Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Jimmy Carter: There you go again
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, August 17, 2006

Ronald Reagan had a pretty good line when he used it on old JC back in those presidential debates. I always thought of it as akin to saying "here he is with the same old song and dance." And, amazingly, that's precisely what we have from Mr. Carter.

At the risk of being called a petulant Bush-defending libertarian again, let's start with this and let the arbiter of all things 'moral', Mr. Carter, set the stage:

Show/Hide

Now you just have to be ignorant about recent history to buy into this tripe about "commitment[s] to peace instead of preemptive war".

Our country most certainly hasn't always had a policy of "going to war only when our security was directly threatened". Recent examples: Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Haiti (even though it was finally avoided the intent was there). Not one of those wars involved a real threat to "our security". What most of them did, however, was remove a nasty dictator or tyrant of some sort or another who'd had the temerity to tweak the US's nose. And in the case of Bosnia, not even that was true. But threaten our security? Not a chance.

So on its face, Mr. Carter's statement is simply disingenuous nonsense and political spin to support his anti-administration agenda. The fact that Mr. Carter didn't have the gonads to actually do what was necessary to free our hostages in Iran or face down the USSR for its invasion of Afghanistan leaves him little in the way of a credible voice in what is or isn't a true threat to our security and how we should act.

Show/Hide

Hey, all Hezbollah wanted was to get a few prisoners back, so what's the bid deal? They kill a few IDF soldiers and kidnap a couple. How dare Israel respond?

True to the ignorant meme which claims to understand what proportionality actually means - when obviously they don't - Carter contends that the Israeli response was disproportionate. For a president who spent his thankfully sort time in office caving into every tyrant in sight, I can certainly understand where he's coming from. I don't at all agree with him, but it's nice to see consistency even among those who haven't a clue.

Show/Hide

Simply a preposterous lie easily debunked with a quick Google search.

I know, I know ... why do I spend such time on a boob like this? Well here's a clue:

Show/Hide

That's why.

If he is indeed our "moral conscience", God help us all. And if it is true "the vast majority of Democrats ... completely agree" with him, that puts us in a very dangerous place.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Maybe he represents a majority of Democrats, but maybe there are fewer Democrats than he thinks. Perhaps the party is shrinking? I think that if I were a Democrat and found myself ’represented’ by Jimmy Carter, the Kossacks, Michael Moore, Ned Lamont, et al I would seriously consider calling myself something other than Democrat.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
McQ I turn my back on you and NO you may not come to my house EVER for dinner, your children may not play with MY children (if I had any). You sir are in the Tank for the Republicans and I Shun and Ostracize you. you are certainly not MY opinion of Libertarian.

Don’t make me taunt you again....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Jimmy Carter - the highest ranking useful idiot in American History"

I’m thinking that would be a good title for a biography of him.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
the highest ranking useful idiot in American History"
Useful???? Useful to despots and terrorists I guess, but not for much else.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
You’ve been called the moral conscience of your country
*SHUDDER*

Where’s a giant rabbit when you need one?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
meagain,

read up on your Lenin
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
What a priceless ass Carter is. It boggles the mind that this man ever sat in the White House. One can imagine what the country would be like if he were at the helm on 09/11. We’d be having daily Koran readings in the Rose Garden by now.
 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://gabbleratchet.blogspot.com
QandO and Fox News seem to be the only shills for Israel remaining on Earth. Do you people even read a newspaper? McQ’s honors for dead USA meatshields who died for Zionism and Oil is pathetic. Carter is only now exposing Israel for what it has always been...a parasite.
 
Written By: gilt
URL: http://
Gilt,
"Mein Fuhrer my legs are cured and I can valk again!"-Dr. Strangelove, thank you for your input and please feel free to come and visit us again.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
QandO and Fox News seem to be the only shills for Israel remaining on Earth.
Aw shucks, I have to share this honor with Fox News?

And here I thought we had the market cornered among petulant Bush-defending libertarians.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
meagain,

read up on your Lenin
Thanks ChrisB. Duly noted.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
QandO and Fox News seem to be the only shills for Israel remaining on Earth.
Aw shucks, I have to share this honor with Fox News?
Well, QandO apparently rates above Little Green Footballs, and that’s got to count for something.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Well, QandO apparently rates above Little Green Footballs, and that’s got to count for something.
Heh ...

