and an important statesman analyzing a regime that's destroying world chances for peace hardly equate. I know what you're saying, but it's a cockeyed analogy.

    by Montague on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:26:48 PM PDT