You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Deranged Dhimmi Carter re-writes history
2004-10-19


Hardball (ha ha!) with Chris Matthews

*snipped (intro and leading question from the Chrisco Kid)

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. (emphasis added)
Oh. My. God. How could a former Commander-in-Chief be this ignorant? Every school child should know that more that more than 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War and more than 400,000 in WW2. Other than American combat deaths, figures on fatalities during the Revolution are hard to come by, but historians agree that they were fewer than 30,000, counting civilians and all combatants, and probably little more than half that.
Even if Carter's absurd contention about the Revolution were true, how is this the worst only "up until recently"? Is he trying to pull a Zinn/Goebbels Big Lie and suggest that the present war is the bloodiest in our history? In no time at all, lefty professo-liars and NEA drones will probably be telling their students exactly that, and using Carter as a source.
It gets worse:

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.

*snipped (no challenge from Matthews)
Posted by:Atomic Conspiracy

#19  The title of this post is about Carter rewriting history, but he's not the only one. The following quote is from the Hardball transcript: "When you look back on when 50 Americans were taking hostage by the Iranian so-called students, you must have thought about this so many years and so many times since then. Have you ever thought of a way you could have ended that? Could going to war have worked or that just would have been a holocaust? Do you ever think through alternative ways of approaching that horror which may have cost you the presidency?"

I listened to the show and what Matthews actually said was "Arab" students. I was yelling at my radio "No wonder you guys did such a lousy job on Iran! Don't you know that Iranians are not Arabs?"
Posted by: Tibor   2004-10-19 11:13:56 PM  

#18  I hope to one day leave a fragrant reminder of my take on Jimmy's tenure as Pres and Ex-Pres....hopefully on his grave. He's shit all over America his grown life and I just want to return the favor - call it editorial opinion
Posted by: Frank G   2004-10-19 10:51:13 PM  

#17  Don't forget that Carter set up the current world Jihad by letting a mad Mullah (supported by France) overthrow the Shah of Iran and then kidnap our people without doing anything but sulking in a Rose Garden. Jimmy boy has no right to say anything. He is at FAULT!

Then he setup the Afganistan Islamic fight against Russia with no exit plan to take care of the fanatics afterwords. (Granted afterwords was Bush 41 but by then Islamic Jihad was well trained and nasty.)
Posted by: 3dc   2004-10-19 10:48:02 PM  

#16  Thanks for the clarification.

I now remember that the 'Taxation without representation' thing was about the colonies not having any representation in parliament.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-10-19 10:46:41 PM  

#15  Great image, Fred! :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-10-19 10:31:53 PM  

#14  Carters brain must be rotting. Chris Mathews should have called him on that. The bloody war the US fought is bull shit too. It is no wonder I quit watching him years ago.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2004-10-19 10:23:11 PM  

#13  For accuracy's sake, these "totals" figures are from Volume III (ppg 1040) of Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy:

Dead: 623,026
Wounded: 471,427
----------------
1,094,453

"Approximately one out of 10 able-bodied Northerners was dead or incapacitated, while for the South it was one out of four, including her noncombatant Negroes." - Foote

And that was a family squabble, American-style.
Posted by: .com   2004-10-19 10:22:44 PM  

#12  CF, Britain was a Monarchy but you don't think the German on the throne paid for it, do you? That was what parliament was for, to raise money for the external conquests of the king in such a fashion that there would not be an internal revolt; mainly by cutting the members of parliament in on the king's action, which led to the joint stock company, but that is another chapter.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-10-19 10:14:27 PM  

#11  Parliament was around, and had been for hundreds of years. It had the power to levy taxes, and since none of the colonies had representation in Parliament, they thought they could fund the government on the backs of the Americans.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-10-19 10:10:49 PM  

#10  Dementia seems to have set in early for Jimmuh.
Does anyone else remember this amazing gaffe from Carter's Presidency?

Jimmy Carter delivered a memorable oration at the funeral of former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee Hubert Horatio Humphrey in 1978.
"One of our nation's greatest leaders," Carter momentously declared, "was Hubert Horatio Hornblower..."


Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2004-10-19 10:08:57 PM  

#9  I am not up on my British History - and I will certainly not even pretend to be since there are British folks here who probably know much more in their pinky then I know in my whole body but...

Wasn't England a monarcy during the revolutionary war? What is all this talk about the British Parliment?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-10-19 10:04:23 PM  

#8  Unnecessary, was it, Jimmuh?
Imagine this:
Could Lord Randolph Churchill really have married Jenny Jerome of New York if she had been a subject commoner rather than a citizen of a foreign country? I think not. He would have ended up with some thin-blooded girl of his own station, their son would have been a feeble-minded inbred fop rather than Winston Bloody Churchill, noone could have rallied the Brits against Hitler in 1940, and nazis would rule the world today.

Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2004-10-19 9:45:29 PM  

#7  "Dead people live in the cemetary, Mrs. D. Heh heh."

And in Philadelphia, they even vote. Several times in each election, if they can.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-10-19 9:37:33 PM  

#6  Good point, Moose.
Maybe Peanut Boy is evaluating this according to the percentage of survivors at some point during his own lifetime.
When Carter was born, in 1924, there were still a few veterans of the Mexican War (1846-48) alive. There were still thousands of Civil War vets at that time (59 years after Appomattox, about comparable to our present relationship with WW2). The last Civil War veteran, John B. Salling (age 113), didn't pass away till 1959, btw.
That left only the Revolution and the War of 1812 with 100% death rates in 1924. Carter, historian that he is, probably knows that there were more participants in the Revolution, so naturally it qualifies as the bloodiest once the percentage tie causes the determination to accede to absolute numbers.
That completes tonight's lesson in looney left logic.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2004-10-19 9:23:55 PM  

#5  Dead people live in the cemetary, Mrs. D. Heh heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-10-19 9:18:52 PM  

#4  Like all the people in the cemetary?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-10-19 9:03:12 PM  

#3  I think he is basing his statement on the fact that every, single American who fought in the Revolutionary War died.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2004-10-19 9:01:40 PM  

#2  Worse about his ignorance than that he was a former CinC is that he is a graduate of the Naval Academy. Presumably America's wars were covered in the curriculum.

Certainly the worst war in total blod spilled was the civil war but the worst proportionately was King Philip's War
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-10-19 8:52:14 PM  

#1  So implicitly Peanut thinks that the president most comparable to W is George Washington. I'm down with that, as I think my son would say.

You can just imagine Peanut counselling Washington on the banks of the Delaware in December 1776.:

"General, this is rash. We must first seek permission from Ye Olde United Nations. Besides, those are crack German troops over there, and all you've got are stupid, provincial Americans who don't even have passports. At least let me speak to their commander and tell him we intend to attack. Where are you going, General?"

Or you could imagine that famous non-painting: "Kerry Hesitates to Cross the Delaware" or "Kerry Crosses the Delaware Halfway."
Posted by: Matt   2004-10-19 8:51:45 PM  

00:00