In actuality, "gilt" is none other than our favorite anti-semite, "Book Adams" here for another run at attempted trolling. So I’ll be occupied zapping his comment garbage until he tires of it again and goes elsewhere to spread his hate.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
petulant Bush-defending libertarians.
Isn’t the Greenwald slur, buth cult authoritarians?

Damn, now we will have 20 comments from Mona. sigh ...
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Carter is in a way welcome news for Bush. Even Carter was able to roam the world as a failed President for the last 25 years and pontificate...get invited to gatherings and all..though pointedly not invited on the Tsunami "Former Presidents" Relief Effort.

Bush is worried that he will go down as "worse than Carter", "almost as bad as Harding". Even, given he was allowed to bungle longer than Harding and do more damage...might be sweating he will be living in Crawford next to the "President GWB Memorial Illegal Alien Camp #4" with 400,000 people in it, sited there somewhat against Dubya’s wishes by Americans, in honor of his greatest legacy. Then one day wake up, chase stray illegals away from his triple chained exercise bike after they stole his wife and dog months earlier...and read in the Spanish Nueva Waco newspaper that historians now say he "did more damage to the country than Carter and Harding put together".

Everything Carter does post-Presidency forestalls Bush’s plummet to the nadir of awful Presidents. He might get Bush to at least be able to one day look people in the eye and say he as "equal to Carter" anyday...not worse.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Jimmy Carter is the single person most responsible for the current state of the middle east. Provided the democrats don’t succeed at stopping the war machine prematurely Bush won’t repeat Carters success at creating another islamic nation.
 
Written By: Mac
URL: http://
I am not a hater, by nature, in fact I condemn hatred in general. However, I am only a poor human and I have to say I HATE that man, Hate, loath, and despise.

He is without doubt the worst president ever, and the worst ex-president ever.
A man so full of his own hubris he still hates his own nation for rejecting him.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Jimmy Carter is the single person most responsible for the current state of the middle east.
I will never be mistaken as a fan of Jimmy Carter, but that’s a bit of a stretch. He certainly deserves credit for some of the current mess, but some would place a big ol’ helping of blame on the plate of Arthur James Balfour.

 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Bush is worried that he will go down as "worse than Carter", "almost as bad as Harding".

I doubt if he is sweating that. He has a long way to go to be worse than Carter. As for Harding. I suggest you read a little more modern history. Harding got a bum rap. He managed to keep the nation engaged in foreign policy while the mood of the country was decidedly isolationist. He promoted technology and development of the western states. He spoke out very early against hate groups especially the Klan, but was stopped politically from doing anything about it.
His biggest problem was that he turned a blind eye to several crooks in his administration.

 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Carter is at times a little bit of a generalist in his statements, but he’s correct in the basics of everything he’s saying. In many cases it’s not even a question of opinion at all, and where it is, there is an overwhelming consensus about it.

Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis.

Is this perfectly accurate? Have we *always* had that policy? No - for example our interventions in Latin America in the first half of this century. But has it been a founding principle and moral theme of this country from the founding fathers? Yes. And George Bush, for whatever reasons you like, whether you agree with or not, has thrown this principle in the trash. It’s black and white in his National Security Strategy.

What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that’s justified, no.

This is a question of opinion, but McQ posted weeks ago about a set of four-point principles to consider when making military strikes. It’s not hard to build a plausible case along those principles that Israel’s sustained assault on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure in response to a border incident failed those tests.

This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians.

An exaggeration, but also a summary of a blatantly obvious general truth that the Administration has, by relative standards, completely dropped the ball on the Israel-Palestine process. It has treated the peace process with something between maximalist surrealism, unhelpful purist scorn, and open indifference. I just read the same point on the #1 article in the Economist. Carter’s staements here aren’t radical. I bet Chuck Hagel would agree. I bet Anthony Zinni would agree. I bet Condolezza Rice herself would agree.

Three up, three shot down. Carter’s easy to hate. He stands for peace and criticizes America. Perhaps that’s why the level of objectivity and the strength of the subsequent assessments are so particularly weak on this subject.





 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Said this awhile ago, but I still mean it:

On a related topic: The more I hear from Jimmy Carter these days, the more enamored of the man’s leadership I become. 30 years ago, when he was elected, the nation was just not ready to hear what he had to say; but his message, as well as his statesmanship, have come of age. Alternative energies, governmental disclosure and transparency, peace brokering in the middle east rather than peacekeeping, personal moral accountability, conservatism, and environmentalism. His speeches, read in the light of today’s sun, have a much richer, much deeper, and much more profound meaning. What can I say, I liked this guy when I was six; I’m loving him now. Go on with your bad peanut farming self - Jim is the MAN!

