From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
The Bushies "willfull negligence"

December 16, 2004 9:24 AM

Arianna's got a great column out this morning on what our troops want for Christmas.

"the only reason Rumsfeld still has a job. Iraq is Bush’s signature offering to the world -- and firing Rummy would be like McDonald’s deciding to pull the Big Mac off its menu."

It's interesting how she frames the broadside attack on the Bushies willfull negligence in Iraq as a Democratic political call-to-arms. A Republican would never do that, they'd just rip into the opposition, and not telegraph up front that it's all politics.

"If there is one thing Democrats should have learned from Karl Rove during this year’s election, it is the value of relentlessly attacking — day in and day out — your opponent’s perceived strength."

The big difference here, is Rove will go after an opponent's "perceived" strength even if it is really and truly a strength. Democrats don't have the balls for that.

Not yet.

More from the archive in Incompetence, Politics, War and Peace.

The Bushies "willfull negligence" (12.16.2004)

Next Entry: Finally, the Neocons have had it with Rummy (12.17.2004)
Previous Entry: Target donates 3X more than Wal-Mart (12.13.2004)

Read the 33 comments.

Right Wing Robby:

Heres a christmas message for our troops.

Please accept without obligation, express or implied, these best wishes for an environmentally safe, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, and gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday as practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice (but with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or for their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all) and further for a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated onset of the generally accepted calendar year (including, but not limited to, the Christian calendar, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures). The preceding wishes are extended without regard to the race, creed, age, physical ability, religious faith or lack thereof, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee(s).


Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House") a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g., stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive at sometime thereafter. The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein vision of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as ("I"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the party of the second part (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g., kerchief and cap.

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e., the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter "the Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter "the Deer"). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional co- conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items.

He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stocking of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts." Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim: "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!" Or words to that effect.

Think the ACLU will be okay with that or should I hire a lawyer?

Thu Dec 16 2004 12:22 PM

Tom from Madison:

I believe Bill O'Reilly has a special Arabic Christmas giftpack for all female military personnel deployed in Iraq:

1 Loofah
1 Falafel MRE
4 D Cells

It is assumed by Bill [aka the Falafel King] that all female enlisted personnel will have the necessary hardware to accomodate the D cells.

Thu Dec 16 2004 1:59 PM

Tom from Madison:

Seriously folks,

Democrats have a huge opportunity to go on the offensive with the mismanagement of the Iraqi war. Bush has put at risk the perceived strength of the Republicans in the use of the military. As Kerry said, this war is being fought on the cheap without enough supplies, troops or preparation.

All of this happened because the architects, guys like Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, don't know anything about planning a war or an occupation. They really don't know how to keep the peace among Iraq's many feuding factions.

The use of contractors adds another dimension to the same opportunity for Democrats. Taxpayers are being ripped off by no-bid contracts. Contracting personnel are being kidnapped and killed because the profit motive seems to be more important than the actual liberation of the people there.

Thu Dec 16 2004 2:27 PM

Right Wing Robby:

Dear Tom,

The people of the United States of America just had a vote that headlined that very issue. Guess what they decided?

It is funny how the left thought that Bill was finished when his little scandal broke. His show is STILL the number one news show on cable.

You just cant win anything can you?

Thu Dec 16 2004 3:08 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Just goes to prove a point. Actually disprove is more like it. Every right wing sheep in the audience who has the audacity to suggest the media is left. It's only as left as the rightwingers who own it.

I would kill to see a documentary on the Office of Special plans on CNN presents, or 20/20, Dateline, etc... never gonna happen. Saw one on the CBC here. Very insightful, actually showed how Cheney looks to be the one in charge. How's about a TV special on the lead up to the war, the arguments presented as the causes beli for the war, and the subsequent truths revealed? ABC, NBC, FOX? any takers. Any media outlet want to do some soulsearching and retrospect on the blind obedience to the Pentagon disinformation reports?

America voted the way it did because the supposed "LEFT" media reported "RIGHTWING" news and soundbites supporting the presidents actions instead of blasting his policies, directions and decisions.

