 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
September 2006
Elsewhere on the WebVictor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers Victor Davis Hanson Archive on National Review OnlineTour Books
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
by Victor Hanson
Amazon.com’s Best of 2001 Many theories have been offered regarding why Western culture has spread so successfully across the world, with arguments ranging from genetics to superior technology to the creation of enlightened economic, moral, and political systems. In Carnage and Culture, military historian Victor Hanson takes all of these factors into account in making a bold, and sure to be controversial, argument: Westerners are more effective killers.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan Hanson, for those who somehow have missed him until now, is a professor of Classics at California State and also is a part time farmer, both of which have contributed to his writing as a military historian. As a classicist, Hanson is well versed in the sources in their original Greek, and as a farmer he understands how agriculture affected the experience of the Greeks at war.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson relates the life stories of his farmer neighbors, writing that their way of life will likely soon disappear, thanks in part to a federal system of agricultural subsidies that favors large-scale, industrial farm corporations over individual “yeomen.” This is a sobering and eye-opening book. by Victor Davis Hanson On first glance, The Soul of Battle appears to be three different books: biographies of two well-known generals—Sherman and Patton—and one who is virtually unknown today, the ancient Greek leader Epaminondas. Yet Victor Davis Hanson, a classics professor and author of The Western Way of War, makes a compelling connection between these three men. They were “eccentrics, considered unbalanced or worse by their own superiors” who led democratic armies on missions of freedom.
by Robert B. Strassler (Editor), Victor Davis Hanson (Introduction)
|
September 29, 2006 1:24 PM
America and its Discontents
In the last post I suggested that Clinton needed a thorough psychiatric analysis—and then was apprised that a Pajamas Media contributor, Gagdad Bob, had offered a fine portrait of his narcissist tendencies. Clinton’s furious outburst illustrated a fundamental Democratic fear: even when events favor popular unease—an unpopular war, rising gas prices—contemporary Democrats are not sure that they can still capture 51% of the electorate. Democratic Paranoia And why, if not a deep unease with who they are, do Democrats wheel out an Ike Skelton, John Murtha, or Robert Byrd? Is it for no other reason than these supposedly middle-of-the-road crusty types offer a veneer for the ‘real’ Democratic party that drove out Joe Lieberman, and is best represented by Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer? I can’t imagine the Republican party showcasing John McCain to broadcast its liberal tendencies as a fig-leaf for Bush, Cheney, etc. At least with the Republicans, what you see, is what you get. Almost anyone of them can get up on stage and more or less represent their conservative message. On any given Sunday… But with the present-day Democrats, they apparently must be careful that at any given second a Democratic Senator might go off and compare our troops to terrorists (Kerry), Pol Pot (Durbin), or Saddam’s jailers (Kennedy), or perhaps suggest Iraq was better off under the Husseins (Rockefeller). The result is an addiction to dissimulation, a constant paranoia that without warning someone will say what they feel, and thereby reveal to the American people just how far this bunch has strayed from Harry Truman, Henry Jackson, and JFK—and how radically they have become enthralled with the various victim industries, academia, Hollywood, and the fringe of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and the Daily Kos. Such a sad fellow, this Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter, the subject of the last blog, almost immediately was back in the news claiming that the United States was one of the world’s great abusers of civil rights (I wonder how our internecine body count in Plains, Georgia stacks up with that in Rwanda, Kosovo, or Dafur?). He adds that all Presidents—except the current one—have been supporters of human rights. In his dotage, Carter is proving once again that he is as malicious and mean-spirited a public figure as he is historically ignorant. And for all his sanctimonious Christian veneer, and fly-fishing, ‘aw shucks blue-jeans image, he can’t hide an essentially ungracious and unkind soul. Does he have any idea of Lincoln and Andrew Johnson suspending habeas corpus and shutting down newspapers, Woodrow Wilson jailing political dissidents, FDR interning American citizens and executing German agents in secret military tribunals? Do we have currently a Nixon’s enemies list? And can Carter point to just one aspect of current American life where civil liberties are materially curtailed, in which an American can’t do what he wants? Getting on a plane without shampoo doesn’t count—or not having your family at the gate when you land either: all thanks to al Qaeda, not George Bush. We are not free? We are in a war at a time when Alfred A. Knopf freely published a novel exploring the idea of killing the Commander-in-Chief. A movie wins accolades for filming the same leftist dream of shooting George Bush. Bush as a “Nazi” is standard stuff these days in the media. All such venom is voiced freely and without restrictions. Contrast our enemies: the pope, an opera, a novel, a cartoon, a film—all either muzzled or intimidated by the mere fear of Islamic