Once upon a time . . .

Insulting Jimmy Carter is like taking candy from a baby. I think your time and resources are better spent elsewhere.

Posted May 31, 2007 10:07 PM

On the contrary: your timing could not have been more appropriate, given what is happening in the Middle East and in Venezuela. Thank you! Very well done.

Posted May 31, 2007 11:49 PM

Venezuela has had a week of uninterrupted student protests, Chavez is having a PR debalce on his hands as more and more people express their dissent with the closure of RCTV. From Brasilian expresidents to a journalist association in Moscow, wverybody has condemned Chavez and he is like a child, screaming that he was right and is the good guy, regardless of countless students being shot at and arrested without proof, so much so that I have faith in Hugo Chavez losing this battle... and all you write is about this clown nobody cares about?????

Posted June 2, 2007 6:28 AM

WHAT?:

Pardon me, but if you took the time to actually read this blog before spouting off your nonsense, you'd see we've devoted several HUGE posts to the topic. I think you need to apologize.

What's more, this "clown nobody cares about" repeatedly inserts himself into major international situations and wields influence. Where were you when he made the deal with North Korea? Where were you when he green-lighted Chavez? We're interested in more than just one country, and more than just today.

Posted June 2, 2007 4:23 PM

Mora, I have told you this before: The Iran hostage rescue operation was Carter's finest moment in office. It took courage to approve and he let the military run it. This is from the Air Force Delta Force guys who participated in it. They are the last word.

Posted June 3, 2007 12:30 AM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 3, 2007 8:19 PM

GWEH:

First of all, Mora isn't the author of this post and had nothing to do with it (other than inspiring it with her item in the "Democracy News" section of our blog). I'm the author, my name is at the bottom of the post.

Then, referring to Jimmy Carter's "finest moment" as president is not saying anything whatsoever. A monkey's worst day would have been better than Carter's best day. As you may have heard, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The point of this post, which you seem to ignore, is not to criticize Carter's decision to rescue the hostages but to criticize his decision to do anything other than walk the dog after that, and to criticize our own failure to allow him to continue to play any kind of role in guiding our foreign affairs.

Posted June 4, 2007 8:13 AM

Hi,
yes, the blog has devoted a great amount of time to Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc. But almost all the articles were written by Mora y Leon, who has a deep understanding of the latinamerican psyche. In fact, her latest article is most interesting.

You, my dear russophobe, have a great comparative advantage writing on Russia, and I have enjoyed your posts on the subject. On Latin America, however, you don't do so well. I know, everybody is concerned about Chavez, but, as we say in Spanish, zapatero a tus zapatos (shoemaker, to your shoes).

I don't know why I should apologize for expressing my point of view -after all, that's all Chavez wanted from RCTV, right? (Yes, I'm comparing you with him). So, no, I won't do it. In fact, your post is even worse now, on a second read, as it implies that Chavez accumulated so much power because of Carter's blunders.

stay with Russia. Aren't they threatening Europe now? That's an interesting story that you could cover much better than this one.

Posted June 4, 2007 8:35 AM

Hi,
yes, the blog has devoted a great amount of time to Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc. But almost all the articles were written by Mora y Leon, who has a deep understanding of the latinamerican psyche. In fact, her latest article is most interesting.

You, my dear russophobe, have a great comparative advantage writing on Russia, and I have enjoyed your posts on the subject. On Latin America, however, you don't do so well. I know, everybody is concerned about Chavez, but, as we say in Spanish, zapatero a tus zapatos (shoemaker, to your shoes).

I don't know why I should apologize for expressing my point of view -after all, that's all Chavez wanted from RCTV, right? (Yes, I'm comparing you with him). So, no, I won't do it. In fact, your post is even worse now, on a second read, as it implies that Chavez accumulated so much power because of Carter's blunders.

stay with Russia. Aren't they threatening Europe now? That's an interesting story that you could cover much better than this one.

Posted June 4, 2007 8:36 AM

Hi,
yes, the blog has devoted a great amount of time to Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc. But almost all the articles were written by Mora y Leon, who has a deep understanding of the latinamerican psyche. In fact, her latest article is most interesting.

You, my dear russophobe, have a great comparative advantage writing on Russia, and I have enjoyed your posts on the subject. On Latin America, however, you don't do so well. I know, everybody is concerned about Chavez, but, as we say in Spanish, zapatero a tus zapatos (shoemaker, to your shoes).

I don't know why I should apologize for expressing my point of view -after all, that's all Chavez wanted from RCTV, right? (Yes, I'm comparing you with him). So, no, I won't do it. In fact, your post is even worse now, on a second read, as it implies that Chavez accumulated so much power because of Carter's blunders.

stay with Russia. Aren't they threatening Europe now? That's an interesting story that you could cover much better than this one.

Posted June 4, 2007 8:39 AM

Sorry,
I didn't mean to post three times - I kept getting a "server error" message

Posted June 4, 2007 8:47 AM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 4, 2007 10:07 AM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 4, 2007 4:25 PM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 4, 2007 8:51 PM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 5, 2007 12:38 AM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 5, 2007 11:32 AM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 5, 2007 8:32 PM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 5, 2007 10:07 PM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 5, 2007 10:17 PM

Jimmy is one of several Democrats who are attempting to run America's foreign policy on the sly by meeting with dictators and encouraging them in their villainy. Criticism of them is both timely and necessary.

Also, if the opinion of the participants in an operation are the "last word" does that mean that every member of the chain of command above them is just wasted space? Do we even need generals and a chief of defense? Soldiers just plan their own missions based on their own intel and if it turns out questionably we just ask for their opinion on whether anything could have been gone better.

Posted June 5, 2007 10:45 PM