Hey RWR. It is funny that Bill is still #1 "news" show on cable.(considering he's not real news). It shows many things.
1. The right will forgive their own. (Our bill can have sex scandals, their Bill should be impeached)
2. Fox viewers are the least educated of all network viewers (hence the election results i suppose)
3. Bill O'Reilly is still a pathological lying bitch. And you uber-righties still hang off his every word.

"You just cant win anything can you?"="Nya nya, my dad can beat up your dad".... RWR can you please grow the F(*& up?

Thu Dec 16 2004 4:05 PM

Tom from Madison:

Bill O'Reilly is the perfect propagandist for simpletons who need pre-digested news mixed in with tabloid featurettes and occasional nudie ads for Murdoch's porno biz. The 'Factor' is to real news what pro-wrestling is to athletics.

This stuff is entertaining if you are devoid of intellectual curiosity or if you simply are full of hate and get off at predictable, staged liberal bashing.

Our last election proved that propaganda can work sometimes; especially if you can assemble a coalition of the willfully ignorant, self-righteously greedy, and scared senseless.

Mike makes a very good point about those whose primary source is Fox News. They are some of the least informed Americans and some of the most opinionated.

Winning an election by keeping serious discussion of the issues from happening is certainly an amazing accomplishment. However it's nothing to be proud of. Bush's handlers did what they had to do--they won an election without winning a debate and with their candidate facing minimal questioning on the issues. Bush rallies required loyalty oaths to get in. Is that what America is supposed to be all about?

There were also plenty of election shenanigans to suppress voter turn-out where necessary. There is evidence of voter fraud in Ohio, Florida, and other places where verification of votes is difficult or impossible. Republicans have now become the party of voting with no paper trail.

These guys have a lot to be ashamed of. The fact that Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are heroic figures to the right speaks volumes. These folks can't live by the principles they espouse.

Ultimately their lives are pathetic. Do ditto-heads dream of being so rich and powerful that someday they can afford to be divorced 3 times and get away with drug offenses that send poorer people to jail? Or do they dream of marital infidelity with interns while proclaiming "traditionalist", anti-secular values?

In this context, Bush is the perfect President. He has managed to fool >50% of the people once.

Thu Dec 16 2004 9:01 PM

Right Wing Robby:

Your charge that over 50% of the people are fools, is partially why you lost in the first place. You represent whats wrong with the democratic party. You think that saying more than half the voting population ignorant and foolish are good ideas. Only an idiot would believe that will actually win votes.

The people that come here, like you Tom, represent the far far left of a party that is already too left to win an election. George Soros, Michael Moore, the ACLU and some hollywood figures(most recently Chevy Chase calling the President a F@##$%) are pushing people away from democrats.

Tom, your a member of the ACLU right? Why doesnt that surprise me?

The left can either choose to listen to people like Tom who believe insulting the majority is the way to win elections, or they can choose to give voice to people who actually like Americans. How do you claim to love America, when you hate Americans?

This site doesnt reflect normal democrats, they dont frequent places like this. They dont have Michael Moores site in their favorites and they believe the ACLU is way outta control and should leave the boyscouts alone.

Tom, you are so blind to the damage that your type, the Michael Moore type, has done to your own party it amazes me.

So Just remember Tom, with ever word you type, my party gains votes. Thank you.

Thu Dec 16 2004 9:55 PM

Tom from Madison:


To say people have been fooled is not to say they are fools. Do you know the difference? It is also worth noting that corrupt Republicans like Tom DeLay resorted to cheating to win.

The electorate has been fooled before. Nixon did it in 1968 when he said he had a secret plan to win the Viet Nam war. He didn't. Some politicians are very effective liars. Others attach themselves to those who do it for them. Bush did both. Iraq keeps getting worse and forcing Bush to change course. Bush is now doing what Kerry recommended: sending more troops. Too bad Bush wasn't man enough to admit that during the election.

If you think I'll stop dismantling your specious arguments and offering better alternatives, think again. I really enjoy using reason to correct the stench of flatulent dis-information billowing from the pompous right.