violence. Carter should reread Aristotle’s Ethics and learn what true morality is: action to combat evil, not sermonizing from the Carter Center or campaigning for a Nobel Prize at a time of war by trashing his own government. If he can’t name an example of federal overreach, I surely can: the current political indictment of Scooter Libby, who, we know now, was not the leaker of the supposedly “classified” status of the much public Ms. Plame. That hit job seems to be a very dangerous abuse of federal prosecutorial power, especially when we learn that it was long recognized that Richard Armitage was the font of the “leak”. The Golden Years: 1976-1980? There is another disturbing element to Cartesian maliciousness. He asks us to forget all the dilemmas of being President, the necessity of making bad choices when the alternative is usually worse. And, of course, he seems to have amnesia about his own failings that put this country in grave jeopardy. He sanctimoniously lectured us on our Cold War fixation on communism—and got a murderous Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He talked of a post-Vietnam reappraisal in the midst of the Cambodian Holocaust. “Human Rights” was an admirable banner, but did not include any such audit of Sandinista Communists. He wept for the middle class, but adopted policies that led to double-digit interest rates and inflation, ensuring that only the upscale could borrow for a house or ensure their salaries would keep up with the cost of living. No need to mention his energy policy or gas lines. Remember the genesis of the Great Satan? Carter’s Waterloo, of course was the Iranian hostage crisis. It was not just that his gutting of the military helped to explain the rescue disaster. Far more importantly, we can chart the rise of radical political Islam with the storming of the American embassy in Teheran and the impotent response of Jimmy Carter. Long before George Bush was elected to anything, crowds in Teheran gave us the genesis of the Great Satan and “Death to Carter”. Does he remember that so great was the Iranian Islamist hatred of him, that Iran deliberately delayed the brokered release of the hostages until he was out of office—a lesson that appeasement wins contempt as the additional wage of its failure. He’s Back—Oliver Stone Unmuzzled and “Ashamed” After his recent string of movie flops—highlighted by the disastrous Alexander the Great fiasco—Oliver Stone seemed an unlikely director to entrust with a retelling of 9/11. Had we forgotten his praise of Hamas, his odd comparison of the Israeli encirclement of Ramallah to Auschwitz, or his cynical dismissal of the 3,000 dead on September 11 as “a revolt”. So when Paramount released World Trade Center, and it went tamely into the night, what happened? I know little of Hollywood protocol, but I imagine somewhere in the multimillion-dollar negotiations, either expressed or implied, there was surely the understanding that a recently problematic (and no doubt cash-strapped) Stone could not deviate from his assigned script—and for a prescribed period of time, probably could not comment publicly on 9/11 or world events in general. When millions were involved, there was probably something agreed on like the following, ‘Stay with the party line, shut up, we both make money—and then, and only then, you’re’ on your own.’ Had Stone sounded off about the United States (see below) on the eve of World Trade Center’s release, he would probably have lost millions. I think that period of grace is now over, as the movie heads for the rental business. So now we get, “Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with.” I guess that depends on whether Stone himself was in the World Trade Center on September 11 or whether his offspring were vaporized when the “revolt” broke out. And how does he recently characterize the war, one debated over and voted for by a majority of Democratic Congressmen and Senators? “The far greater conspiracy occurred after 9/11 when basically a neo-cabal inside our government hijacked policy and went to war. That was as broad a conspiracy as we can get and it was about 20, 30 people. That’s all, they took over and all these books are coming out and they are pointing it out.” And how, like Jimmy Carter, has poor Stone suffered, perhaps especially when he heads for Europe: “This war on Iraq is a disaster. I’m disgraced. I’m ashamed for my country. I’m also ashamed that America has attacked itself with its constitutional breakdowns. I’m deeply ashamed.” These remarks will win him applause, not a FBI wiretap, in his shameful country of “constitutional breakdowns.” What a strange man: had he made one of his mendacious movies criticizing Islam, he’d be dead; had he lived in Europe and expressed sympathy with radical Islam, long ago he’d be on a British or French watch list, his phone bugged. Had he worked in China, Russia, or anywhere but the U.S. he’d long ago been muzzled. So what is Oliver Stone? A creature par excellence of capitalism, an elitist who makes millions and spends them, pandering to popular culture—and shuts up when told to, and opens back up when the check is cut. How sad. Comments (51)Improbulus Maximus :Deamon :You have a brilliant way with words, Dr. Hanson. I shall be using the term 'victim industries', with your compliments. John in Cincinnati :Christopher Hitchens met Oliver Stone in debate, and Mr. Stone was as rabid about the subject as Michael Moore. See these fine web pages for some detail: [www.newyorker.com/talk/content/a...] Curt Matern :Professor Hanson: I came over here to your blog, wondering if you would have a response to the Carter/Stone articles circulating about. I'm glad I did. An excellent read. It's become such a pathetic, yet farsical