It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Former President Carter States Americans Misled

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I guess Carter knows what the Senate Intelligence Committee members know which the New York Times is publishing tomorrow.

Buckle in.


It's been occurring to me for a couple weeks now... Just over and over in my mind, I hear the phrase, "House of Cards" as regards this administration and the inevitable nosedive ahead for them. Imagine my surprise when I went looking for a photo of a house of cards and found this:





posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Wyredone, you are right. A turd truly is a turd, is a turd. But the message coming from that turd's mouth is a departure and a bit of a shock to American ears. Another President on national television openly criticising a sitting President? Clinton hasn't even chimed in with a thing and he was almost brought down by the Republicans. This is new, but it is also staged.

The PTB couldn't of used Clinton to criticise Bush because Americans would dismiss it as revenge for the Lewinsky debacle. George Snr cant, Reagan's dead so thats him out, so who does that leave the PTB to bring down a spent-force President? Thus propelling the Democrats into a landslide election coming 2008? Carter

Now his comments are designed to railroad popular anger towards the Bush administration. That doesnt mean that people are being switched from loving Bush to hating him. It's just a means of bringing down a President that has outlived his usefulness to the PTB. Carter's comments could pose an opportunity for an unintended backlash though. What would happen if Americans decided they have had their fill of wars now, pre-emptive or otherwise? Wouldn't that knacker any future manouvers for resources by the PTB?

Carter's comments shouldn't be ignored, shunned or ridiculed. They should be seized upon by those who know the comments are staged. They should be hijacked from their intended goal by the decent folk of America and made into a weapon to bludgeon the old system the PTB have rended in twain. Carter has shown America it is in trouble, he's done it in the hope they might jump out of the pan and into the fire. How about America jumps further and lands on the bench. They've shown their underbelly now finish them off instead of being blinded by their partisan hypnotics.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I barely remember Carter in office so I can say little about the effectiveness of his presidency. I can say that he seems a very devoted Christian who saw faith as a personal expression. He is a man who has dedicated his life after office to helping the poor in the US and the world. He has also helped ensure democracy around the world by monitoring elections in dozens of nations.

Seems like he is what we want in an ex-president. A devoted man, focused on those less fortunate and willing to speak his mind when needed. This outdated policy of not criticizing a sitting president is ridiculous. If there is a reason to do so, they should. They should have spoken against Clinton for lying under oath, they should have spoken against Reagan for ignoring aids and selling arms to terrorist.

Maybe if they spoke out more often Americans could make a better decision when they enter the voting booth.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Lets take a look at the things Carter didnt do while in the oval office.
Have a affair with a intern and lie to the American public on TV.
Start a war and then have no plan for the post war occupation.
Put the interests of private sector ahead of people.
Didnt use the CIA to spy on other political partys.
Need I go on?
Carter seems to get blamed for all the blunders of admins before him.
Jimmy Carter just didnt show up in the Whitehouse he was elected by the American people.


[edit on 5-11-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Carter may not be the proper forum to decry this war, but, however, it does stand that his intent is brought upon by some serious unrest in the political machination of America. Republicans themselves seem to have pivoted a few steps away from this administration, and it does not look like it's going to be easy for the new few years furthermore.

Maybe Carters word could surface some outcry by more political movers and shakers.

Luxifero



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   


A turd truly is a turd, is a turd. But the message coming from that turd's mouth is a departure and a bit of a shock to American ears.


Absolutely. I agree 100%. That's why I refuse to take it at face value. I'm basically a cynic when it comes to believing our government has a soul, or really ever had one, beyond that portrayed in all the various rhetoric.

I love the promises they make, the things they say, we all do. That's why there are no guillotines in the street. It's the accountability thing that bugs me. Basically it doesn't matter what you say in public office, it matters what you do.

And on a different note, I perk my ears up everytime a politician stands up against the status quo and gets his message heard. This, to me, is an indication that the politician has the blessings of his handlers, and whatever is said, whatever lead is set to be followed, has some ulterior motive, or at the very least predictable results (this allows the handlers and those whose interests they represent stay one step ahead of everyone else, thus ensuring domination)

I'm just so fed up with politics and the more than 200 years of bold-faced lies, I'm inclined to trust only myself and people I know personally. Invariably history shows us that when a politician says "we're not doing X" they, in fact, are doing just that. History also teaches that most of the time when a politician (or any powerful public figure, clergy, businessmen, etc.) says "we did X and we're sorry", what they're trying to do is divert the attention of the people away from some larger, more complex issue.

I'm totally biased against politicians, I'm very open about that. I come from a political family, and I have personal as well as professional experience dealing with that sect of society. There is, to be sure, a rotating crop of idealists, but they are almost always either a.) rendered politically impotent by various methods, or b.) converted into shills for the true agenda.

If the system didn't have the balance provided by two parties, the people would invariably revolt every 15 or 20 years. This illusion of choice is just another control mechanism. A few years ago people were speculating (and some still are) that Bush was going to declare himself president for life or some nonsense. I scoffed at them then (and now) because that would be completely counterproductive to the agenda shared by his various backers.

He was always intended to be a fall guy, a temporary straw man to divert attention and ease the transition into the next phase, which will presumably be led by a man quite ostensibly different than Bush. Of course the agendas will be the same, but the tv watching public would never know, because all they will ever hear is promises.

Short attention span takes care of the rest.



Another President on national television openly criticising a sitting President? Clinton hasn't even chimed in with a thing and he was almost brought down by the Republicans. This is new, but it is also staged.


Clinton had the support of the CIA, which means he had the support of the Bush cabal, doesn't that follow?

There was a hint of animosity between this administration and elements of the CIA however...

There are some honest people in government, and in politics..it's just that we don't often hear from them..and when we do..I'm suspect.



The PTB couldn't of used Clinton to criticise Bush because Americans would dismiss it as revenge for the Lewinsky debacle. George Snr cant, Reagan's dead so thats him out, so who does that leave the PTB to bring down a spent-force President? Thus propelling the Democrats into a landslide election coming 2008? Carter


Yeah, that's how it struck me. Everybody respects the guy because of what he does with his time and his money these days. He's a genuinely likable guy, heck even I like him and I barely like anyone.

The two parties play off each other like this, and not only keep independents out, but keep the American people constantly fighting amongst themselves, instead of doing anything about the situation in Washington.



Now his comments are designed to railroad popular anger towards the Bush administration.


Seems like it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats sweep moderate Republican votes by portraying Bush as a criminal mastermind, despite the fact that I've heard chimps use a more versatile vocabulary.

The picture painted just doesn't fit, all the way round.

What led people to elect these criminals in the Frist place? (HA HA) Well, it's quite simple, the people elected the act, not the men. The act was fine, it was specifically tailored to the audience, incorporating advertising expertise into a sort of brainwashing.

That's precisely why I won't trust Carter, or any other career politician. The facts don't speak to a lot of idealists remaining as such for long. Mostly they move on or are incorporated into the plan in various ways. I'm pretty sure Carter is just following his script.



What would happen if Americans decided they have had their fill of wars now, pre-emptive or otherwise? Wouldn't that knacker any future manouvers for resources by the PTB?


Yeah, it could, if people could remember what they had for breakfast, nevermind what the political machinations of 30 years ago were like. Look at the evolution of media, whether music, film, photography, painting, it's evolved to be faster and faster paced, dragging the mind more quickly between ideas, leaving less and less time for contemplation.

The television of today is basically just one long music video. Children raised in this environment develop...ADD or whatever variant. Makes for easy votes, and apathetic voters, and a distracted populace. Politician's Heaven on Earth, basically.



Carter's comments shouldn't be ignored, shunned or ridiculed. They should be seized upon by those who know the comments are staged. They should be hijacked from their intended goal by the decent folk of America and made into a weapon to bludgeon the old system the PTB have rended in twain. Carter has shown America it is in trouble, he's done it in the hope they might jump out of the pan and into the fire. How about America jumps further and lands on the bench. They've shown their underbelly now finish them off instead of being blinded by their partisan hypnotics.


Me personally, I'm a watcher, and a writer, not an activist. Whatever happens, I'll roll with it, it's my philosophy in action. My life and the life of my family is more than enough to occupy my action. My thoughts on the other hand are always with the people of this country, and the people of the world. We have the potential to make a paradise, to recreate the Garden of Eden. What we're doing is quite the opposite.

Basically I believe that if we make the world Hell, we deserve the torture of living in it. If we make it Eden, we deserve the fruits of our labors (which will most likely precipitate yet another fall from grace). The same holds true for this country. Technologically we have the capability to end poverty, hunger, homelessness, and most forms of cancer, but general apathy and outright hedonism allow these plagues to continue, and indeed, to worsen year after year.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

He was a lousy president and he never had a clue how to
defend this country. Seems he still doesn't.


Also, Carter doesn't give a rats backend about the people
in Iraq and how they were being mass exterminated and
mass tortured with Saddam in power.


Ah, so easily are some brainwashed.


If you think Saddam Hussein is/was the only one "exterminating" people, then you've got a lot to learn about other countries.

For example, the same thing has happened and is happening in Saudi Arabia. People are "exterminated" there on a daily basis. But, you wont hear about it, nor will Bush do anything about it because Saudi Arabia is "on our side".

Hundreds of people are salughtered on a daily basis in East Timor, but you don't see Bush getting all up in arms over it.

Government-sponsored genocide has been going on in Darfur, Africa since 1953...but does Bush care?

Sudan, China, Russia, just about every country in the world (even the US) is guilty of genocide.

So, before you proclaim that we need to be in Iraq because Saddam killed thousands of people, then you need to ask why we aren't in these other countries for the same reason.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
For those of you wondering about the timing of the interview with Jimmy Carter, I think it has more to do with the release of his new book, "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," to be released on Nov. 10. It is not because the Dem’s think the other side is vulnerable, and they brought him out because of current events. I think it is more to promote his book, but I’m sure others will question the timing.

And for those who think both parties are against the people, you could not be more wrong. I think both parties originally had good intentions and values, but arterial forces have changed their intentions. Corporate sponsors back both sides, but the big money is sided on the right. It is not left vs. right, and it is not the people vs. the corporations, it is compassion vs. greed. To bash the other side will not accomplish a thing. You need to identify the enemy in order to fight it.

I also find it ironic that people still support this administration only for fear of finding out they were wrong.


MBF

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Carter has done more good than any other ex-president that I know of. He had done more to prevent wars and put his life in danger more than most people will ever know.

People have criticized him for being a bad president, but he is truely a good honest person.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Sort of. More accurately, iIt's empathy vs. sociopathy. It's respect for others vs. the desire to control others. It's honesty vs. mendacity.

And in all cases, it is indeed politicians vs. the people. The politicians, regardless of their nominal party affiliation, achieve their positions of power specifically because they're mendacious and sociopathic and because they have an all-consuming desire to control the lives of others.

There are indeed some people who genuinely care about others, and there are even some people who, for that reason alone, seek political office. But those people rarely rise very high, simply because they generally don't have the requisite skills (lying glibly and convincingly, betraying former allies, kissing ass for donations, sacrificing the freedoms and even the lives of ordinary people...) to do so. Even assuming that there might be some few people who not only genuinely care about people, but who could climb the political ladder, they would certainly be destroyed by the rest of the politicians, who can't afford to have anyone in their midst who is unwilling to play the duplicitous game they play.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Yep, I do agree with all of the above, but greed goes hand in hand with power. The use of power is not just to control people; it is to manipulate things in order for special interests to increase the bottom line.

So what happens to politicians when they are put out to pasture? In the case of Jimmy Carter, he does what he can for a cause that actually helps some people. I think this speaks volumes, and shows what type of person he really is.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Greed does indeed go hand in hand with power, but I honestly believe that, for the most part, professional politicians are not specifically greedy-- at least not in the traditional sense. They work for people who are greedy.

If the people who become politicians really were greedy, they'd stay in private practice law, which pays FAR better, even accounting for the alternative sources of income that most politicians enjoy. The fact that they choose to give up their law careers in order to work and scheme harder than they ever have in their lives in order to win a position that pays far less is, to me, one of the clearest indicators that it is indeed, at least for most of them, about the accumulation and application of power.

Granted-- there are exceptions. Cheney is one for whom it is almost certainly more about greed; or maybe more accurately power as expressed by wealth. For Clinton it seemed to solely be about winning elections. I think that he had the sort of nebulous views on policy issues that he had because ideology didn't really matter to him, nor did the application of power-- he simply wanted to be president. For Reagan it was all about the glory and the fame. For Bush Sr. it certainly was about power, but even in him that quest for power was sort of diluted. The person who really craved power was his father, Prescott, who deliberately set about creating a political dynasty. For Bush Jr. it's even less about power and more about family duty. I don't think he ever really wanted to be president-- it was expected of him. It's what he was groomed for.

Then there's Carter...

Either he is a genuinely decent and honorable man who sincerely cares about others and got into politics to help others, or he's the most cunning and duplicitous person to have held office at least in my lifetime. He appears to be sincere, but I find it nearly impossible to believe that he truly could be, considering not only the fact that he successfully ran for president, but that he has connections to all of the traditional sources of true power in this country, such as the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

I sincerely don't know...

Regardless though-- to get back sort of on topic-- while it's apparently significant and surprising that a former president has come out and directly criticized a sitting president, it can't possibly be without the approval of the powers-that-be. I maintain that if Carter is publicly criticizing Dubya, it's because the power structure has no more use for Dubya and they're jettisoning him.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the timing does indeed have something to do with Carter's forthcoming book, as another poster has pointed out, but, even then, he must have had the approval of the PTB. That's just the way the system works. Politicians who overstep their authority tend to find themselves embroiled in a scandal, or marginalized, or dead.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join