A lot of so-called conservatives seem to suffering from amnesia. Remember the Contract with America? It called for a consitutional amendment to balance the budget. I'm not for a balanced budget AMENDMENT, but I am for pay-as-you-go fiscal common sense. I reckon that makes me FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE. Bush is spending your grandkids money by paying for a war on credit. Doesn't that concern you?

If you are feeling particularly brave, please explain why John McCain and Chuck Hagel are making some of the same points I have made concerning the prosecution of the Iraq war and the lack of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld. Certainly they're not in cahoots with Michael Moore, Chevy Chase or the ACLU!

Finally, I am heartened by moderate Republicans who are only luke-warm Bush supporters at best--People like Olympia Snowe and John McCain. Colin Powell even has his moments. Too bad Bush doesn't listen to him and abuses his loyalty.

I plan to keep doing what I'm doing. If guys like RWR don't like it, maybe they can take THEIR talking points elsewhere!

Thu Dec 16 2004 11:28 PM


I think there needs to be a stronger argument besides Billy O'Reiley, Michael Moore, ACLU, and blaming Democrats for the supposed "destruction" of this country.

And I'm getting sick of the whole "majority" issue... IT WASN'T THAT HUGE OF A WIN. GET OVER IT AND STOP USING THAT AS AN ARGUMENT AS WELL.

I think only people far to the right would call people like Tom far to the left, but hey... that's just my opinion.

Thu Dec 16 2004 11:59 PM

Right Wing Robby:


Keep up the good work. You do more for the Republicans than I could ever do. I dont want you to stop. I want you to get a column in the NYT and help Michael Moore make another movie. I want you to shout from the roof tops. Your party is in a downward spiral, and your type is the reason why.

I should take you out to lunch. What will you be having, crow?

Fri Dec 17 2004 6:53 AM

raging red:

"How do you claim to love America, when you hate Americans?"

Funny that this is a paraphrased line from The American President, written by Aaron Sorkin, one of those Hollywood lefties the right loves to blame for everything, while forgetting that the right has a fine crop of wacko extremists who nobody tells to shut the hell up because they're hurting the party.

Fri Dec 17 2004 7:14 AM

Tom from Madison:


thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll keep doing what I do & you can keep enjoying it. Does your lunch taste run to falafel?

There is no shame in losing an election where the other side resorts to lies, deception, fear mongering, and cheating. Progressives will build on the successes we had--Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, Ken Salazar. There is also coalition-building to be done with the likes of Snowe, Jeffords, McCain and principled conservatives like Hagel. The dems are fortunate to have unloaded Zell Miller to Fox news.

Democrats need to speak over and over again about the need for paper trails in voting machines and consistent, real voting rights for all Americans. Plenty of shame on this issue for the right!

Republicans will be held accountable for the loss of life and budget mess their policies have caused. Certain segments of the electorate, like Black voters, have virtually no import to the Republican Party. Yet Republican policies continue to incarcerate minorities and dis-enfranchise them at ridiculous rates while fat cats like Rush Limbaugh violate the law without consequence.

Republicans, even some neo-cons, are already starting to distance themselves from the Bush administration. Bill Kristol, Trent Lott, Chuck Hagel, and John McCain have all expressed displeasure with Donald Rumsfeld. This DoD has been a disaster for Americans of every political persuasion. Billions of $ have been wasted due to give-aways to Haliburton, Bechtel et al. The right keeps looking the other way as these companies are stealling money from taxpayers.

It is important for progressives to keep reminding the voting public that we stand for accountablity. This is Bush's achilles heal. He has made a ton of mistakes & admitted none. This WILL come back to haunt the Republicans.

So what does RWR think about Rummy? Should he stay or should he go now?

Fri Dec 17 2004 8:32 AM


"If there is one thing Democrats should have learned from Karl Rove during this year’s election, it is the value of relentlessly attacking — day in and day out — your opponent’s perceived strength."

So what was Kerry's perceived strength? Marrying rich women or the ability to stand on both sides off any issue?