experience to watch the Duh-mocrats continuously bitch, whine and petulantly stomp their Chicken-Little feet. I mean, it never stops! Ever! Can anybody tell me the last time we heard something positive come out of their smarmy, snarling mouths? Does anyone remember? I certainly don't. Personally, I don't really care for people who can neither lead nor follow nor get out of the way. I think you summed up Carter in a pea-nutshell. It's embarrassingly painful to see such an incompetent man make that much of a fool out of himself over and anon. Sort of like watching somebody's Grandpa drool all over himself. When Oliver Stone started telling the Spaniards that the way to effectively take on terrorism is exemplified by how they have dealt with the Basques, I nearly fell out of my chair. That was the stupidest thing I believe I have ever heard come out of his mouth, and that is saying a lot. More amazing still is that the pontifications of a movie director continue to be given any exalted status in any event. It's about 40 days out from the elections, and I am reminded of the movie, "Groundhog Day". Once again, here come the media stories bashing the Republicans and the Administration in any way, shape and form possible. Once again, the worn-out campaign of victory through invective rears it's ugly head, hoping yet again for a glimmer of sunshine. Never mind that it's failed and failed and failed in the past. Once again, here come the usual cast of characters, pounding their chests and sounding the alarms, with not one concrete plan or strategy between them. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing the same way over and over again, expecting a different outcome. In the January 18, 2006 edition of Industry Week, Mark Gotlieb wrote an article entitled, "The Arrogance of Ignorance". In it he writes: "The most profound risk they represent springs not from their cluelessness, but from their inability to recognize their own limitations. Such blind hubris can lead to monumental errors of judgment, grotesque mistakes, and the refusal to accept -- despite a mountain of evidence -- that the strategy they are pursuing may be leading your organization off a cliff. When people like that are in your employ, it is you, not they, who suffer the consequences". Each year, we seem to be facing a larger influx of the truly clueless. And they get elected. It's scary. But I believe that today we still have enough Americans out there who do recognize what is going on around them, and won't be bamboozled by a group devoid of all save bombast. I guess I would label myself one of your X21's. I'm not a devotee of the Republicans by any stretch of the imagination. They screw up a lot. I think it's unfortunate that I only have the two groups to choose from, to be honest. But I am a student of History and I see a pathway of optimal survival, if not complete victory in the direction that we are currently moving in. It's not a rosy path by any means. It's going to be tougher and more painful than any of us can yet imagine. We are going to be at War for a long, long time. There are going to be more mistakes, more setbacks, more death and more strain on our morale and determination. Hell, we may even become inconvenienced! That's what War brings. There is no option of quitting, because the enemy never will. Get used to it. I really don't give a damn about the woulda's and shoulda's of yesterday anymore. The second guessing and the constant blaming seems worthless and irrelevant to this fight for our way of life. Although the Democrats are telling me that it's time for a new direction, they haven't told me anything about where they want to take me. And if all I have to go by is the constant crap I've heard dished out by them these past weeks, months and years, I'll pass. P.S. Can you please tell each and every writer that you come in contact with to quit using the word "robust"? Enough already. Richard Quigley :"and learn what true morality is: action to combat evil" Therein lies the left's problem. The have no definition for "evil". They have become so bound up in relativism and equivalencey that, for them, the word is meaningless. Theo. Branin :A small observation that I have made is that apparently my German Shepherd Dog has more sense than all pacivist liberals. She will defend me and herself when attacked! :) DRJ :I consider myself a courageous and committed American. Essays like this - written with common sense and historical truths - help me stay that way. Thank you. David Eaton :You can't escape history. Peace often only comes by putting down its enemies. Prosperity is the only effective way to raise the welfare of the poor, but it is slow, and people of good intent often think we can shortcut to the end, and just make everyone equal and prosperous. Revolution, for instance, in the leftist model, is an attempt evade the process that leads to enfranchisement and progress. Revolution is strong medicine, as likely to kill as cure, though. What I think I see in Carter, and more generally in the left, is a desire to escape history, to skip ahead to the good parts. I think that the battle ahead will be awful, and I don't welcome it. But I see it, acknowledge it, and since it is inevitable, I want us to fight the battle with all we have. Smart and good people have been fooled many times into thinking that you can, with good intentions and smart ideas, evade the processes that lead to progress, but disaster follows quickly to disabuse everyone else of that conceit. Like compulsive gamblers, the activist left aren't ready to admit that no system that short circuits history will work- they either go looking for a new one, or redefining success to fit what happens. Armondo :Attempting to catalog the incompetency of Jimmy Carter would be an impossible task. Why does the media continue to bother with this senile relic? Yes, you're right. They bother because he states their view time and again. Mr. Carter is a disgrace to American and to freedom anywhere. Mister Snitch! :I thought, after his struggles as President, the bright, able, intense and pious Carter had wrestled successfully with the hubris that powered him into office, then became his Achilles heel. For a while, it appeared that way to myself and other observers. These days, it's looking as if that pride has taken root again to strangle all he might still have accomplished, consuming it in bitter vindictiveness. Someone give that man a hug. Chester White :
The symptoms fit Bill Clinton EXACTLY. High energy, exuberance, wearing his emotions on his sleeve, hypersexuality, disregard of danger, fits of self-pity. On and on and on. It was uncanny. I am convinced this is what he has, and it's why he never released his medical records. The appearance of his nose leads one to believe it may have inhaled certain substances in quantity over the years, too. And I am sure he's got a good dose of unhealthy narcissitic tendencies as well. The whole package probably adds up to the profile of a sociopath. Heroic Dreamer :I agree with Curt Matern. Oliver Stone's lament that we should deal with islamists as the Spaniard's dealt with ETA is an extremely stupid remark. The one and only reason I think Stone can get away with making this argument is that our Administration still does not properly name our enemy. Our Administration still articulates that we are waging a "War on Terror." If the Administration clearly communicated that we are at War with Jihad and that terror is but one of the tactics used by our enemy in this global struggle, Stone - and others like him - could no longer make the argument that terrorism is manageable and can be tolerated, and should be treated as a police issue. cf bleachers :Carter's thinly veiled anti-semitism and his naked aggression toward his own country, is now just peeking through his "humanitarian" cloak. He has shrouded himself successfully via the same means that all "closet socialists" have for the past 30 years. They have (until recently, essentially wholly unfettered for nearly 3 decades)brilliantly executed the first phase in a silent coup d'etat against the free market economy style of self-governance. That first phase in the "war of attrition" over hearts and minds is to own the vehicles for disseminating information. The replacement of facts with "opinions" and passing it off as "news"...or worse..."education". All the better, if you can do so with a breathless, eyes downcast, head-shaking "sincerity"...leaving the viewer/reader/listener with the feeling of not being "in the know". And, if you own the mass media, (print and airwaves) the film/entertainment industry, the college campuses...you own history. All you have to do is keep pounding the same "message" over and over...and it will become a "truism". Voila...you can write history (as recently as yesterday's) and broadcast your "version"...as "news". You now own the "facts"...everyone else is "stupid" if they don't agree. This is heady stuff, if one allows it to be. You are the "cool crowd" and it's your lunchtable. Nobody can sit with you unless and until they "prove" themselves...by knowing, reciting and swearing blind allegiance to "the way". If this seems a bit cult-like and self absorbed to any objective passerby, they are simply waived off...with the appropriate bravado and arrogance...as "southern White trash, rural, right wing ignorant". Lord help the centrists...and by the way...don't invoke the Lord again. He's passe'. If you want to be immediately equated with backwoods ignorance, have an ounce of faith based morality. The new "religion" is one part hedonism, one part self-absorption, and one part kneejerk rejection of all things American. It's the standard fare recipe for what Harriet Beecher Stowe might call the "new" Uncle Tom'ism. Deny yourself of your heritage/background/patriotism and engage in the suckling sycophantism for modernist socialism. Predominantly White "Uncle Tom's" thereby engage in all manner of debasing of their own background, their own country, their countrymen, ...and with each foil and parry thrust at America/Americans/Americana...they feel a new emboldening, a new rush, a higher thrill...for "their" side. Their lunchtable is so "cool" they and only they "know" how the rest of us secretly wish to sit with them and be "in". And those that don't? Why they must be "repuglicans". Too Stupid to know that they should "want" to seditionist, treasonous, backstabbing, and arrogant. Yet, the largest segment of this country's population, I believe...is centrist at heart. They have no "party" to affiliate with. No control over the information streams of mass dissemination. They are not racist, not homophobic, not xenophobic, not war-mongering, not illiterate, not uncaring, not corporate toadies, ...not any of the Simon Legree caricatures that they will be labeled once they dare to fail to drink the lunchroom kool-aid. They simply seek truth, bare facts and the ability to make up their own minds as to what a reasonable response might be to an individual issue and what a sane debate on the subject might entail. Alas, no such debate is on the horizon. Instead the shrill, shrieking, misappropriated messages of a lunchroom food fight. The leftists and the Evangelicals must be disabused of the notion that they "own" righteousness. The latter stemming from a theo-centric adherence to literalism and the former from a stale, leftover heady "victory" in the 60's...neither of which is appropriately contexed and clearly neither of which has any sense of equilibrium or balance. The answer may indeed be...to call the question. We need to "out" the Socialists, call the Uncle Tom's on their behavior, and put the next phase into play. If you hate the country and free market economy that much...and you want to convince people to sway toward European Socialism...then let's call the question. Out loud, openly and up front. Let's have an elected government of the style that we agree upon. And no longer have the anti-Semitic, anti-American rusting relics of a failed "half past"...deciding for themselves that they still are in a position to represent this country on the world's platform...Jimmy Carter be hanged....he is not now, nor will he ever be again...in a position to represent our country in the delicate pursuit of national security from international dangers. Let's shine a light on those countrymen who wish to scurry behind the baseboards of Hollywood, mass media, and college campuses with an enemy flag in one hand and a welcome wagon of cookies and flowers in the other. And let Americans begin to know the facts, ALL the facts...and let's let them decide on those, not some shadow of those. Take back the information streams. Take ownership of the truth, whatever it may be. Let's end the food fight. Let's call the question.
drtaxsacto :I am not sure how you did it but the post on Carter was near perfect. He masks a very mean spirit with a veneer of aw shucks. Thanks. Were he real he would have learned humility. But as Churchill lamented about Chamberlain - he (should be) a very modest man, with a great deal to be modest about. Helmut Steinwender :Ah, what beautiful words! I feel refreshed after reading them, fortified and invigorated, because they are truth, and cut through the falsehoods we are assaulted with daily by the armada of the left, the minions of radicalism, the hordes of deconstruction. But I ramble... Uber Pig :Last time Carter got anything right is when he called Noriega's stolen election a fraud in 1989. One suspects the only reason that happened is he saw the VP elect getting his ass beaten on TV. Alas. -- Uber Pig Scott :Dr. Hanson: Thank you for your lucid and trenchant analysis of important issues. You are a joy to read and always right--at least so far. Great points on Jimmy Carter. Georgians know all too well what a petty, vindictive little prick Jimmy Carter is. His humiliation at being crushed by Ronald Reagan caused him to emerse himself in Habitat for Humanity and other causes in order to portray himself as a saint. However, people who worked for the man in his years in politics will describe an insecure, micro-managing control freak with a foul temper, a mean streak and ego the size of Texas. You clearly see through this classless fraud and I applaud you for it. Andrew Murphy :Carter, sadly, represents the mainstream of current democratic thought and attitudes. His obnoxious and supercilious pronouncements concerning life today are examples of your 51% comment – the democrats it seems cannot make the connection between what is necessary for our safety and what has occurred in the past to ensure the same. He lost the election in 1980 for several reasons – his inability to understand Maslow’s hierarchy of needs seems to have been one. As Maslow pointed out years ago security and safety are two of our most primal needs. Carter’s pompous, sanctimonious whining demonstrates that the Democratic Party, to use the feminist phrase, “doesn’t get it.” The next edition of the Oxford Dictionary would do well to have his picture accompany the definition of loser. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) :Well before he became President, Carter had been almost completely ostracized by his 1946 classmates at the Naval Academy. I had friends from USNA '46 and they reported that Carter was widely despised as an arrogant, insincere weakling. Doesn't appear to have changed much in sixty years. Richard A. Vail, Ph.D. :Sir, thanks for saying what I've been saying for 15 or more years, that many of the root problems that we have in the middle east don't just stem from our support of Israel, but rather from the lack of serious response Mr. Carter (I despise the practice of [pseudo-nobility] giving politicians the life-title from the last office they held---after all we live in a REPUBLIC, not a monarchy) to the declaration of war by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Until the Carter Doctrine, the invasion of an embassy by the host country was considered to be a declaration of war...even the Germans and Japanese during WWII did NOT occupy our embassies, nor we theirs...but Mr. Carter's policy of inaction has invalidated that concept. Additionally, it was ratified by Mr. Clinton, when he also did absolutely nothing following the attacks on our embassies in Africa. Additionally, Mr. Reagan followed the very same tack when he did nothing after Hizb'Allah did the same in the early 80's in Lebanon. Back on subject, Mr. Carter's inaction has emboldened our enemies to the point where they thought that would do nothing in the face of their agression. My biggest worry is that the Democratic party (and their supporters in the media) will learn nothing from history and weaken the will of this country as a whole to fighting what will be a decades long fight to defeat those who desire nothing more than the conquest of western civilization and it's replacement with new muslim caliphate...which would return us, effectively, to the middle ages (where the "soul" of Islam now lies). David :Another well written essay as expected. I have been meaning to tell you how much I enjoy your MHQ stuff. Icepilot :How provident - Here's the last word on our last two (D) Presidents: Almost like they lack a dimension, or something ...
Carson Bennett :Re Jimmy Carter: a revealing event for me occurred decades ago but has not left me. A close friend of mine was involved in the tragedy in the desert in Iran when the military helicopters collided and lives were lost. Two searing aspects of that event were (1) that the President (Carter) intervened at a tactical level to give directions that contributed to the tragedy, and (2) that he never visited any of those injured while they were in the hospital, nor afterward, nor did he visit any of the families of those who died. Whichever side of that conflict one might find oneself on, that behavior speaks volumes about the character of the man. To the credit of the military, those details were not paraded in the media or used for political purposes elsewhere, but there wasn't a person involved in that incident that left Iran and the military with any respect for Carter. The fact that this behavior didn't seem to bother him only confirms the insight it provides into his character. He is a wholly unadmirable man. Jim Tynen :One thing that should be added is that other presidents, of both parties, share Carter's failings. Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon. The first President Bush had Saddam in his sights, and let him get away. Clinton, despite his denials, let Osama get away. And to this day fails to see that Bin Laden is only a symptom of greater dangers. These actions, however, highlight the rationale for the war in Iraq. No matter what presidents did, they inflamed Islamofascists' hatred and rage. And with each failure to confront terrorism, the threat grew worse. Their actions show what failure to attack the roots of the problem in the Mideast leads too. Damn George Bush if you wish; but if his predecessors had done their jobs, the U.S. wouldn't be in this spot. Mike D :Doc Hanson is one of our great natural rhetorical resources, a credit to the Central Valley of California. I will be taping this column to my fridge and referring to it from now until the end of the world. Terrye :Dr. Hanson: I agreed with everything you said. That hardly ever happens. Thank you. eddiespaghetti :God bless you VDH, you are the most concise, elloquient speaker of our day. You are consistently on the mark, welcome to PJM. Jeffrey S Neher :You have demonstrated once again Dr. Hanson the "Bi-polar" ex-president--at one moment incompetent and the other bitter. I recall President Reagan, many years after this incident occured, telling how Carter didn't speak a word in the car during the hand-over of power that was the 81 inauguration of Reagan as president. Reagan said he merely stared out of his window. Carter has remained a bitter man ever since. This bitterness came to a head I believe during the Nixon mourning. Everyone practically, discounting the usual leftists suspects, had nothing but praise for Nixon, from his humble up-bringing on through his political skills onto his brilliance in the foreign policy field. Of course it was Carter who became the beneficiary of the Nixon scandal becoming president on a wave of voter anger over government scandals. I can just imagine Carter at the Nixon funeral listening to political luminary after luminary, from Dole to Clinton, heaping generous praise on a man he surely held in low regard. And what of me? surely Carter asked himself. What legacy shall await my funeral. If one will remember, it was at this time he invited himself back onto the world stage. Many trips abroad to over-see "fair" elections. But of course, the mother of all Carter initiatives, along with Arkansas Bill was North Korea. Here he gave us the true Carter philosophy, "trust but don't dare verify". When it comes to dictatorships and communist thugs, Carter has always found them more trust-worthy than his own country---especially when his country has a republican for a president.....
Melissa Clouthier :Dr. Hanson, Thank you for your lucid perspective. Former President Carter displays little grace and no gratitude. America nurtured this man, allowing even a "humble peanut farmer" to become President. One thinks he would possess some humility. Instead he is filled with contempt. Perhaps he finds a country that would support a man such as he contemptible. Or maybe he finds the process that would extricate him from his position of power contemptible. Unfortunately, when he opens his mouth, he emboldens the enemy. Fortunately, he is no longer the President and can't affect policy. Alex Bensky :It shows something that as to Ariel Sharon--not one of my idols but the freely elected prime minister of a democratic nation--Carter showed nothing but loathing and rudness. To Kim Jong-Il, whose government is as brutal and oppressive a regime as exists anywhere in the world today, Carter was the model of courtesy and friendship. Haig Hovaness :Dr. Hanson, I strikes me as odd that a man with your great pretensions as a defender of freedom does not publish any critical comments in his blog. I doubt that this comment will be an exception. For the record, I would like to state that I consider you to be a deranged militarist, propelled by ego and hatred. Had we heeded people like you after WWII, we would have fought a nuclear war by now and would still trying to pick up the pieces of what was left of America. Your deep belief in redemptive violence is profoundly pernicious nonsense. matthew :Mr. Carter seems to feel that the natural and inevitable state of humanity is freedom. It is not something to be bought at the cost of buckets of blood, sweat and fortunes. From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6281085/
"MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about—this is going to cause some trouble with people—but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today? CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war. Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way. I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time."
An "unnecessary war," and this fifth column useful idiot held the same seat as Washington. Do I vomit or weep first? Suggestions heeded. Matt Troy :Dr. Hanson -- You used "Cartesian" to describe Carter. Please refrain. Amused :According to this, you haven't the slightest clues as to what you're talking about. "The big lie here, though, is "gutting of the military." The idea that Jimmy Carter gutted the military strength of the United States lives only in the fantasies of the most ignorant of wingnuts; US military spending bottomed out in fiscal years 1976 and 1977, both of which were on the watch of Gerald Ford. Under Carter, military spending went up in FY 1979, 1980, and 1981. It's worse than that, even, because the high budgets of the early 1970s had a lot to do with the end in Vietnam and the cycling down of military effort in Southeast Asia. As people who take the time to learn about United States military policy know, the military build-up of the Reagan years began in the second half of Jimmy Carter's term. If you don't believe me, take a look at the numbers. If you still don't believe me, listen to Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan: Today, [1996- ed] defense spending is less than 20 percent of the total federal budget. In 1962, before the Vietnam War, defense spending ran at almost 50 percent of the overall budget. In 1978, before the Carter-Reagan defense buildup, it was about 23 percent. Increases of the size required to pursue a neo-Reaganite foreign policy today would require returning to about that level of defense spending -- still less than one-quarter of the federal budget." kentuckyliz :A Southerner thinks he can say any damning, hateful thing about another person he wants to, as long as it ends with "...bless his heart." Carter is just doing that...not realizing it's not appropriate for failed former presidents. Bless his heart. Viola Jaynes :Dr. Hanson, I've just become aware of your site and your writings. I love your nice, clean lay out and your easy to understand presentations. You have a wonderful gift with words. Hats off to your wonderful professionalism!!! I'm glad you've joint the blogging world. I'm not a blogger but have a great appreciation for those who truly have something intelligent and important to say. Thanks again for sharing! Donald R.McClarey :Carter as President was proof of the maxim that the most dangerous man is someone who is truly foolish yet believes that he is the epitome of wisdom. I regret that so many Americans are too young to recall what a disaster from start to finish his Presidency was. Carter's comments since his Presidency indicate that he learned nothing from the experience. By far the worst president of the last century. Patrick Rich :I think far too little is made of Carter and his contributions to the current state of affairs with Islam, and in particular Iran. An embassy is considered sovreign territory, so the taking of our embassy in Teheran was exactly the same as an attack on the United States. But it certainly was not seriously treated that way. And the lesson Carter's lack of a strong response taught was that we are a weak and ineffectual nation. We are paying the price for that now and will be for a long time to come. Yet the Dems, and Jimmah the poster pres for peace, continue to make placating noises. They have not learned the lesson yet, and maybe never will. Vote early, vote often, vote Republican. Greg :I think the question of "living with terrorism" is very interesting. There are those, such as Stone, that use that concept to attack counter-terrorism methods. On the other hand, it would seem to be niave to believe that we can win a "war on terror" in the same way it is impossible to win a war against murder or drugs, etc. So long as there are weak, angry groups and individuals there will be terrorism. Virginia Weicheld :Thanks for all you write , we need more like you. Your so right about Jimmy Carter and his display of bad manners ..no excuse for this. It does however give us an insight to his Character. J Blud :Dear Dr. Hanson, you are the most eloquent, gifted genius of our time. Your superb commentary on the evil that is the leftist socialist enemy nationstate within our midst gives me hope for the future. I shall pin it up on my bedstead and peruse it nightly before I drift into blissful sleep. Aurora :Peanut is supposed to be the food for the brain. But I think Mr. Carter either did not eat it or eat too few of the crop. Mickey :The Jimmy Carter presidency gave us today's problems. I truly believe and history will show, that the world didn't change on 911, it changed when Carter allowed America to be taken hostage by Iran! This weakness gave birth to attacks against us since. Carter and Clinton both thought that appeasement was the answer and both were dead wrong. Carter and Clinton have some nerve making their insane comments now. I guess this is an attempt to change history. These useless fools just can not seem to shut up! They both were failures and both helped people that wish to kill us. Carter: Go hammer and build houses. Clinton: Go nail your girlfriends. Steve :As Mona Charon pointed out in "Useful Idiots", the only war that will ever be supported by the "Media" will be those wars started by Democrats. And hopefully with an Ally like Poppa Joe. Mike H. :Amused, one good thing that Carter did was to try to buy the vote of the US military, at least the Staff NCO ranks, with a 25% pay raise in 1980. Unfortunately it didn't stop the hemorrhaging that was occuring. I had troops that were living in condemned base housing that was outside the gate with no MP protection due to the lack of money. That money was going to social programs, that didn't include the troops, except for food stamps. We couldn't go to the range, no bullets, we had to wait for 6 months to get repair parts in my unit, and we weren't the only ones. Congress did try to stop the outflow of mid level personnel, they made an honorable discharge grounds for denial of unemployeement benefits, while a less than honorable discharge made the individual eligible for all benefits. You'll excuse me if I don't share the love that you have for the former president. Benjamin :As a missionary's son, and having thus been raised in Third World countries, I am flabberghasted by Americans who hate the country we live in. Some immigrants come from Third World countries to America to escape the grinding poverty that is a result, in most cases, of total mismanagement of resources and of corruption by their own leaders. All these people want is to be free to work and prosper. Others come to occupy our country slowly and quietly, and eventually pluck the fruit that is America right off the vine, and take it away from us. It would be smart of us to recognize the difference between the two. The Mexicans are the former. The Muslims in this country appear to be the latter. It pains me to come to that conclusion. That paints all Muslims with a very broad stroke, and in a way it even shocks me to see that I now think that way. However, I have come to that conclusion by observing the Muslims who are living in this country, as well as those who we are helping abroad- the Kurds, the Kuwaitis, the Turks. There is not one shred of condemnation toward the murderers of innocent citizens around the world coming from anyone who matters in the Muslim community, including those who have been welcomed with open arms in this country, and live next door to us. And those spoiled, pampered, ignorant liberals, who have never even seen the way the rest of the world lives, let alone lived with them, and don't see the depth of blessing we are living in, curse the nation which is America, and are going to get us all killed or enslaved. ed moore :The only good thing about the mean-spirited and ignorant J Carter - he opened the door for Ronald Reagan. Thank you Dr Hanson for clear thinking and eloquently expressed common sense. SAE :Dr. Hanson- Do you think that radical Muslims (and the American left) will protest the release of the upcoming film on Thermopylae, "300," as being offensive or some such label, since it glorifies the West both coming to grips with a threat born from the Middle East and doing something to stop it, what with the current and impending Iranian nuclear crisis? Stephen M. St. Onge :The first person to penetrate the Clintonian neuroses was the late Edith Efron, back around 1994 in REASON. It's available online here. Eric Smith :Freedom isn't free. Carter and Stone are two peas in a pod when it comes to slamming America. If their way were to come to fruition, both of them would have had their heads lopped off by the Ilamofascists that they think are so great. legalize :Please don't use the phrase "Cartesian" to refer to Carter and his views! It is such a disservice to Descarte! Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaPJM Political 8/27/08: Michelle Malkin & Co. Survive Denver–Plus A PJTV Preview! Pajamas TV Launches Live from DNC: Hillary the Angry Populist, Part II Live from DNC: Is Opposition to Obama in Denver Due to Racism?(Day 3) Live from DNC: It’s Zombietime! (Day 3) Big Labor Safeguards Its Big Stake in Obama BBC’s Terrorists in Need Live From DNC: Hillary Releases Her Delegates, Urges Unanimous Obama Vote
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
So it is with all leftists; they actively work to degrade and undermine the freedom that they neither earn nor appreciate, denigrate those who take on the enemies of that freedom, and proclaim how much better are other places, such as Cuba or North Korea, than America, yet they cry foul when their patriotism is questioned, and denounce as fascists those who fight fascism.
Sep 29, 2006 04:02 PM