« Tell The Kids! | Main | Every Man an Ayatollah »
Treason Watch
Deacon of Power Line likes the idea of "a blogosphere that watches over the federal government" to guard against corruption, etc. Hopefully, he'll be encouraging his colleague Hindrocket to share his evidence that Jimmy Carter is "on the other side" in the war on terrorism. My understanding is that former presidents retain certain security clearances and the right to receive briefings about classified intelligence. If Carter is, indeed, a traitor, this is a rather serious problem that his accusers should be addressing in a serious way. Or is it possible that they're just low-grade smear-artists?
UPDATE: Thanks to Praktike for drawing my attention to the commissioning of the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter.
February 16, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83457c73969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Treason Watch:
» S L A N D _ R from Night Light
It turns out there’s a connection between Pat Sajak and Hindrocket, the blogger who essentially accused Jimmy Carter of treason. Hindrocket is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, where Sajak and a number of corporate executives are on the Bo... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 16, 2005 3:58:48 PM
» "Treasonous prick" from QandO
I tend to agree with Yglesias, in the sense that such hyperbole is destructive. And while I won't defend Hinderaker -- a thing I am, based on our previous interactions, not [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 16, 2005 4:34:26 PM
» Jimi Carter from Grammar.police
Given the fact that the Times magazine blog of the year saw fit to imply that Jimmy Carter was a traitor to his nation today, you'd think that former President Carter had burned a flag, performed three gay marriages on... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 16, 2005 11:29:42 PM
Comments
You know, every time I read Hindrocket's latest charge that person X or paper Y has "defamed" him, I can't help but recall this very comment of his. He's got some significant dish/take issues to work through. (Hardly a unique failing among blogospherians, of course.)
Posted by: von | Feb 16, 2005 3:18:32 PM
His enthusiastic embrace of torture and presidential royalism amounts to self-defamation.
Posted by: praktike | Feb 16, 2005 3:22:29 PM
But wait, I thought Bush was an Iranian agent?
As I said in the prior thread, isn't the truth just that MY is funny and Hindrocket isn't?
Posted by: space | Feb 16, 2005 3:28:31 PM
I do know that GWB's grandfather Prescott Bush was a confirmed traitor: the Senator continued financing the Nazi regime until October 1942, when his bank was seized by the US Government, a year into treason. He was a lucky, lucky bastard.
Posted by: John Isbell | Feb 16, 2005 3:34:17 PM
I don't think he was joking, space.
In any case, Carter (or his Center), um, wasn't there so they couldn't really certify the elections.
Posted by: praktike | Feb 16, 2005 3:34:53 PM
Lynn Stewart, OTOH, can probably fairly be called a traitor.
But this FrontPageRag piece from one of the other Powerliners goes too far, as usual:
CCR proudly notes on its Web site that it is asking the United States government for proof that Guantanomo detainees are not being tortured.
How odd.
Posted by: praktike | Feb 16, 2005 3:37:41 PM
"on the other side" does not mean treason. I think it can be fairly said that Ward Churchill is on the other side, but not that he has commited treason. Hindrocket probably believes that Carter wanted the Iraqi elections to be a complete disaster. I think an "on the other side" characterization is plausible if that were true, but it does not by any means suggest treason.
Posted by: Sam | Feb 16, 2005 3:45:29 PM
"[The National Lawyers Guild] was recognized as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party in the United States by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities in 1950."
What a charmingly retro bit of traitor-baiting.
Posted by: travis | Feb 16, 2005 3:46:18 PM
Praktike:
In all honest truth, I think you need a word other than "joking" or "serious" to describe the mindset of movement conservatives who fling these types of wild allegations. Do they actually believe what the facts of what they are saying?
I think facts are literally irrelevant at a certain level. Even if Carter isn't actually working with jihadists in any way that can be objectively demonstrated, he *is* working with them. I think they can work themselves into such a frothing fit that, even if on some level they know reality is otherwise, the refuse to let themselves see the truth.
This is how they can go ape-shit on people like Richard Clarke or Sandy Berger - people who have put in decades of service protecting the country - without the slightest bit of guilt. Berger *really was* stuffing papers in his socks...even if he wasn't.
Posted by: space | Feb 16, 2005 3:47:13 PM
he'll be encouraging his colleague Hindrocket to share his evidence that Jimmy Carter is "on the other side" in the war on terrorism
I still want to know why Matthew believes that the information that Hindrocket presented in his post does not count as "evidence"?
It seems to me that Hindrocket presented more than sufficient evidence to back up his allegation.
Posted by: Al | Feb 16, 2005 3:48:09 PM
Al, is this Hindrocket's evidence?
Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said."
Posted by: theCoach | Feb 16, 2005 3:55:13 PM
The Washington Times is sure my source for the truth.
Posted by: deckko | Feb 16, 2005 3:58:22 PM
Well, I guess now we have an idea of what constitutes evidence in Al's mind.
Posted by: Dan | Feb 16, 2005 3:58:41 PM
Coach: yeah, along with the rest of the post, which discussed how Carter (and his center) hadn't said anything at all about the Iraqi elections. Seems to me to be pretty good evidence that Carter (among others) didn't want the elections in the first place and were disappointed that they went off well. Hence the "on the other side" charge.
Posted by: Al | Feb 16, 2005 3:59:31 PM
BTW - reading Deacon's piece, I was astonished to find out that some people believe that bloggers and other people who post things on the Internet should be treated like real, genuine reporters. Somebody alert Jeff Gannon! (Sorry, 'Gannon'.)
Posted by: Al | Feb 16, 2005 4:02:49 PM
It's not so much what people do or don't do in objective reality, it's whether their words/actions can be depicted as hurting patriotic morale/"giving comfort to the enemy" which drives the treason rhetoric. Viz, the CNN guy at Davos - the treason police measure the extent of his betrayal against some imagined subversion of the national(ist) psyche.
Posted by: travis | Feb 16, 2005 4:03:12 PM
"Carter (among others) didn't want the elections in the first place and were disappointed"
Extending the thought, the absence of speech/action apparently also measures the extent of their betrayal. Strange how all of this depends on arcane powers to read minds.
Posted by: travis | Feb 16, 2005 4:06:25 PM
So, Al, should Carter's security clearances be withdrawn or downgraded and his briefings stopped?
Never mind.
Good going, Matt. You are getting trackbacks. This is what must be done, and the way it must be done. I hope it filters up to MSM ("Leading Republican Blog calls Pres Carter a Traitor"), but if not, it may affect the dynamics of the blogosphere.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 16, 2005 4:07:38 PM
Funny that this came down the pike today.
Posted by: praktike | Feb 16, 2005 4:15:36 PM
yeah, along with the rest of the post, which discussed how Carter (and his center) hadn't said anything at all about the Iraqi elections.
So, wait, is silence opposition, or is silence assent? Or is it, maybe, just plain silence.
Posted by: cmdicely | Feb 16, 2005 4:27:57 PM
Shouldn't Hindrocket resign or be fired, from whatever kind of job he has, for making unsubstantiated charges? I thought that was what the bloggo-sphere internets was all about. Someone say something stupid and all the rest of the internets then get to come down on them, and they have to resign or get fired.
Hmmm, I'm dissapointed that this isn't happening fast enough. Maybe we need more bandwidth.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 16, 2005 4:44:47 PM
Steve, I think it was "Deacon," and, no, he isn't going to resign.
Posted by: praktike | Feb 16, 2005 4:54:15 PM
So, wait, is silence opposition, or is silence assent? Or is it, maybe, just plain silence.
Insufficient enthusiasm for the new civic religion constitutes treason. When was it that the emperor was made a god again?
Posted by: paperwight | Feb 16, 2005 5:04:34 PM
Insufficient enthusiasm for the new civic religion constitutes treason.
No, insufficient enthusiasm mught simply indicate that you are just not, you know, enthusiastic. And why would you be enthusiastic if you were on the other side?
Posted by: Al | Feb 16, 2005 5:29:18 PM
Maybe one is not enthusiastic about your fucked up notion that one position vs. every other position constitutes a "your side"/"my side" distinction.
Posted by: TJ | Feb 16, 2005 5:47:29 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
