From Canada: Carter's attack on Bush worth peanuts

Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...6/4209765.html

Carter's attack worth peanuts

By JOSEPH QUESNEL


Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
Carter is on the loose again.

It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
especially in terms of foreign policy.

While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.

Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.

I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
magic from this administration.

I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.

Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
judgment.

It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.

Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.

Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
countries behind the Iron Curtain.

So, this is the man criticizing the current president?

Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
hostage crisis.

Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.

One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.

Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.

Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
behind the helm during 9/11.

Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
of attacks.

Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.

While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.

After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
America.

Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.

Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
attacks again

On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...

Carter's attack worth peanuts


aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
He must now be SLANDERED!!!




By JOSEPH QUESNEL

Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
Carter is on the loose again.

It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
especially in terms of foreign policy.

While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.

Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.

I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
magic from this administration.

I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.

Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
judgment.

It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.

Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.

Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
countries behind the Iron Curtain.

So, this is the man criticizing the current president?

Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
hostage crisis.

Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.

One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.

Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.

Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
behind the helm during 9/11.

Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
of attacks.

Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.

While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.

After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
America.

Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.

Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
attacks again

"Pajamas O'Donovan" wrote in message news:
...

snip

By LUBNA TAKRURI
Associated Press Writer
May 4, 2007

WASHINGTON- The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their
American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven
years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however,
they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million
lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.

Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are so disheartened
that they're considering moving back to Seoul, said their attorney,
Chris Manning, who spoke on their behalf.

"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly
disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their
lives."

The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative
hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the
case.

Pearson did not return phone calls and e-mails Wednesday from The
Associated Press requesting comment.

According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when
Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to
Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized
regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of
pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later,
and was deemed to be missing.

Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than
$1,000.

But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused
to pay. That's when Pearson decided to sue.

Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson.
First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson
wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of
pants.

Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner,
part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000-the price to rent a car every
weekend for 10 years to go to another business.

"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry
cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.

But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict
interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines
violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers,
Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied
that by three defendants.

Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once
had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the
pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud.

Pearson has appointed himself to represent all customers affected by
such signs, though D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, who will
hear the June 11 trial, has said that this is a case about one
plaintiff, and one pair of pants.

Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Association, has written
a letter to the group of men who will decide this week whether to
renew Pearson's 10-year appointment. Joyce is asking them to
reconsider.

Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment regarding
Pearson's reappointment.

The association, which tries to police the kind of abusive lawsuits
that hurt small businesses, also has offered to buy Pearson the suit
of his choice.

And former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law
judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "any bar to
which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District
to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge."

"There has been a significant groundswell of support for the Chungs,"
said Manning, adding that plans for a defense fund Web site are in the
works.

To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects
of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found a week
after Pearson dropped them off in 2005. They've been hanging in
Manning's office for more than a year.

Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red
pinstripes.

"They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants match his
receipt," Manning said.

---

On the Net: http://www.CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com

On May 26, 10:31?am, generic wrote:
On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan wrote:

Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...

Carter's attack worth peanuts

aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
He must now be SLANDERED!!!



No, Carter has SLANDERED. He now must be CRITICIZED.

zorba wrote:

On May 26, 10:31?am, generic wrote:

On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan wrote:


Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...

Carter's attack worth peanuts

aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
He must now be SLANDERED!!!

Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to
him, and made him recant.)





No, Carter has SLANDERED. He now must be CRITICIZED.

On May 26, 1:50�pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
zorba wrote:
On May 26, 10:31?am, generic wrote:

On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan wrote:

Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209....

Carter's attack worth peanuts

aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
He must now be SLANDERED!!!

Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! *(Too bad "they" got to
him, and made him recant.)

Speaking lies IS slander. It's especially obscene when the worst
president in U.S. history, whose actions (or lack thereof) brought
about many of today's problems, has the effrontery to call anyone else
"the worst president." Hey, we're talking about Jimmy Carter
here!!!

PJ O'Donovan wrote:



Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:


Did you check Memri.org as well?

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...6/4209765.html


and maybe the Diaro de Tierra del Fuego (Chile)

Carter's attack worth peanuts

By JOSEPH QUESNEL


Someone call Habitat for Humanity and tell them former president Jimmy
Carter is on the loose again.

It appears Carter has decided to publicly malign President George Bush
by referring to his administration as the worst in American history,
especially in terms of foreign policy.

While far from perfect, the administration has many notable
achievements ignored by media and biased presidential historians.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
Wilkerson, a Republican spokeswoman.

Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.

I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
magic from this administration.

I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.

Looking at Carter's record, he is in no moral position to pass
judgment.

It is strange that he criticized Bush's policy of pre-emptive attack,
when it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq
Liberation Act, the law making Iraq regime change government policy.

Carter is the president who criticized Ronald Reagan's Cold War
strategy, which would eventually lead to the collapse of Soviet
communism. If Carter had been around in the 1980s instead of Reagan,
it is conceivable the U.S.S.R. would still exist and countries like
Ukraine and Latvia would be under Soviet control.

Of course, this collapse would domino and lead to freedom for all
countries behind the Iron Curtain.

So, this is the man criticizing the current president?

Carter also presided over one of the worst periods of inflation in
American history and allowed U.S. prestige to plummet during the Iran
hostage crisis.

Despite commendable success over the Camp David Accord, Carter spends
his retirement writing books with obvious anti-Israeli bias.

One of his current books is under review for major factual errors.

Carter's objectivity is also called into question with his continual
assertions that Al Gore was the "obvious" winner in the 2000 election.

Some editorialists in the U.S. shudder over the thought of Carter
behind the helm during 9/11.

Carter would have likely spent his time trying to educate the Taliban
about the value of human rights while al-Qaida prepared another round
of attacks.

Carter himself was only propelled into government due to Watergate.

While the Bush presidency can be justly criticized for deficit
spending and issues related to intelligence errors involving the Iraq
War, the administration should be honoured for what it did achieve.

After dealing with an unanticipated terrorist attack, Bush galvanized
the nation and uprooted the Taliban regime that gave al-Qaida
sanctuary. His tax cuts also led to unprecedented economic growth in
America.

Bush also rightly earned recognition for defending democratic Taiwan.

Perhaps Carter will look over the full record before levelling such
attacks again

PJ O'Donovan wrote:


Carter is attacking Bush because of his low approval ratings. These
ratings are driven by the day-to-day conduct of the war.

I wonder why people expect a country with no history of democracy to
become an oasis of freedom overnight. It took a decade for post-war
Germany to stabilize, and Japan took several years. Yet, people expect
magic from this administration.

I would argue that setting 25 million Iraqis on the path to democracy
should place Bush as one of the greatest presidents.


Try arguing that after a few more years, many thousands more American lives
lost and billions of dollars wasted to bring democracy to a land where
democracy is not appreciated, and weigh that against a war that was started
on the basis on lies about a vast arsenal of WMDs that was used to justify
it. Then you can explain that Bush over-estimated the ability of the
Iraqis to learn from their mistakes. Kuwait was a high tech cake walk in
which the US led coalition bombed the bejeepers out of the Iraqis for weeks
before sending in the ground troops. The Iraqis obviously learned a lesson
from that one. They knew they could not match the US military on the
battlefield, so they went underground, hid their arms and ammunition and
opted to fight more of a guerilla war. Bush apparently thought that what
worked in the Gulf War would work again, that he would get rid of Saddam
and Iraqis would be kissing his butt.

Bush ignored the advice of his friends and allies, that they did not think
Saddam possessed a WMD threat, that they did not think invasion was a wise
move (better to have Saddam in there to control those crazy *******s than
to let them rise up en masse), and that removing Saddam was like poking a
hornet nest. But he ignored that advice.

Sorry, but he will go down as an incredible failure, one who lied about his
motives for going to a war that he is likely to lose. Americans love to
support their country and their president, but they will remember Bush as a
cluster****.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! (Too bad "they" got to him, and made
him recant.)

There you go again...knee jerk reaction whenever the president's name comes
up!
Funny, when faced with the truth, some people will fabricate and believe the
fiction that they spin!

NO body made Jimmy recant, NO body has the power to MAKE Jimmy recant...He
just did not realize what a foolish thing he did until it was too late and
was reminded about his time in the White House...

By the way, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat...but I do try to be
objective.

zorba wrote:

On May 26, 1:50�pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:

zorba wrote:

On May 26, 10:31?am, generic wrote:

On May 26, 6:34 am, PJ O'Donovan wrote:

Some words of wisdom from Winnipeg, Canada:

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnis...007/05/26/4209...

Carter's attack worth peanuts

aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh, yes - Carter has CRITICIZED our President!
He must now be SLANDERED!!!

Speaking the truth is NOT "slander"! �(Too bad "they" got to
him, and made him recant.)


Speaking lies IS slander. It's especially obscene when the worst
president in U.S. history, whose actions (or lack thereof) brought
about many of today's problems, has the effrontery to call anyone else
"the worst president." Hey, we're talking about Jimmy Carter
here!!!

Who, whatever his shortcomings may have been as president,
is an honest, ethical man who never deliberately lied to the
American people! Bush is a liar and a cheat who got us
unilaterally into a seemingly endless war which we have no
hope of winning, a self-righteous hypocrite who confuses his
personal whims with "God's will", and easily the worst
president in the past hundred years - even taking Nixon into
account. Of course, the real culprits are his stable of
"advisors" who manipulate him for the good of big business
(while paying lip-service to the bigotry and ignorance of
the religious right). After Friday's vote on war funding,
I'm not too thrilled with his Democratic opposition, either
- looks like the whole crew betrayed us (and our
long-suffering troops) in the name of political expediency!