Mon Dec 20 2004 6:55 AM

Tom from Madison:

Kerry didn't realize that rich people shouldn't act like rich people if they expect to get elected president. Kerry is basically a what you see is what you get kind of guy--a smart, well-educated, aristocratic, Viet Nam vet.

Bush on the other hand is a born rich, legacy-admitted academic screw-up, AWOL, dried-out drunk, recovered druggie, Connecticut Yankee New Englander who learned how to talk Texan and generally ran away from his silver-spoon roots.

If you're willing to sell your soul to the likes of Karl Rove and the religious right, you can go all the way to the White House.

Mon Dec 20 2004 8:08 AM


Academic screw up?

If I recall Kerry applied for and was rejected from the Harvard Law School while Bush was accepted into the Harvard Business School. As for the claim he was smarter - try and back it up. Like his military records Kerry refused to release his academic and his medical records. What else was he attemting to conceal in this "What you see is what you get" as he hid behind a curtain of secrecy in declaring most of his personal records "off limits"? Even his SAT records are still a secret.

Don't even open the AWOL story, Kerry has his own missing reserve drills to answer for.

Mon Dec 20 2004 10:07 AM

Tom from Madison:

I said Kerry was smart. I say so based on his ability to use correct grammar, multi-syllabic vocabulary, and communicate in original, well-developed thoughts. Kerry also understands what science is and how it might be useful.

As for Bush's intellect, he doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to oratory. He seems to have missed lessons he could put into practice when it comes to attending Harvard Business School. I understand his academic record was less than stellar. As an oil man, he seemed to specialize in drilling dry holes and hooking up with other corrupt oil men like Ken Lay.

As to who is actually smarter, I'm not claiming to know. W is certainly wiley in a used car salesman sort of way. I just wouldn't trust him to date my daughter or command my swiftboat. There's no telling what Jesus might tell him to do.

Mon Dec 20 2004 1:50 PM


Well I guess the key words were "opponent’s perceived strength". Kerry had a perceived strengths in foreign policy, decorated veteran, and his experience in the senate. Problem was all those "strengths" fell apart under scrutiny. He had a bad habit of supporting murderous dictators, lousy voting record, and his own shipmates went against him on a 10:1 ratio. Once you stripped away the media applied veneer the weakness showed through.

Frankly I'd rather have a politician wondering what Jesus would do, then wondering what Zogby polls will do.

Mon Dec 20 2004 3:26 PM

Tom from Madison:

Bush's biggest strengths are those that aren't perceived by most. He has the uncanny ability to reverse course and explain it away as inevitable. In 1999 he said he would never engage in Nation-building. Now he says there was no choice. I agree it made sense in Afghanistan, but the job isn't nearly done; abandoned for his real passion: the Iraqi invasion. In Iraq, we are in a ridiculous quagmire with no end in sight.

Bush is the best at avoiding accountabilty for his own actions. He managed to avoid testifying before the 9/11 commitee under oath or alone. 9/11 happened well into his watch with a specific warning--the PDB.

I have to agree that if a politician were to REALLY ask what Jesus would do it would be a great thing. Jesus wouldn't kill innocent people with stray bullets and bombs, wouldn't create human-rights free zones, wouldn't ask soldiers to do what he'd never do himself, wouldn't sanction torture ever, wouldn't lie to justify a war, wouldn't profit from the spoils of war.

After all, Jesus is the Prince of Peace--not to be confused with Mars the God of War.

Tue Dec 21 2004 7:54 AM

Tom from Madison:

Here's a question for the religious right.

Suppose the Rapture is underway and Jesus is walking around Georgia and comes across the School of the Americas.

What do you suppose his reaction will be? Does he have a problem with Nixon's, Reagan's, Bush 41's and W's support of murderous dicatators who were actually trained there? You know guys like Manuel Noriega and Pinochet's son.

Tue Dec 21 2004 9:08 AM


"Jesus wouldn't kill innocent people with stray bullets and bombs, wouldn't create human-rights free zones, wouldn't ask soldiers to do what he'd never do himself, wouldn't sanction torture ever, wouldn't lie to justify a war, wouldn't profit from the spoils of war."

Well, speaking from a religious context...

It would probably be that way if Jesus had His personal preference. However, He gave us free will and we basically suffer from the consequences if it's not in His plan for us. But many also believe this is a "holy war" and maybe it's really a part of Jesus' plan for the world? I don't agree with that, but in terms of religion, it's a popular belief.

And apparently a recent poll on ABC News I just saw showed that over 50% don't approve of the war. That's amazing considering the motivation of the media.

Tue Dec 21 2004 12:00 PM


If Jesus were walking around in Georgia he might stroll up the very road that got Jimmy Carter elected to his first public position as a school board member by pledging to enforce seperation of the races. But I am diverted from yor arguement.

Jesus would be PISSED by the School of Americas, but then since its' been around since 1946 more then a few democrats will get roasted too.

Tue Dec 21 2004 12:39 PM

Tom from Madison:

Nameless one:

you make one very small valid point but miss the forest for the trees. Yes democrats who supported the School of the Americas should be held accountable as well. But the place is EVIL AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN A LONG TIME AGO!

Jimmy Carter's good deeds and overall stellar record on Civil Rights speak volumes about his character. I have to wonder why you seek to impugn his reputation. It makes me think you might have racist motives.

In 1965 Jimmy & Rosalyn Carter publicly took a stand to admit Blacks into their church in Plains. They did this risking the wrath of white racists who beat up his kids and stoned his car. In 1973 Gov. Jimmy Carter signed MLK day into law as an official holiday in Georgia. There are numerous other brave & moral acts that could be cited.

Tue Dec 21 2004 2:00 PM


Jimmy Carter's first public office was gained by making issue of the proposed construction of a black school (Georgia didn't have integrated pubic schools back then in case you didn't know). Sweat Lovable Jimmy vowed to move the location of the proposed construction so that the white children would not have to suffer the indignity of walking up the same road that black children where walking upon to their own school.

In 1970 Sweet Lovable Jimmy was locked in a no holds barred primary race with Carl Sanders. The race was highlighted by a campaign mailer that depicts his opponent for part owner of the Atlanta Hawks NBA team, at an after-game celebration with two black players pouring champagne over his head. The flyers were even passed out at a Ku Klux Klan rally.

Just a few notes so you know the real Jimmy Carter.

Tue Dec 21 2004 2:25 PM

Tom from Madison:

No name:

Go to:

Here is 2 excerpts. The second is a bit longt:
"...An organization called the White Citizens Council was formed to maintain the segregated status quo in the South, and its membership blossomed across the region—including Plains, Georgia. Carter was heavily pressured to join the organization in 1958, and was the only white male in Plains to refuse. The council's members boycotted Carter's business, but he stubbornly held out and over time, the boycott fizzled out."

"During his two terms in the state senate, Carter earned a reputation as a tough, independent operator. He attacked wasteful government practices and helped repeal laws designed to discourage African Americans from voting. Consistent with his past practice and his deeply held principles, when a vote was held in his church to decide on whether to admit blacks to worship there, the vote was nearly unanimous against integration. Of the three dissenting votes, two were cast by Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter.

In 1966, Carter planned to run for United States Congress. However, a Republican rival announced his candidacy for governor of Georgia, and Carter decided to challenge him. This attempt was a mistake. The civil rights movement had created a conservative backlash in the South ending the solidly Democratic stranglehold on the South. Liberal Democrats like Carter were especially vulnerable. Although he campaigned hard, he finished a poor third in the 1966 Democratic primary. The eventual winner was Lester Maddox, an ultraconservative who proudly refused to allow blacks to enter a restaurant he owned, and who distributed ax handles to white patrons as a symbol of resistance to desegregation required under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Carter was bitterly disappointed by the defeat and was saddled with a substantial debt from it. He began to position himself for the 1970 gubernatorial election almost immediately. In the late 1960s Carter campaigned tirelessly up and down the state.