-Gil
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Is this perfectly accurate? Have we *always* had that policy? No - for example our interventions in Latin America in the first half of this century. But has it been a founding principle and moral theme of this country from the founding fathers? Yes. And George Bush, for whatever reasons you like, whether you agree with or not, has thrown this principle in the trash. It’s black and white in his National Security Strategy.
Founding principle and moral theme? Generally speaking it is good to mind your own buisness, but it isn’t somthing I’d call a "founding principle and moral theme". You also have to keep in mind that the Royal Navy did the heavy lifting back in the day; post WW2 the US has had to take up the slack. For example, not only was the Spanish defeats of the Napolianic Wars responsible for Spain loosing its empire (particualrly Nelson destroying the Spanish fleet), but afterwards the Royal Navy provided protection for Latin America. Post WW2, that activity has passed to the US Navy. The point being is that up until the world wars, the role of international cop was taken by England, and any US actions would be as adjunct.

Actually, George W Bush has been more conservative about war than Clinton, who got us engaged without any US intererests being involved. Clinton’s wars were low risk, of course, but also of no benifit.

Iraq represents an effort where we are trying to tackle a larger regional or even cultural problem, and it may very well fail, but it certinly involves potential benifits. So Bush is inverting what Clinton did: now it’s higher risk but much higher potential benifit.
An exaggeration, but also a summary of a blatantly obvious general truth that the Administration has, by relative standards, completely dropped the ball on the Israel-Palestine process.
No, Arafat dropped the ball when Clinton was in office. And he dropped the ball because he never intended to follow through in the first place.

You need to get a clue: Palestinians don’t want peace—they want to kill Jews.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
but it isn’t somthing I’d call a "founding principle and moral theme"

Good to know your opinion. George Washington made some famous speeches that disagreed, mentioning "foreign entanglements". He was not the last person to cite this founding principle and consistent and guiding theme of U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, we did not abandon this principle in 1941 or 1945: "not endorsing pre-emptive war" is not the same as "pro-isolationist". We abandoned it in 2003.


Administration has, by relative standards, completely dropped the ball on the Israel-Palestine process.

No, Arafat dropped the ball when Clinton was in office.

These two statements are in no way mutually exclusive. Arafat’s been dead for years. The admin is AWOL.

You need to get a clue: Palestinians don’t want peace—they want to kill Jews.

That’s a nice talking point. It’s used most often by the people you despise - Muslim fundamentalists, who claim loudly that Israel is uninterested in peace in practically every other sentence. And together the perspectual nihilists create an essentially self-fulfilling prophecy.

As demonstrated by the sciences of marketing and opinion polling, what people want is often contradictory, inconsistent, contextually dependant, and subject to manipulation.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Anyone else thinking that there is a much better quality liberal commenting here than six months ago? I don’t like what they are saying and too much of it is straight from DNC talking points, but it is head and shoulders above what used to appear. Some of it is instructive (but usually lacking in links). Now we’re talking. Some of the best could actually change some minds about current issues. ...Ugh, well, the potential is there. And that is a good thing.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
I will never be mistaken as a fan of Jimmy Carter, but that’s a bit of a stretch. He certainly deserves credit for some of the current mess, but some would place a big ol’ helping of blame on the plate of Arthur James Balfour.
If the archelogical records for the area that we call Israel supported the muslim claim that it’s rightfully their land and the jewish people have no right to it then I would see this as a valid argument.

But for the sake of argument I think the issues over oil in the region and the prior U.S. support of the Iranian Shah would have been enough of a catalyst to generate the kind of islamic fascist we have today with out there ever being a jewish state established in the region.

Had carter not let his human rights crusade (which actually led to less human rights in the country) blind him and maintained his support of the Shah then we probably would have a vastly different middle east now with out all the islamic terrorist.
 
Written By: Mac
URL: http://
I liked this guy when I was six; I’m loving him now. Go on with your bad peanut farming self - Jim is the MAN!
Did you like a tax rate in the 70’s, interest rates in the 20’s, the Communist party and general American malaise as well? And how ’bout them hostages?

Hey Jimmah - how about you just goes BACK to your peanut farming self snd STFU!
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Hey Jimmah - how about you just goes BACK to your peanut farming self snd STFU!
I was thinking more along the lines of exile to Iran.
 
Written By: Mac
URL: http://
Did you like a tax rate in the 70’s, interest rates in the 20’s, the Communist party and general American malaise as well? And how ’bout them hostages?

Nope, I sure didn’t. I didn’t like the gas lines, polyester bellbottoms, or living in fear of annihilation from Russian nukes either. And so what?

Do you enjoy being so dependent upon foreign oil that we have to play nice in the middle east, calling some of the most repressive intolerable totalitarian regimes on the planet our "allies"? Do you enjoy having half our national debt held by foreign investors, so that we have to keep them believing in our ability to pay just to keep from complete economic collapse? Do you enjoy knowing that the pursuit of oil independent energy technology is languishing for lack of funding and/or interest? Do you enjoy seeing the america of innovation, opportunity, and production become a historical footnote?

Because that’s the alternative. I don’t pretend that weaning ourselves from the illusion of solvency will be either easy or enjoyable - but I would much rather suffer the pain of having a tooth pulled than experience the slow death by decay which can result from holding onto something which has no intrinsic value.

Carter tried to lead us down the hard path to restoring independence, and we denigrated him for it, prefering the fairy-dust illusion of "everything will be okay" Reagan politics. That he could not accomplish this goal is not his failure, it is our own.

-Gil
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Gil:

I agree with you that Jimmah (for whom I blush to say I voted twice, and campaigned for once) had some good goals. Often, sadly, he simply had no idea how to translate them into policy and make them happen.

He was also clueless on how to use the power of the armed forces when it was necessary to do so.

Some of his current pontifications make me cringe. This is one of them, because it is simplistic and wrong.
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
," I liked this guy when I was six; I’m loving him now."

A good example of how chidhood indoctrination carries over into later years.


I have some questions on this "Israel-Palestine process". When did it start? What has it produced? When this so-called process was in process, how many people died?



?" Do you enjoy knowing that the pursuit of oil independent energy technology is languishing for lack of funding and/or interest? "

I’m not sure where you have been for the last 30 years or so, since alternate energy sources have been receiving funding for at least that long, from both government and private sources. The pursuit is not languishing, the promised results are.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I agree with you that Jimmah (for whom I blush to say I voted twice, and campaigned for once) had some good goals. Often, sadly, he simply had no idea how to translate them into policy and make them happen.

He was also clueless on how to use the power of the armed forces when it was necessary to do so.


I’ll take a high minded president who doesn’t know how to accomplish his goals over a low minded croneyist with a definite plan any day. At least with Carter there was the hope of delegating to someone who did know how to accomplish policy and effectively use the armed forces. It didn’t happen, but there was that hope.

Some of his current pontifications make me cringe. This is one of them, because it is simplistic and wrong.

Entirely? Let’s get into it:

Carter: There’s no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

SPIEGEL: For example?

Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis.


Yes, simplistic and wrong describes this pretty well. However, it’s not hard to make an argument that "clear and present danger" is a much looser term today than it was in 1970-something.

Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this.

Prior to Sandra Day O’Conner stepping down, five out of nine of the SCOTUS justices upheld the "Lemon test" wherein government activities are subjected to three tests to determine whether they constitute a violation of the line between church and state: 1) Is there a religious agenda? 2) Does the action endorse religion? 3) Does the action unnecessarily entangle government and religion? This is considered a very conservative policy with respect to separation of church and state, essentially forbidding any governmental activity which may appear to endorse or promote religion. With the current administrations nomination to the bench of Judge Alito, five out of nine SCOTUS justices now endorse the "coercion test" which states that government officials may not force religion upon a set or subset of the populace. Following this, the current administration initiated "faith based initiatives" on a very wide scope which leaves the separation of church and state significantly in doubt. John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito have both been criticized for being religiously biased in their bench decisions, and were both appointees of the current administration. President Carter makes a valid point in this regard.

The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We’ve never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

Sales, property, and food taxes are easily argued as the most regressive of taxes. Income tax is easily argued as the most progressive of taxes. The current administration, in well documented ways, has acted to reduce the income tax burden on the highest incomes by half, which is "uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country", whilst prices at the pump, municipal utility rates, and grocery store registers just seem to keep going up, to the "detriment of working families of America." We can disagree with President Carter on this, but simplistic and wrong is not how I would characterize this assertion.

Carter: I don’t think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that’s justified, no.

As previously mentioned in this blog, air power results in a very high amount of collateral damage with civilian casualties. A ground war is the only way to be relatively precise with who you’re killing. As a response to the kidnapping of two soldiers, stated by Israel as their justification for the offensive, what occurred in southern Lebanon over the course of the last month is clearly disproportionate. I don’t happen to think that’s justified either. Simplistic yes, wrong no.

Carter: Yes, as a matter of fact as you know ever since Israel has been a nation the United States has provided the leadership. Every president down to the ages has done this in a fairly balanced way, including George Bush senior, Gerald Ford, and others including myself and Bill Clinton. This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians.

Yeah. Simplistic and wrong is dead to rights here. That is exactly what this statement is - the facts are clearly not in accord with President Carter’s opinion.

Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me. I can’t say a majority because we have fragmented portions in our country and divisions concerning gun control and the death penalty and abortion and gay marriage.

No doubt a substantial portion of americans do completely agree with him. What that portion may be in percentages, he does not state. That’s neither simplistic nor technically wrong.


Taken as a whole, we cannot discount Carter’s current public discourse, if for no other reason, then for this one: He has sat in the big chair. We have not. He tried to do something good and failed. The current administration tried do so something bad and suceeded beyond its wildest dreams. I don’t see that as any reason to rejoice, nor as a reason to mock Carter’s efforts.

-Gil

Man that was a lot of typing.


 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
I’m not sure where you have been for the last 30 years or so, since alternate energy sources have been receiving funding for at least that long, from both government and private sources. The pursuit is not languishing, the promised results are.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm

Brazil being able to do it when the USA cannot does not point to a lack of results, but a lack of committment on the part of the USA.

-Gil
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
It should be noted that when the ACLU forum-shopped to find a liberal judge that would write a political opinion on the NSA case, they selected a Carter appointee.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
"Is this perfectly accurate? Have we *always* had that policy? No..."

"This is a question of opinion,..."

"An exaggeration, but also..."

"Three up, three shot down."

Only in an Arab air force.
This is a defense?

******************
." At least with Carter there was the hope of..."

Hope is for religion. You do not hope the fire department shows up when you call 911.
*********
", whilst prices at the pump, municipal utility rates, and grocery store registers just seem to keep going up, to the "detriment of working families of America"

How is this the federal government’s responsibility, and how do they prevent it?

"A ground war is the only way to be relatively precise"

There is nothing precise about a ground war.
****************
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm

usatoday? I’m not even going to bother.


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Written By: timactual ?

Neither shall I.

-Gil
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
worst ex-president ever
I don’t think President Carter will ever reach that realm. President John Tyler served in the Confederate Congress. While I’m no fan of anything President Carter has done in the political realm since he left office, I don’t think he’s likely to serve in the government of a nation hostile to the U.S., so he’s never going to be able to nail down that top spot.
 
Written By: Andrew Olmsted
URL: http://andrewolmsted.com
Useful???? Useful to despots and terrorists I guess, but not for much else.
I suspect the context of the comment can be found by cross-referencing the phrase ’useful idiots’ and the name of "Mona Charen".


Good book, by the way.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Andrew,

Heh.

Glasnost,
but it isn’t somthing I’d call a "founding principle and moral theme"
Good to know your opinion. George Washington made some famous speeches that disagreed, mentioning "foreign entanglements". He was not the last person to cite this founding principle and consistent and guiding theme of U.S. foreign policy.
I have to respectfully agree with McQ. In addition to the ample evidence that we have not actually lived up to this, especially in the previous administration, I would suggest you are overstating what George Washington actually was trying to say. I wrote a post on George’s views on this issue a little while ago.



 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I suppose I have to diasgree with many people here. Carter is telling the truth. Our blind support of Israel’s long failed policies have set the stage for 9/11 and the war on terror, and the really frightening thing is that most people currently in office are either too blind, greedy, or cowardly to do anything about it.

Tony Blair, in a speech he gave before congress after 9/11 said that there will never be an end to ME terrorism until The Palestinians are given a viable homeland free of Settlers and the IDF.

Clinton (after he left office) agreed by saying that a fair and equitable treatment of the occupied territories would "remove the philosphical underpinnings of ME terrorist recruitment".

Colinn Powell is inclined to agree.

as is Pat Buchanan.

As are almost every country in the entire world with the exception of the US and Israel, as evidenced by numerous UN resolutions that we have vetoed.

J
 
Written By: J
URL: http://
J,

Tha problem with that is that Israel’s enemies disagree with you or the people you cite. They say a homeland isn’t enough. Who are you going to believe, Nasrallah or Pat Buchanan about what Nasrallah wants?
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider