Somebody hold this guy for psychological evaluation.
Posted on 05/20/2007 5:08:54 PM PDT by SJackson
White House fires back: Jimmy Carter 'irrelevant' Bush spokesman defends 'W' after 'worst in history' claim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 20, 2007 4:52 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Jimmy Carter at 2004 Democratic convention
The White House is firing back at former President Jimmy Carter, calling the Georgia Democrat "increasingly irrelevant" in the wake of his remarks labeling the Bush administration the "worst in history."
In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette yesterday, Carter was quoted as saying, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."
White House spokesman Tony Fratto refused to respond yesterday, but launched a counterattack today from Crawford, Texas, explaining, "I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there."
"I think it's unfortunate," he added. "And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."
In the interview with the Arkansas paper, Carter said Bush had taken a "radical departure from all previous administration policies" with the Iraq war.
"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," Carter said.
In another interview with the BBC, Carter also ripped the close relationship between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling it "Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
"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," Carter said.
As WND previously reported, five years after the controversial 2000 presidential election, ex-President Jimmy Carter announced he was certain Al Gore actually defeated George W. Bush.
"Well I would say that in the year 2000, the country failed abysmally in the presidential election process," Carter told a panel at American University in Washington, D.C. "There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president."
"[Gore] received the most votes nationwide, and in my opinion, he also received the most votes in Florida," Carter continued. "And the decision was made as you know by a 5-4 vote on a highly partisan basis by the U.S. Supreme Court, so I would say in 2000, there was a failure."
Does this cager mierda know that the President is not elected by popular vote? And does he also realize that the networks called the election for Gore while the polls were open in BOTH OF FLORIDA'S TIME ZONES? And is he also aware that the Florida Supreme Court was making up election law as it went, on - how did he say it - "highly partisan basis"?
What a hucking feadcase!
The White House has this all wrong.
Carter is and always has been irrelevant.
Bush is increasingly irrelevant.
I can’t wait to empty my bladder repeatedly on this asshats grave!
Why focus on his most positive quality?
Irrelevant irresponsible and irreverent peanut pooper farmer.
Whereas if the SCOTUS vote was 5-4 "for Gore" (to delay a results announcement until yet another recount was complete - not to prevent a recount), Jimmuh would have declared it a success instead.
There is only one scenario in which peanut brain could be correct - if essentially every ballot with multiple votes that included Bush was assigned to someone other than Bush, and every ballot with multiple votes that included Gore was assigned to Gore. Ballot has Gore AND Nader or Bush or whoever marked? Vote goes to Gore. Ballot has Bush and Nader/Gore/etc marked? Vote goes to Nader/Gore/etc. If that is a logical scenario to Carter...wow. "Mental institution, Jimmah. Something you might want to think about."
Jimmah monitors elections in other countries to verify that the results are legitimate. What a crock! How can anyone respect this bag of peanut slime?
Go Tony...
Not that Tony, but good for you.
Pot, meet kettle.
Somebody hold this guy for psychological evaluation.
JFK - Bay of Pigs, lost Berlin, assassinated.
LBJ - Great Society, Viet Nam
Nixon - Watergate, opening up to China
Ford - D'oh.
Carter - Iran, 21% interest, double-digit inflation, gave Panama Canal away.
Reagan - (Heavenly Chorus) but still f'ed up on Immigration
Bush '41 - Stopped Saddam, "read my lips" gave us Clinton,
started the globalist stuff in earnest
Clinton - The Hillary / Monica Show. All our technology
to the Chicoms.
Bush '43 - Stopped Saddam, sold out the GOP, and supports destruction of US Sovereignty.
Something is SERIOUSLY F*cked up with what the two-party system gives us in the way of candidates.
That response is barely a spitball, and does not qualify as “firing back.”
There -- fixed it.
The Republican party was founded in 1854. A scant six years later it won the Presidency. What is it about politics today that prevents third party alternatives from achieving such high office?
My first reaction, he does and simply doesn't care.
Then again, he's getting old.
IMO, he's cementing his legacy as a fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.