He campaigned on a platform calling for an end to busing as a means to overcome segregation in public schools. Carter thought that in order to win he would have to capture white voters who were uneasy about integration. Consequently, he minimized appearances before African American groups, and sought the endorsement of several avowed segregationists, including Lester Maddox. The leading newspaper in the state, the Atlanta Constitution, refused to endorse him, and described him as an "ignorant, racist, backward, ultra-conservative, red-necked South Georgia peanut farmer." The strategy worked, however, and with the support of rural farmers, born-again Christians, and segregationist voters, Carter forced a runoff election and won with 49 percent of the vote."

No matter how Jimmy Carter began his career, he ended up being a MAJOR SUPPPORTER of Civil Rights. To say otherwise is to misrepresent history.

Wed Dec 22 2004 6:52 AM

Tom from Madison:

From the same source as above
[ ]:

"The new governor's inaugural address surprised many Georgians by calling for an end to segregation, and received national attention for it. By and large, Carter governed as a progressive and reformer. During Carter's term as governor of Georgia, he increased the number of African American staff members in Georgia's government by 25 percent."

As I said before, look at his record. He walked the progressive talk and unltimately moved Georgia away from racism.

Wed Dec 22 2004 7:06 AM


This was a great thread.

Thu Dec 23 2004 6:48 AM


Carter's back flip AFTER being being elected governor only adds to his reputation as the Kama Sutra of politics. He'd play any issue to his advantage as long as there was a payoff to him.

His unilateral grain embargo against the Soviets was his last major whore like straddle. Sweet Lovable Jimmy had no problem trying to gain political advantage by showing he was tough on the Soviets while putting it to the ever smaller population (and smaller voting numbers) of farmers. He knew the actual damage to the Soviets would be minimal, our "freinds and allies" Argentina, Australia and Brazil happily stepped in and took over US sales - a blow American farmers have never to recovered from. During the destruction of American agriculture other industries - namely IBM - continued trading with the Soviets with no restrictions. The reason for mentioning IBM specifically is that the Soviets neeeded their computers (best in the world at the time) for missile developement. Sweet Lovable Jimmy was fucking the farmers while sucking off the big business. Jimmy's biggest problem was that like a cheap whore he wasn't very good in assuming new positions and fell on his face during the complicated ones.

Mon Jan 3 2005 8:25 AM


If you didn't like Carter's grain embargo, you probably really don't like CAFTA [Central American Free Trade Agreement]. NAFTA has been a disaster for the farmer and CAFTA will make it worse.

The person to call very bad names about this one is George W Bush.

Remember, Jimmy Carter was once a real peanut farmer. The closest Bush gets to farming is when he vacations on his fake ranch.

Thu Jan 6 2005 10:27 AM


So Sweat Lovable Jimmy Earl was once a peanut farmer, I don't think the PEANUT sales where effected by his grain embargo either. People have a habit of mistaking his bumbling as a basically honest man overwhelmed by Washington. Instead it was basically a stupid man trying to imitate Tricky Dick and Landslide Johnson without the finesse.

Thu Jan 6 2005 12:25 PM

Tom from Madison:

Stupid, unaccomplished men don't win Nobel prizes.

However they tend to mock people who do.

Fri Jan 7 2005 9:27 AM

Tom from Madison:

From the end of Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

"Ladies and gentlemen:

War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.
From the end of Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace. We can make these changes - and we must.

Thank you."

Sun Jan 9 2005 8:52 PM


Just out of curiosity, what "Peace" did Sweet Lovable Jimmy bring on earth? What big conflict did he settle?

By the way, any crowd that gives Yassar Arafat a peace prize has reduced themselves to a late night joke status.

Mon Jan 10 2005 2:33 PM

Tom from Madison:

The Camp David Accords were a monumental peace effort.

If you're truly curious about peace:

The Nobel Peace Prize

The ways and means to achieve peace are as diverse as the individuals and organizations rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize. Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, shared the first prize in 1901 with Frédéric Passy, leading international pacifist of the time. Aside from humanitarian work and peace movements, the Prize has been awarded to a wide field of work including advocacy of human rights, mediation of international conflicts and arms control and disarmament.

Arafat, Rabin, and Peres were each awarded 1/3 of a Nobel Peace prize in 1994.

Thu Jan 13 2005 9:18 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart