Why is David Greenberg slamming President Carter, "Good Jimmy, Bad Jimmy," in the Washington Post?

"On election day, 1980, when voters roundly rejected Carter, leaving the Democratic party in its worst shape since the 1920s, Bad Jimmy seemed destined to prevail."

skip

"Then, last year, Bad Jimmy returned. He gathered the kindling of Good Jimmy's name, doused it with the gasoline of Middle East politics and ignited it all with the spark of his long-simmering animosity toward Israel. After the publication of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, which compared the Mideast's sole liberal democracy (in which an Arab holds a Cabinet post) to racist South Africa, Good Jimmy's hard work lay in ashes."

What is his agenda or background that compels him to do a smear job, I'm guessing he may have some beliefs in common with Lieberman. I would like to know so I can better appraise the validity of his diatribe against a great American.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101101978.html

that people are all the same and we have to look deeper to understand conflict and not just call them our enemy.

It's simple to figure out, when one realizes that media owners are part of the plutocracy.

n/t

with the terrorists and used the hostages to gain access to the White House. We will ignore that Carter spoke the truth and simply focus on how uncomfortable we feel when he speaks it.

Seems David Greenberg has gone over to the dark side and is just another voice in the idiotic corporate smear machine.

Go toward the light Greenberg.

The truth of it gets buried, even when they should know better.

Carter did the job of good father. He wanted Americans to be good citizens, not just talk about it.

He wanted us to lower our energy use, consider that other people had rights. We, as a people, just wanted to hear we were wonderful and anybody who said otherwise was a mean person who didn't matter.

Carter wanted us to eat our veggies and be healthy. Reagan promised dessert instead of spinach.

President Carter has nothing to do with it.
(btw, i distictly remember the hullabaloo in the pigmedia over Carter's 1979 budget, which ran a $58 billion deficit. It was front page news, the disaster highlighted with every newscast- Carter was bankrupting America, even while mideast thugs held embassy employees hostage in revolutionary Iran, while Carter just hohummed, the pignews said. SO Carter lost, reagan won with 37 percent of the vote, a 'huge landslide'. At the end of Carter, the national debt was 1 trillion! The horror, the HORROR! Yet reagan had a $200 billion deficit right away, the first of many...by the time reagan left, the natdebt was, hohum, $2.6 trillion. And that news never got off page 2 in the financial section.
Why, in such a country as this, with liars running the newsmedia, damaging the earth, cannot SOMEONE just use lexisnexis record to exhibit the blatant pro piggy bias in just that one story? The repukes ran up the nat debt by deceit and trickery after the pigmedia defrauded the public by destroying the Carter presidency, which they're still doing...) maybe if the record was kept in mind a bit, such whores as greenberg and washpost would peddle their arses sonmewhere else

Carter that builds houses and monitors elections overseas. The Bad Jimmy is the Jimmy Carter that dares to speak up on behalf the Palestinians. Can't have that in the U$A.