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

 
The worst president in US history tries to hand off his crown
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, May 19, 2007

From an abandoned peanut warehouse in Georgia:
Former President Carter says President Bush’s administration is “the worst in history” in international relations, taking aim at the White House’s policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush’s environmental policies and the administration’s “quite disturbing” faith-based initiative funding.

“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,” Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper’s Saturday editions. “The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.”
The paucity of credibility Jimmy Carter brings to such criticism should be evident to anyone who lived through his presidency. If there is anyone more responsible for feeding the "paper tiger" meme which has so enabled our enemies, I'd like to know who it is. The 444 days in which Iran kidnapped and exploited our embassy employees while he sat morose and powerless stands right up there as the worst, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and his punishment of the USSR for it's invasion of Afghanistan? No Olympics for the US. By gosh, that showed 'em. And that boob is lecturing others on reputation and foreign policy?

Couple that with Carter's penchant for dictators and the exaggerations and flat out lies in his publications, and he has little in the way of residual moral authority left to criticize anyone about anything.

The president who easily was the most pathetic disaster the electoral process has ever foisted upon this nation has no room to declare anyone else "the worst in history". Even George Bush, with all the mistakes he's made, would come in a distant second to that loon. Imagine 9/11 happening on Carter's watch, if you have the stomach.

Having lived through the Carter presidency and now Bush's, I'll take the latter any day of the week, mistakes, blunders, ineptness and all.

Unfortunately Carter has to be the exception to the unwritten rule that former presidents remain silent about the administrations of serving presidents. Like so much in his miserable life, he can't even get that right. Following that tradition would require grace, restraint and class, virtues Carter has never had.

Instead we're again exposed to the pathetic mewling of a washed up former president who so screwed up his watch that he's reduced to trying to criticize other presidents in hope of having them awarded the "world's worst" crown he's worn since he was run out of DC on a landslide. When you can't even edge Dick Nixon out Mr. Carter, you haven't a chance of handing that title off to anyone else, not matter how many times you spout off.

So do us all a favor, will you, and STFU.

(HT: Scott Jacobs)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
That’s entirely unfair to Carter. Buchanan, who conspired fairly openly with the secessionists in the South right before the Civil War (including allowing Federal armories to transfer weapons, powder and shot to the South from the North) was certainly worse.

Other than that, though, yeah, it’s gotta be Carter.
 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Carter is echoing a belief many, and perhaps even a majority, of Americans hold. Carter’s presidency was mediocore. He made errors, but he also was dealing with things beyond his control. He was the first President who said we would fight a war for oil (the Carter Doctrine), and he started the massive defense buildup Reagan would continue (though at a pace less than that Carter had planned). Since leaving the Presidency Carter has become perhaps the most, and certainly one of the most, respected individuals in the world. He was a middling President, but a great ex-President. Bush, however, does seem likely to go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. Gone are dreams of the "ownership society" and budget surpluses paying for tax cuts. Gone is the "unifier," as America is as divided as ever. But perhaps the Carter experience gives some hope for Bush. Bush still can be a great ex-President. Frankly, I think he has it in him. I thin despite his mistakes Bush (like Carter in his Presidency) was well intentioned and believed he was doing the right thing. I tend to like the person George W. Bush, even as I oppose his policies (knowing, of course, that I really don’t know what kind of person he is — these are just impressions). But Carter won’t shut up; indeed, his criticism of current policy is being vindicated every day. Now as an ex-President Carter is in touch with reality. Alas, I’m not sure Bush is.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. And I didn’t even get 1/2 way through that BS.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
As a chair of a valauble non profit maybe; as the Saudi and Emirati backed head
of a neutralist pro-oligarchical think tank, less so. One forgets Carter certified the Haitian elections against Aristide, the Nicaraguan election against Chamorro et al. His most hardline advisor,Dr. Brizinski was responsible
for the pro-Iraq card in 1980, and the Saudi-Gen Intelligence /Pakistani ISI
funding plan for the most radical of the Afghan factions, from whence Al Queda
rose. Vance, the last gasp of the Democratic white shoe establisment, was actually worse. The Camp David Accord, his great triumph was really the last
gasp of a previous General Intelligence chairman, Kamal Adham, before he retired and became a leading player behind BCCI. directed at Anwar Sadat, who was assassinated for his troubles. We still linger under the shadow of Carter era energy policy, which blocked nuclear power development, further oil exploration, etc. It was Carter’s support of CAP in Venezuela that led to the Chavez regime, Of his embrace of Fidel, the Iranian mullahs well you get the idea.
 
Written By: narciso
URL: http://
"...Carter is in touch with reality."
Agreed. Carter is in touch with the Liberal Narrative Reality and that is why he rates so much *ss-bussing by Professor Erb, et al.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Sad part is instead of using Iraq and Afghanistan to put democratic pressure on Iran and Saudi Arabia, partisanship and idiocy has got us back to trusting dictators for "stability".
 
Written By: abwtf
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
I think by now even his erstwhile MSM cheerleaders are beginning to realize this idiot’s fast losing what little intellectual and moral altitude he gained once upon a time.

Or maybe the folks at the AP think this photo, which was afixed to a couple of Carter stories Saturday, makes him look...determined, or um, resolute. Instead of like Mean Mr. Mustard on the verge of shouting out something obscene. And spitting out his dentures for good measure.

Senility creeping up on a worldclass dunderhead — never pretty.


 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Double Digit Inflation

Double Digit Unemployment

Double Digit Interest Rates......Shall I go on?
 
Written By: McQ2
URL: http://
Former President Carter says President Bush’s administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House’s policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
As I said to McQ when I e-mailed this link, just keep one phrase in mind when reading it...

"Hey, at least Bush got re-elected..."

And Erb’s a moron. But that goes without saying...

 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Also, I’m ticked pink (in Carter’s case, it would be "ticked pinko") that McQ made this a post...

And that photo Linda linked too makes Carter look constipated...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
omg... I just re-read McQ’s post, and it hit me...

It’s one of the most agry posts of his I’ve read. It’s like he was channeling me...

*beams* So proud of our boy...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Scott - Erb that is - were you even alive durig the Carter Presidency?

"and he started the massive defense buildup Reagan would continue" And where in the world did you pull that piece of BS out of? I served in the military during the Carter years and tell me how cancelling the B-1 program, the disasterous defense spending cuts made in spare parts and maintenance. I was ordered to fly unsafe jets because Carter had no spare parts $$ for engines. I came to New Mexico in 1979 to find half of the F-111s sitting on the ramp with no engines. At night the airplanes would be towed to different parking places on the ramp so the next day Soviet spy satellites would see them parked elsewhere - as if they had flown during the night!

Military buildup?

Let me tell you a little story about Carter. It is late winter early spring 1979. Every fall the US ran a series of exercizes back then called Reforger. Lots of troops from the states airlifted as if we were responding to a Soviet invasion. The soviets had their own version in the late Winter early Spring where over a three month period, virtually their entire army would deploy into the Warsaw Pact ountries and similarly exercize.

In the fall of 1978, in order not to upset his continuing "Glasnost" with Breshnev, Carter virtually cancels Reforger - it is a shadow if its former years. but in January, 1979, the soviets deploy 1/3 of their Russian based army to the WP and exercize. Normally in the first weeks of February, that 1/3 would go home and the next group would arrive for their exercizing. The first group did not go home. The second group arrived and started playing their games. But as they finished they did not go home. The last group arrived and instead of playing games, deployed to the borders facing the West - where the rest of the groups had already bivouaced.

This was an unprecedented build up by the Soviets. 65 Soviet divisions on the western borders along with the Warsaw Pact forces. Not even during the 1948 Berlin Crisis had so many soviet troops massed on the western borders. All our leaves were cancelled and instead of matching the buildup, Carter stood down. We were informed there would be no countering buildup. We were told - You are on your own!

In the first week of May, the Soviets started re-deploying their troops back to Mother Russia. Crisis averted. But not by anything Carter had done. The NATO CinC had, with his NATO counterparts, taken the unprecedented move of counter-exercizing. We deployed to the "front" and dared the Soviets to come accross. His reward by Carter - he was fired and retired for supposedly disobeying orders.

Any of this get into the papers? Hardly a squeak. But anybody who served there at the time knew Carter for what he was and is today - a spineless turd of a man who is infit to lick Bush’s boots!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
But, but, but...SShiell, you are alleging that Professor Erb is blatantly attempting to rewrite actual history. What kind of a person would do that? Certainly not an academic, who should have some respect for truth. I’m shocked, shocked, that you would...

One can only assume that the Democratic think tanks saw an opportunity to exploit President Carter’s need to create a legacy different from the miserable one he actually earned. Therefore, they create a narrative in which he is responsible for policies that proved to be successful (that he had nothing to do with), a narrative which claims that the rightwingnoisemachine is spreading lies about a great American hero for rethuglian political purposes.

Next, encourage operatives like Professor Erb, who claim to know nothing of the LN, blather on with it, chapter and verse. In this way it is possible to dupe liberals too lazy to learn the truth and you have a plan for political power. Carter is a gift that can be manipulated to keep on giving.

So what is so wrong with a little myth-creating to add gravitas to a political party? One with such sterling present day leaders who will (supposedly) actually maintain the standards claimed for this "turd"? After all, didn’t FDR mislead the country in order to galvanize it to confront the Nazi threat?

This LN movement is the biggest threat to America since the Communists were vanquished. Or, I should say, fell of their own mis-guided weight. Operatives like Professor Erb should be confronted with the truth when they attempt to mythologize miscreants like President Carter for cynical, conniving political purposes.

Pig + lipstick = pig with lipstick.

 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
The only virtue my fellow Georgian ever had to recommend him has now been fully swept away. He used to have an air of classy humility that made his lack of competency bearable (along with the fact that he was of no longer of any real consequence). Now it is plain to see that it was nothing but and act.

FWIW, I really don’t think anyone was as unsound a president as LBJ, both in policy and as an individual, but I would have never publicly attacked him like this while we had troops in battle.

In the movie version, this is the part where they dragged Old Yeller out back.

The difference is that the dog was better man than Jimmy.
 
Written By: Augustus
URL: http://
Scott - Erb that is - were you even alive durig the Carter Presidency?

"and he started the massive defense buildup Reagan would continue" And where in the world did you pull that piece of BS out of? I
Yes, I was alive — I drove voters to the polls for the Ford campaign in 1976 when I was 16. What I wrote about Carter starting the defense build up is true — I learned that when I was working on my MA at the Johns Hopkins School of Internatioal Studies, and have verified that for my courses on American foreign policy. Carter’s shift in foreign policy took place after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and his projected spending even surpassed Reagan, whose buildup ceased in increase in real terms after 1985.

That’s the truth — Robert, you’re locked in some partisan "narrative" with a Orwellian vocabularly that reeks of conspiracy theories and demonization. Note I also criticized Carter’s presidency — but that doesn’t deny the truth, no matter how much you want to make stuff up. Luckily, I don’t think you’re in a position to do much harm with your attempts to re-write history.

Oh, and Glasnost was a Gorbachev thing from the mid-eighties, not a Carter thing. It meant openness or increased democratization internally in the USSR.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott the professor learned everything he knows from his professors.. and the wheel keeps turning, the narrative stays alive. Scott hides in his "classroom" peddling his narrative (crack) as gospel to the next generation... It OK that you think your the majority, can I suggest some sun screen and a walk off campus. Maybe a real job!!

By the way being attacked by bunnies you just can’t make that stuff up.
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
Funny part is. I read the headline and I thought, Scott going to fire up the babble machine on this one for sure. You are messing with his hero.
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
The part that got me was "He made errors, but he also was dealing with things beyond his control." The way I see it was 9/11 was not something in Bush’s control, unless you’re one of those that calls him an idiot one day and then the Mastermind of 9/11 the next. I was there at the time Carter was President and he pretty much sucked. That was obvious to me at 13 years old. Spineless and helpless were the adjectives that stayed in my mind at the time. And, as someone else pointed out, which one got re-elected and which one got sent packing to the peanut fields?

Carter is, in fact, trying to pass off the crown of ineptness; it’s obvious that he’s desperate to do so or why would he have been running his mouth about Bush now for so many years? I was proud of Carter for being a fellow Southerner but he was an embarrassment. I’ve not been proud of any of our Southern Presidents in my lifetime. I’ve been embarrassed by them, but more by Carter than any other President in my lifetime, Southern or not.
 
Written By: David Quick
URL: http://
"but he also was dealing with things beyond his control."

That’s what politicians do. Too bad some folks don’t realize most things are beyond governments control before they act, instead of using it as an excuse when they inevitably fail.


Why all this fuss about Carter anyway? He was just saying things that needed to be said, and he was the one that needed to say them. Who else has the credibility and courage to speak truth to power? For too long silent acquiescence has greeted BusHitler McChimpyBurton’s destructive actions. We desperately need someone to speak out and say what has not been said, to finally expose these people for what they are. It is time we get stars of the magnitude of Carter to come forth, no matter how unwillingly, and lead us back to the road to Peace, Bread, and Land. For the good of the nation. For the children. Draft Carter! Carter in ’08! He is tanned, rested, and ready.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Double Digit Inflation

Double Digit Unemployment

Double Digit Interest Rates......Shall I go on?
In the interest of fairness, Carter was talking about foreign policy and how he thinks other countries see the US.

Plus the President only has a small influence on our economy and we’re much better at managing it now than we were 30 years ago.


As for military spending, how about some numbers to argue with.:

Annual Military Spending

(Billions of 1996 Dollars in Outlays)

1973 259.5
1974 243.8
1975 242.0
1976 234.0
1977 232.7
1978 233.2
1979 237.4
1980 246.2
1981 260.8
1982 282.0
1983 303.2
1984 318.1
1985 343.7
1986 363.7
1987 371.1

Let’s give Carter the best case scenario and say that the 1981 number reflects the budget he signed for fiscal Oct 1980-Sept 1981 and 1982’s number is Reagan’s first budget.

Carter could claim he went from 232 to 260. But then in context this was really just a return to 1973 following the "peace" dividend of giving up on Vietnam.
 
Written By: abwtf
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
An xl file for the historical budget outlays:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist06z1.xls

The total outlays for defence:
1977: 250.6
1978: 251.1
1979: 257.4
1980: 267.1
1981: 282.2
1982: 307.0
1983: 330.7
1984: 334.0
1985: 356.5
1986: 380.7
1987: 387.1
1988: 393.1
1989: 398.9
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
W gets called ugly by a toad
 
Written By: Bill Faith
URL: http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/
The above post is in constant FY2000 dollars (in billions)
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Scott the professor learned everything he knows from his professors.. and the wheel keeps turning, the narrative stays alive.
Hmmm, so you can’t even trust the experts that teach at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (Wolfowitz taught there, so maybe you have a point) or the books on American foreign policy that publish statistics and history. Who then do you trust. If this "narrative" is a vast conspiracy that controls everything that researchers and experts say, where do you go for truth — talk radio? Unregulated blogs? That utter absurdity of that kind of position is self-evident.

Oh, I posted this in another discussion, it was meant for here:
This is an interesting article on comparing Reagan and Carter.

And this article quotes Bill Kristal and Robert Kagan as referring to the Carter-Reagan defense buildup.

And I didn’t even get out the scholarship I just googled so I could give you a link.

Note in the data published on Carter’s defense build up the increase after 1979, which is when he started the build up Reagan continued. Also note when adjusting for inflation Reagan’s build up stops in 1986 in real terms (I think I wrote 1985 above, but the data posted suggests it was ’86 — sorry for the error, though it makes sense, 1986 is when Reagan and Gorbachev first started to get along well).

But Carter speaking out today really has no relation to errors he made as President thirty years ago.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Yeah, but without even being president for 5 minutes Reagan had freed hostages that Carter had been dicking arund over for 444 days.

And lets not forget Carter’s brilliant energy policy of "Put on a sweater, and turn down the thermostat".

Erb, you must have missed the lines for gas. Perhaps your ivory tower had a private pump for you.
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
"But Carter speaking out today really has no relation to errors he made as President thirty years ago."

You are so right, Scott. As a president, Carter was a failure. But he has transitioned into this quiet unassuming new phase of his life so well. Now, as a former President, Carter is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE!

(Note: But he keeps those Saudi paychecks coming in right as rain! Bless his little peanut-picking heart.)
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
By Scott, I meant the Erb-kinda Scott.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Actually Carter is one of the most widely admired and respected men in the world, literally millions in Africa live better lives due to his work, and habitat for humanity is well known here. Of course, you’re just angry at him for stating his opinion and getting a lot of attention world wide for doing so. He gets listened to though — far more than blog comments.

I think ultimately we’ll find that we should have followed Carter’s advice and worked towards alternate energy sources — we wasted two decades (and I blame Reagan and Clinton equally for that).

It is amusing to see how Carter irritates some of you — I think you just can’t accept that most of the world and most of the country doesn’t share your vitriolic hatred for the man. Most look at all the work he’s done and see him as a man of deep values, an American treasure. But vent away if it makes you feel better. That said, as President he made some really bad choices. I don’t think he should have necessarily stepped in and saved the Shah or Somoza — supporting dictators is what keeps getting us into messes. But he was indecisive. He had Brzezinski the realist and Vance the dove and wavered between taking a firm, principled stand. He also didn’t make important strucutral changes in the domestic economy to improve performance. Reagan would make those changes, but Reagan benefited from a large drop in oil prices and the rise to power of Gorbachev.

Reagan’s real credit is stopping the massive defense build up which allowed Gorbachev to tell his military that he tamed Reagan, and thereby hang on. Reagan, by deciding to work with Gorbachev and open real dialogue with the Soviets on seeing them willing to reform, helped assure the end of the Cold War was peaceful. Reagan and Carter both get blame or credit for the defense build up, but Reagan’s ability to switch to a less confrontational attitude is something that Reagan deserves a lot of credit for.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The fact that Carter is "widely admired and respected" by the likes of Fwance and the Paleoswinians doesn’t impress me in the least.

Among people whose opinions I actually respect, Jimmy Carter is seen as a buffoon, who has become cranky and bitter in his dotage.

I lived through the seventies too, Scott. Carter was elected, in part, due to a hatred of anything Nixonian. It says a lot that he was seen as so breathlessly incompetant a mere four years later that he was thrown out of office right briskly, and would have been even if Gerald Ford - the place-holder of the ages - had been re-nominated.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
"...I was working on my MA at the Johns Hopkins School of Internatioal Studies..."
Ah yes, the old liberal elitist “I have degrees from liberal-dominated universities and therefore when I speak you must, simply must accept my postulations as verified truth.” When a liberal does this they are hoping that you pick that hill to die on and respond with your degrees and studies. That’s crap. Responding in that manner is similar to betting your paycheck that you can follow the pea and pick the bent card it is under.

It is also wrong to ignore the qualifications offered and to take off on counterclaims, etc. That will only elicit sneers from all observing liberals accompanied by allusions to “rednecks”, etc.

No, the best thing to do is to check out the proffered credentials and see where that leads one.


I googled Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and got:
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. I then undertook to explore what kinds of education are imparted to attendees such as Professor Erb. I now have a better understanding of Professor Erb’s tactics since he is, by his own admission, a trained propaganda professional:

<,blockquote>”In 1944 a group of statesmen founded The Paul H. Nitze School. of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). At least one, Paul H. Nitze, was a Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) member. The resident SAIS faculty includes 36 professors. At least 20 are CFR members, two are CFR fellows.
Council on Foreign Relations members in an ad hoc committee called the "Special Group" and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the "Secret Team" plan and coordinate massive psychological operations scripted using "Tactics of Deception." American citizens and citizens of foreign nations are manipulated to accept the particular climate of opinion the groups are seeking to achieve in the world. Is SAIS a cover for Council on Foreign Relations "Special Group" and "Secret Team" members and covert operator training school?”
"...American citizens ... are manipulated to accept the particular climate of opinion the groups are seeking to achieve..."
How is the weather up there on your own petard?
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
I think one fact has been omitted from the discussion that puts Carter in true perspective.

When Bush I was trying to form a coalition to force the Iraqis out of Kuwait, Carter went behind his back and tried to cajole foreign leaders into not taking part. That led Cheney (Secretary of Defense at the time) to describe Carter’s astions as "reprehensible, totally inappropriate for a former president." See page 9 of "The Real Jimmy Carter" by Hayward. That is one instance of his out-of-office meddling in foreign affairs. There is a word for that sort of behavior in time of war and it is a nasty one.
 
Written By: Orman
URL: http://
But Carter speaking out today really has no relation to errors he made as President thirty years ago.
Very true. Back then he didn’t actively support terrorism, he only aquiesced to it.

The problem with carrying the water for an abject failure like Carter is that one is bound to splash some of it on one’s self. I’d suppose that’s not a concern, however, since you subsequently set the bucket of Carter water down and jump in with both feet by lamenting the lack of government-funded, wasted effort looking for alternative energy sources during a period when the free market was making more headway on the issue since the inception of petroleum as an energy source, and making a profit while doing it.

As far as your argument that somehow popularity and positive efficacy are related, well, I think it’s funny, but it lacks the subtlety of the other Scott’s comment about you privately pumping away in your ivory tower.

Ooops, I digressed from my original point, which was to agree with your premise that his new errors are independent of his old ones. Quite right you are. Compounded by senilty and rancor, they are more eggregious, even if they carry much less weight.

On the upside, this will most likely end the unspoken gentleman’s agreement of former presidents not saying things like "you suck" about sitting presidents in general, let alone during wartime.




 
Written By: Augustus
URL: http://
Habitat for Humanity is great, AFAIK, and admirable and all that.

But there is so much else that isn’t and the fact that Carter is *popular* is almost proof of that. So he can say and do the right things to give the right people the right sort of warm fuzzies? That hardly suggests that he’s *right* about it, and probably suggests that he’s *wrong*.

 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
When Bush I was trying to form a coalition to force the Iraqis out of Kuwait, Carter went behind his back and tried to cajole foreign leaders into not taking part. That led Cheney (Secretary of Defense at the time) to describe Carter’s astions as "reprehensible, totally inappropriate for a former president." See page 9 of "The Real Jimmy Carter" by Hayward. That is one instance of his out-of-office meddling in foreign affairs. There is a word for that sort of behavior in time of war and it is a nasty one.
I don’t use the "t" word for such behavior because it can be confused by various leftists’ use of the same word. Instead, incidents such as the one you describe long ago led me to describe Carter as the highest ranking useful idiot in American history.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Back then he didn’t actively support terrorism,
BZZZZT Stop reading write there. When someone goes over the top and claims that Carter actively supports terrorism, it’s time for eyes to roll and heads to shake. Carter’s one of the most admired and respected men on the planet because he does everything he can to work against the things that make terrorism possible.

Of course Robert is even more absurd in trying to attack Johns Hopkins SAIS basesd on 1945 quotes — a place which now sees former defense department officials, military officers, and even in the past Paul Wolfowitz teach. It’s one of the three most respected programs for international studies in the country. If he can only defend his points by hatching some bizarre conspiracy theory, apparently that the school spied on communists, then he’s really grasping at straws. And of course his "quote" says they wanted to create the Nitze school in 1944 when Nitze was still a young diplomat. It didn’t get called that until recently in honor of Nitze, the author of NSC - 68 and the way containment was operationalized, and one of America’s top diplomats (and a relatively conservative one). Nitze was influential in founding the school. Check the link and judge for yourself

Nope, some of you guys have gotten so over the top in your attacks which are so bizarre that they can’t be taken seriously.

But I guess your only alternative is to admit you’re wrong.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
When he writes about how it’s the the ’fault of the jews’ and Hamas and Hezbolah ain’t so bad, that’s support of terrorists in my book.

But you’re an idiot, so I can understand how you could miss that...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
If Carter and the Democrats in general are so magnificent in foreign policy and good at getting allies to help, why couldn’t Carter get our European allies to do anything more than shrug helplessly when Iran occupied our embassy?

I just finished reading Guests of the Ayatollah, which is actually sympathetic to Carter in many ways, but its clear that America was not loved then. And I guess it was bad luck that Carter dumped all of our dictator allies except the Shah!

I do give him credit for negotiating their release - from the book it seems negotiating with Iran is very difficult and they backstab a lot...hmmmmm, but Kerry says we need to go talk to Iran as a supplicant.

Carter joke from the book (paraphrased)

A guy is transplanted from WWII to 1979 and asks to know the news...

" the Soviets have invaded Afghanistan."

"Wow, I guess we’re busy helping fight them, right?"

"No, we just boycotted the Olympics."

"Okay - what else has happened?"

"Well, Iran has taken our embassy hostage."

"Jesus! Have we bombed them yet?"

"uuuuhh, No."

"You have to be joking - next thing you’ll tell me we’ve given away the Panama Canal!"
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
If Carter and the Democrats in general are so magnificent in foreign policy and good at getting allies to help, why couldn’t Carter get our European allies to do anything more than shrug helplessly when Iran occupied our embassy?
Short answer: Carter and the Democrats have not been magnificent in foreign policy. Carter’s better now with age and the ability to speak from principle without political calculations, but overall in terms of foreign policy I’d rank Presidents thusly:

Truman: Debacle in Korea caused the war to drag on three years longer than need be, and created a more entrenched division. Stirring up anti-Communism created McCarthyism, and prevented the US from being able to react differently when The Evil One (Stalin) died, thus assuring a military arms race. Grade: D

Eisenhower: Recognized danger of military industrial complex and big government in foreign policy. Focused on using nuclear power to a strategic advantage, covert deals in the third world. Set up future problems, but generally protected the national interest. Grade: B

Kennedy: Ambitious foreign policy set up the most dramatic failure of US policy in recent history. Started a slide from US as dominant militarily to parity with the Soviet Union. Grade: D-

Johnson: Took the Vietnam war as a test of his manhood, and didn’t have the strength to admit the reality of the situation. Gets credit for realizing he could do no more good in 1968 and refusing to run for another term. Grade: D

Nixon: Detente brought the US in line with new strategic realities, and set up a peaceful end to the Cold War. Good in dealing with the Soviets, but treatment of the third world as pawns on a global power chess board set up many of the current problems. Grade: B-

Ford: Too little time to change. Grade: Incomplete

Carter: Overly idealistic at the beginning, indecisive when challenges emerged. Too detail oriented and worried about making an error. Tried to choose compromise path between Brzezinski and Vance rather than following a clear line. Was not up to the challenges of the time. Grade: C-

Reagan: Personal diplomacy very good, he recognized Gorbachev as wanting reform and thus shifted tone and policy, thereby completing detente’s effort for a peaceful end of the Cold War and ultimately the defeat of Communism. Iran-Contra and arms of hostages weakened our position in the Mideast, as did the policy in Lebanon. Proactive policies in the Mideast then could have avoided the situation we’re in today. Grade: B

Bush: Brilliant reaction to the end of the Cold War; did not taunt or try to take advantage of the Soviet fall, but supported efforts of new countries to establish themselves. Supported German unification, brought together a global alliance against Iraqi aggression. Mid-east policy incoherent before the war, and didn’t deal with post-war challenges; neglected the third world. Grade: B/B+

Clinton: Emphasis on expanding American trade neglected confronting the strategic shift after the Cold War. Never came to grips with new strategic realities in the Mideast, refused to help in Rwanda, a true genocide, yet got NATO involved in a problemmatic war in Kosovo, with a strategy that was morally questionable. Grade: C-

Bush II: Failure to develop coherent post 9-11 policy; the ’war on terror’ became divided between Iraq, Afghanistan, and idealistic efforts to spread democracy, and not focused on a true global effort. Misjudged American power and ability to control events, and got caught in a strategic disaster in Iraq that immensely weakened the US and made the challenges harder to face and America’s position more vulnerable. A shift to more realism and less ’cowboy diplomacy’ after 2005 improved things, but he like LBJ was unable to admit he made a fundamental strategic error. Grade: D-

The Democrats average around D, the Republicans in the B range. Bush is, in some ways, too much like John F. Kennedy and LBJ.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
When he writes about how it’s the the ’fault of the jews’ and Hamas and Hezbolah ain’t so bad, that’s support of terrorists in my book.

But you’re an idiot, so I can understand how you could miss that...
When you have to throw in a gratuitious insult it suggests you know you have a weak case. Cite your claims, please.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott, You are correct people do attack you "over the top"! I believe the reason is because of your use of contrived conjecture and your pathetic writing style. X was bad, X is good, Y could be as good as X if only! X will be great and Y can only hope. I have read 7th grade work more thought out than your posts. If you take the time to read some of your own writing you would most likely agree. Can I suggest a real job where you must prove yourself with actions and not radical thought? Once again you are no better than the school yard drug dealer only you pray on young minds with your one sided mindlessness and narrative (you should be ashamed of yourself).
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
"Carter’s one of the most admired and respected men on the planet...."
ad infinitum.

Give it a rest Scott. This is opinion, not fact, so stop citing it as it is fact. You sound like you have a school girl crush on the man.

Furthermore, in your citing of Carter’s good works, he didn’t get involved in Habitat until roughly 8 years after it’s founding. He didn’t start it, it wasn’t his idea; he did help raise its public presence. That’s nice and all, but I don’t think it deserves sainthood or extra special mention. He didn’t do anything that hundreds or more people did before him with respect to putting their personal energy behind a good idea. He just happened to have the benefit of celebrity.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"I think ultimately we’ll find that we should have followed Carter’s advice and worked towards alternate energy sources — we wasted two decades (and I blame Reagan and Clinton equally for that)."

Work has been going on to develop alternate energy resources since at least the 1970’s, that I know of. There is life outside government, and outside the pages of the Times, Post, etc. The fact that these alternate energy resources just are not economically competitive with nasty old fossil fuels just won’t seem to go away. Of course we haven’t wasted tens of billions of dollars on huge projects like the Synfuels fiasco like Carter did.

" I think you just can’t accept that most of the world and most of the country doesn’t share your vitriolic hatred for the man. Most look at all the work he’s done and see him as a man of deep values, an American treasure."

I hear Jerry Lewis is thought of as an American treasure, also.

" I was working on my MA at the Johns Hopkins School of Internatioal Studies"

Name dropping again. I am about as impressed with that as I am with the fact that Robert Strange MacNamara went to Harvard, or that George W. Bush got an MBA from there. It may work on your freshmen, but it ain’t gonna work here.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Tim, you said the M word...

Seriously, this site blocks other swear words, so my not MacNamoron?
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
I don’t blame our lack of alternative energy sourxes on either Reagan or Clinton. I blame on the anti-nuke Hysterics and NIMBY types.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
I don’t blame our lack of alternative energy sourxes on either Reagan or Clinton. I blame on the anti-nuke Hysterics and NIMBY types.
In the nineties we had such cheap energy. That would have been a great time to really invest in alternatives, we could have set up the infrastructure to move away from oil. I agree that nuclear energy is helpful, but even that has limits in terms of really dealing with the future. If production is peaking and demand is rising, well, tough times ahead...
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Maybe if Carter hadn’t ban reprocessing spent fuel, we would be 70% nuclear (like France), instead, he chose to do something so utterly stupid it damn near killed the only alternative capable of replacing the semi-friendly oil nation he screwed over. Today, were stuck with oil, not that oil production is anywhere near peaking, proven reserves at $75 make Arabia look like the quaker state, but it would be nice to have an alt source of energy.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Don’t bother to read this, it is cited as a block of BS for reference only:
”If Carter and the Democrats in general are so magnificent in foreign policy and good at getting allies to help, why couldn’t Carter get our European allies to do anything more than shrug helplessly when Iran occupied our embassy?Short answer: Carter and the Democrats have not been magnificent in foreign policy. Carter’s better now with age and the ability to speak from principle without political calculations, but overall in terms of foreign policy I’d rank Presidents thusly:Truman: Debacle in Korea caused the war to drag on three years longer than need be, and created a more entrenched division. Stirring up anti-Communism created McCarthyism, and prevented the US from being able to react differently when The Evil One (Stalin) died, thus assuring a military arms race. Grade: DEisenhower: Recognized danger of military industrial complex and big government in foreign policy. Focused on using nuclear power to a strategic advantage, covert deals in the third world. Set up future problems, but generally protected the national interest. Grade: BKennedy: Ambitious foreign policy set up the most dramatic failure of US policy in recent history. Started a slide from US as dominant militarily to parity with the Soviet Union. Grade: D-Johnson: Took the Vietnam war as a test of his manhood, and didn’t have the strength to admit the reality of the situation. Gets credit for realizing he could do no more good in 1968 and refusing to run for another term. Grade: DNixon: Detente brought the US in line with new strategic realities, and set up a peaceful end to the Cold War. Good in dealing with the Soviets, but treatment of the third world as pawns on a global power chess board set up many of the current problems. Grade: B-Ford: Too little time to change. Grade: IncompleteCarter: Overly idealistic at the beginning, indecisive when challenges emerged. Too detail oriented and worried about making an error. Tried to choose compromise path between Brzezinski and Vance rather than following a clear line. Was not up to the challenges of the time. Grade: C-Reagan: Personal diplomacy very good, he recognized Gorbachev as wanting reform and thus shifted tone and policy, thereby completing detente’s effort for a peaceful end of the Cold War and ultimately the defeat of Communism. Iran-Contra and arms of hostages weakened our position in the Mideast, as did the policy in Lebanon. Proactive policies in the Mideast then could have avoided the situation we’re in today. Grade: BBush: Brilliant reaction to the end of the Cold War; did not taunt or try to take advantage of the Soviet fall, but supported efforts of new countries to establish themselves. Supported German unification, brought together a global alliance against Iraqi aggression. Mid-east policy incoherent before the war, and didn’t deal with post-war challenges; neglected the third world. Grade: B/B+Clinton: Emphasis on expanding American trade neglected confronting the strategic shift after the Cold War. Never came to grips with new strategic realities in the Mideast, refused to help in Rwanda, a true genocide, yet got NATO involved in a problemmatic war in Kosovo, with a strategy that was morally questionable. Grade: C-Bush II: Failure to develop coherent post 9-11 policy; the ’war on terror’ became divided between Iraq, Afghanistan, and idealistic efforts to spread democracy, and not focused on a true global effort. Misjudged American power and ability to control events, and got caught in a strategic disaster in Iraq that immensely weakened the US and made the challenges harder to face and America’s position more vulnerable. A shift to more realism and less ’cowboy diplomacy’ after 2005 improved things, but he like LBJ was unable to admit he made a fundamental strategic error. Grade: D-The Democrats average around D, the Republicans in the B range. Bush is, in some ways, too much like John F. Kennedy and LBJ.”

A trained propaganda operative weighs in to try to overcome the fact that he has blown his cover. Do we really give a sh*t about what Professor Erb grades anything? He is pathetically trying to get someone to take issue with something – anything – that will give him some opportunity to frame something that will make him seem other than the LN operative that he is.
Stupid liberals will dumbly overlook the salient facts disclosed on this thread. Smart liberals will do likewise, realizing that no amount of argument can overcome the disclosed facts about Professor Erb’s educational background. Hey, they never happened. It’s all about clever writing; facts don’t matter.
Fact is that Baghdad Berb is going to just press on with same old BS, regardless of how full of holes his arguments are and one can treat him seriously and respond or one can ...
Just what does one do with a fifth columnist like Professor Erb?
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
It is amusing to see how Carter irritates some of you — I think you just can’t accept that most of the world and most of the country doesn’t share your vitriolic hatred for the man.
Carter is not worthy of hatred, vitriolic or otherwise. What I’ve seen here and elsewhere is simply contempt. He really should stick to building homes and writing poetry. Well, building homes at least.

But he did get a Nobel Prize. Just like Yasser Arafat.

Oh and for work in Africa read what arch neocon Bob Geldof had to say.
 
Written By: abwtf
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
BZZZZT Stop reading write there.
It’s pretty obvious at this point that you stopped reading LONG before that, sir.

When Jimmy Carter put his name on a book that contained the passage "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." he endorsed and lent support to terrorism as an acceptable form of political expression.

That is a clear statement that the terror only need stop when Israel gives in to it.

You may argue he didn’t understand it, that he never saw it, or that he really meant something else, but you cannot argue with the meaning the words convey, the fact that it went out in that form, and that he has since defended it.

I know it’s fundamental to the liberal psyche to judge things based on intent and not results, but even if Mr. Carter only meant to fart, he has in fact **** all over the bed, and no matter how long you stare at the ceiling and wait for the stench to subside, it isn’t going away to until you wash the sheets.

Until he gets into the "does better" column instead of just the "means better" column, claims that "the sun was in his eyes", "Jupiter was out of phase", or "there was a man-eating rabbit after him" are inconsequential.

Part of the reason you’ve reached the point that you are sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la I can’t hear you" is you are trying to defend a man and not an idea. Again, I realize this is an aspect that is endemic to the liberal psyche, where what feels good is embraced in lieu of what actually IS good, and it feels better to hug a sweet old man than a cold hard fact, but we cannot alter reality to suit your fancy. This is what Emerson was refering to when he said "Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.". I doubt the principles you embrace would find any more competent a champion in you than Mr. Carter has, but at least they would be defensible where he is not.
Just what does one do with a fifth columnist like Professor Erb?
You give them a microphone and put them in front of a camera, because far too few people in this country realize that folks like him, and oh so much worse, are more common than they think. Give a liberal a microphone and a clear cable feed and let them get comfortable enough to start saying what they really think, and the problem solves itself. Even the most well-rehearsed liberals like Hillary Rodham admit they want to "take your property for the common good" when they don’t know the Rest of Us are watching. "America is bad and deserves to be destroyed" is still a tough sell to actual Americians, and that’s all the people we currently identify as "liberals" are selling.




 
Written By: Augustus
URL: http://
"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." he endorsed and lent support to terrorism as an acceptable form of political expression.
No, that isn’t an endorsement of terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. That is recognition of the reality of the situation. You deal with the world that is, not one that you imagine should be. You have made the stupidest claim I’ve seen in a long time. Sheesh.

When you are so over the top you marginalize yourself.

And Robert Fulton, who after all he tried to claim is debunked, goes on a wild run of insults, seems to fit a line from the Rush song "Neurotica": The world is a cage for your impotent rage, but don’t let it get to you.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel
No, that isn’t an endorsement of terrorism by any stretch of the imagination.
By any stretch of the imagination? You do not see at least tacit acceptance of ’suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism’ here Scott? Regardless of the so called ’roadmap for peace’, he is saying that it is acceptable to continue acts of terrorism until something changes in the future. And you are not only OK with that, you think we should all bow down and worship at the alter of Carter.

Sad Scott. Really sad.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
No, that isn’t an endorsement of terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. That is recognition of the reality of the situation. You deal with the world that is, not one that you imagine should be. You have made the stupidest claim I’ve seen in a long time. Sheesh.
If this is the case, you’ll not mind when I blow up your school and home as a form of political expression of my opposition to your views...

No, I’m not really going to blow anything up. I just wanted to give an example of why what you say is really, really stupid... If you were to be correct, then people who bomb abortion clinics would be RIGHT to do so, instead of being totally freaking nuts...

And for the record:
but even if Mr. Carter only meant to fart, he has in fact **** all over the bed, and no matter how long you stare at the ceiling and wait for the stench to subside, it isn’t going away to until you wash the sheets.
Best. Line. EVER!
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Augustus:
Part of the reason you’ve reached the point that you are sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la I can’t hear you" is you are trying to defend a man and not an idea. Again, I realize this is an aspect that is endemic to the liberal psyche, where what feels good is embraced in lieu of what actually IS good, and it feels better to hug a sweet old man than a cold hard fact, but we cannot alter reality to suit your fancy. This is what Emerson was refering to when he said "Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.". I doubt the principles you embrace would find any more competent a champion in you than Mr. Carter has, but at least they would be defensible where he is not.
Just thought that should appear more than once in this thread. It’s the sort of commentary that makes sifting through one of these Erb-infested discussions worthwhile.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Paranthetically, just for instructional purposes, note the time-honored liberal propaganda technique exhibited by Professor Erb. First step: write a fact-free opinion statement on the subject at hand:
"Of course Robert is even more absurd in trying to attack Johns Hopkins SAIS basesd on 1945 quotes — a place which now sees former defense department officials, military officers, and even in the past Paul Wolfowitz teach. It’s one of the three most respected programs for international studies in the country. If he can only defend his points by hatching some bizarre conspiracy theory, apparently that the school spied on communists, then he’s really grasping at straws. And of course his "quote" says they wanted to create the Nitze school in 1944 when Nitze was still a young diplomat. It didn’t get called that until recently in honor of Nitze, the author of NSC - 68 and the way containment was operationalized, and one of America’s top diplomats (and a relatively conservative one). Nitze was influential in founding the school. Check the link and judge for yourself

Nope, some of you guys have gotten so over the top in your attacks which are so bizarre that they can’t be taken seriously.

But I guess your only alternative is to admit you’re wrong."
Step two: Make the assumption that the statement itself stands as proof positive and a complete refutation of the opposite position.
"...who after all he tried to claim is debunked..."
Note the "...all he tried to claim..." Is that true? Does the "debunking" statement cover all (or, in some cases, any) of the salient issues?

Step three: forever after restate repeatedly that the proposition has been totally "debunked". Count on your fellow liberals to fall into goose step chanting "We don’t have to reply to any facts on that point; it has been "debunked!"" Followed by whatever version of the current Big Lie they are pushing.

"Debunked" used to mean disproven. Liberals pushing the LN have subverted that meaning as you witness above.

By the way, should you attempt to "reopen" the issue that has been "debunked" you will be met with a long sigh and perhaps a more lengthy rehash of the same opinion-laced material used in the original "debunking". Facts? Let me check the latest NYT opinion article (or left wing blog) if you demand facts.

Disagree with the NYT opinion or lefty blog? Why, you are a "wild man" who is paranoid. Clearly. No need to deal with your facts. Uh huh.

One sees this technique applied repeatedly by liberals to the current issue of the day. Professor Erb learned the technique well, didn’t he?
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Step two: Make the assumption that the statement itself stands as proof positive and a complete refutation of the opposite position.
Which is what you’re doing in posting wild paranoid claims about some liberal "narrative" and trying to posit some conspiracy of elites, including an attack on Johns Hopkins University. You’re beginning to sound like some old guy up in the mountains spattering on about black helocopters and UN secret forces.

And Scott:
If this is the case, you’ll not mind when I blow up your school and home as a form of political expression of my opposition to your views...
Carter called on people engaged in what they consider a war against Israel to state publically that they will cease their operations in the case of a negotiated settlement. This has to be made explicit, and guaranteed by verification policies, because many in Israel believe that a negotiated settlement will not end the violence. Carter did not say that the war being waged against Israel was right or justified, he’s looking for a way to end it. That’s hardly the same as what you stated.

You’re providing an example of the worst kind of political discourse, taking a quote and asserting it means something it doesn’t by appealling to emotion. You give me a good example to use in illustrating dishonest rhetorical strategies.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
By any stretch of the imagination? You do not see at least tacit acceptance of ’suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism’ here Scott?
Only that he knows that moralistic "don’t do that!" statements are irrelevant because they see themselves at war and we need to be realistic if we are to find a way out. The Palestinians and Israelis have linked destinies. Each sees themselves as the victim, and on its own terms each side can claim merit. The Palestinians engage in terror — but they believe that in fighting for their people that’s the onlyl tactic that can work given the Israeli strength and the fact Israel has killed far more Palestinian innocents than vice versa, and bombs neighborhoods and homes doing essentially what the terrorists are doing, only from a distance and wearing uniforms. Israel, of course, claims that it is only doing this because of those acts of terror, and would stop if only Israel was left to live in peace. But that can’t happen with the dispute over the West Bank and Gaza unresolved.

So Carter realistically knows he can’t just tell Israel to give back territories and he can’t just tell Palestinian terror organizations to stop. So he deals with reality and sets up a plan that takes into account both perspectives and tries to find a way out. Accepting reality is necessary in world affairs. Moralism sounds good in blogs and on op eds, but in the real world its value is limited.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"looking for a way to end it" doesn’t quite get covered by ’Israel needs to just give up’.
Carter called on people engaged in what they consider a war against Israel to state publically that they will cease their operations in the case of a negotiated settlement. This has to be made explicit, and guaranteed by verification policies, because many in Israel believe that a negotiated settlement will not end the violence.
Perhaps they believe that because every single cease-fire has been broken by the non-jews.

I’m just spit-balling here.

Israel has offered to GIVE palistine the lands it wants, and they turned the deal down. So screw them. The out was offered, and ignored. In my eyes Israel’s biggest mistake is not having wiped hamas and hez off the face of the earth. I wouldn’t tollerate continual threats to my country the way they have...
You give me a good example to use in illustrating dishonest rhetorical strategies.
Really? When I want an example of dishonest rhetorical strategies, I just read one of your posts...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Israel has offered to GIVE palistine the lands it wants, and they turned the deal down.
Are you claiming that Israel has offered to give the Palestinians what they want? Are you really claiming that?

In my eyes Israel’s biggest mistake is not having wiped hamas and hez off the face of the earth. I wouldn’t tollerate continual threats to my country the way they have...
But, of course, Israel isn’t capable of doing that without severe risk to itself, and a mass killing of innocents. Again, the Palestinians and Israelis have a linked destiny. Extremists on both sides want to just wipe out the other side, moderates are the majority on both sides, but the extremists can launch an attack or do something to arouse emotions. Moreover, those who are brave and want to make peace, like Rabin, get assassinated by extremists from their own side.

If they want to keep killing each other, I think it’s in our interest to either: a) help them find a way to end this as Carter tried; or b) get as far away from the conflict as possible so we don’t get dragged in. I’d choose "a."
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." he endorsed and lent support to terrorism as an acceptable form of political expression.
No, that isn’t an endorsement of terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. That is recognition of the reality of the situation. You deal with the world that is, not one that you imagine should be. You have made the stupidest claim I’ve seen in a long time. Sheesh.
Erb, it is clear that the Palestinians will not end terror as long as Israel remains. That’s the reality of the situation. The other reality is that Carter is endorsing terrorism.



The reality is that Palestinians must end terrorism if they are to
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Are you claiming that Israel has offered to give the Palestinians what they want? Are you really claiming that?
Israel was ready to sign off 98% of the land that the Palestinians say thay want; but what they actually want is to destroy Israel. So, no, I don’t think he’s saying "that Israel has offered to give the Palestinians what they want".
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
. . . and the fact Israel has killed far more Palestinian innocents than vice versa, and bombs neighborhoods and homes doing essentially what the terrorists are doing, only from a distance and wearing uniforms.
That’s BS. The Palestinians intentially put their "innocents" in harms way in the hope that IDF takes them out. They value propaganda more than the lives of their children.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Israel was ready to sign off 98% of the land that the Palestinians say thay want; but what they actually want is to destroy Israel. So, no, I don’t think he’s saying "that Israel has offered to give the Palestinians what they want".
And Don gets it in one...

When one side is willing to capitulate to 98% of your stated demands, and you REFUSE to meet them 2% of the way, that’s pretty much proof that you just wanna blow sh*t up and kill people...
. . . and the fact Israel has killed far more Palestinian innocents than vice versa, and bombs neighborhoods and homes doing essentially what the terrorists are doing, only from a distance and wearing uniforms.
Erb, I want you to look me in the f*cking eyes and say that again. The number of civillians killed by suicide bombers in Israeli open markets/cafes/malls/buses is god-damn mind blowing. When you put the people attacking country A into the homes of civilians ON PURPOSE, you have just made those civilians legitimate targets. I for one wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger on that attack. At some point the civies will do the math, and boot them outta their homes.

You really are a f*cking idiot, you know that?
a) help them find a way to end this as Carter tried;
And what, EXACTLY did Carter do besides ignore the whole damn mess (or alternately work against Israeli interests)?

Maybe I’m a Zionist (not really. Being a gentile bars me from admission), but in my mind you work with the people who don’t cry out for your blood. Israel treats us nice. The rest want us dead (you too, I hate to tell ya).

I say work with Israel, and if both sides want to kill each other, hand Israel the good bombs, and let them go to freaking town. They’ve turned the other cheek long enough, and I was chearing for them when they snapped and attacked after their soldiers were taken...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Erb, it is clear that the Palestinians will not end terror as long as Israel remains. That’s the reality of the situation. The other reality is that Carter is endorsing terrorism.
If that is true, Israel is doomed. And obviously Carter is not endorsing terrorism, that is the most outlandish lie I’ve read in a while. It is utterly absurd to make that claim.

And the rest of your claims are also false:

1. They were not offering 98% of the land. It was over 90%, but there were gaps and the question of Jerusalem remained unresolved. The Palestinian Authority which has agreed that Israel has a right to exist thought the negotiations would continue and they’d keep finding a way to move closer. Instead Sharon provoked another intifada with this Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock visit, and all hell broke loose. Then Sharon realized that there can be no military victory, and he switched his strategy — too late, unfortunately.

2. Most Palestinians just want to live in peace and have political rights. Israel has brutally occupied the territory, killing innocents, denying basic economic rights, and often allowing settlements to have enough water for swimming pools while Palestinians suffered shortages and rationing. You treat people like that for two generations and you will get terrorism. Guaranteed.

3. Israel and the radical Palestinian organizations need to change for peace to come. Moderates in each have to stop letting the militarist extremists dictate the policies.

You seem to rationalize all the violence Israel dismiss all violence done by the Palestinians. That’s a one sided warped and biased perspective which, if followed, guarantees more death and destruction, and ultimately Israel will be destroyed if that path is continued. Unfortunately too many people on both sides rationalize their own violence and fail to understand the situation of the other side.

The Palestinians and Israelis will either find ways to compromise and live together, or they’ll stick to extreme claims that the other side is the only one that has to change and they’ll die together. If we can’t help bring them to compromise we should wash our hands of the whole situation.

Scott, you wear your emotion on your sleeve but the fact is that far, far, far more innocents have been killed by Israel than by Palestinian suicide bombers. You notice only one sides’ death but ignore the other’s. That is a very biased and distorted view. You can call me an idiot if you want, but I have the facts on my side and all you have are bias, emotion and name calling. You really need to educate yourself on this issue and its complexities. The tough macho talk may be fun in blogs, but it’s utterly pointless in the real world. And consider me to be staring you coldly in the eyes as I write that.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
When you put the people attacking country A into the homes of civilians ON PURPOSE, you have just made those civilians legitimate targets.
Wrong. You are making a kind of ethnic collective responsibility claim here. If some Palestinian militants kill Jewish innocents, then suddenly all Palestinian innocents are legitimate targets. Suddenly you remove any moral responsibility of Israel — and ignore how the Palestinian people have suffered and denied basic rights even long before the suicide bombings.

This conflict started with European Jews considering Palestine their homeland because of how horribly they were treated in Europe and their historical memory. To Arabs these were European colonizers with the preposterous claim that because they were of the same religion as people who lived there 2000 years earlier they had a right to the land. The Arabs should have accepted the UNSCOP settlement, but they thought they were fighting colonialism (anti-semitism wasn’t a factor, it was about land and sovereignty, Jews and Arabs got along fine otherwise). Islamic fundamentalism wasn’t a factor. Both sides share the blame for the current situation, both sides feel they’ve been wronged. But that doesn’t mean we get anywhere if we demonize one side and say they can’t change, especially since most Palestinians are willing to accept Israel, they just want security and economic rights.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott - come on man. You’re killing me here...
And obviously Carter is not endorsing terrorism, that is the most outlandish lie I’ve read in a while. It is utterly absurd to make that claim.
That can NOT exist with this statement from Carter -
they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel
Carter is saying that until X happens, Y is acceptable. That ENDORSES Y!
They were not offering 98% of the land. It was over 90%
You mean to tell me that you would not accept 90% of your desired goal in a negotiation? I am in sales Scott (real world stuff here) and when I price something, it is with the hope of getting exactly what I price it at, but with the expectation I will settle for anything above 70% of what I list. Come on. You are defending this?
Most Palestinians just want to live in peace and have political rights.
Then why did they elect Hamas and put up with Terrorism in the first place?
You seem to rationalize all the violence Israel dismiss all violence done by the Palestinians
How many times has Israel been attacked by her neighbors in general? How many wars fought? How many buses bombed? Israel gets a pass in that they have not nuked their neighbors into oblivion.

far, far more innocents have been killed by Israel than by Palestinian suicide bombers
Here’s a thought Scott - answer the question about the Palestinians using civilians as shields. If they use them as shields, in your estimation Israel should do nothing? Just sit back and die from 1,000 cuts?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
You are making a kind of ethnic collective responsibility claim here. If some Palestinian militants kill Jewish innocents, then suddenly all Palestinian innocents are legitimate targets.
That’s not at all what he said. The fact that you are a college professor tells me you didn’t read this wrong; rather, you are deliberately twisting the words. That’s gross intellectual dishonesty.

What he said was that if one side deliberately houses its terrorists in the homes of civilians, then those homes become legitimate targets. It would be as if the US Army put cannons on top of a hospital and expected no one to fire on the hospital.

 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Carter is saying that until X happens, Y is acceptable. That ENDORSES Y!
He is not saying that. You are lying. Show me one point where he calls it acceptable. You can’t.

They weren’t getting 90% of what they wanted in the negotiation, not even close. Just over 90% of the territory was included in the Israeli offer (which I think Arafat should have accepted, by the way). Jerusalem and issues of borders were still outstanding.

Hamas was elected primarily because of corruption in the Palestinian Authority and anger at how the PA governed. Hamas played down rhetoric about Israel in the campaign for fear of turning off voters. Most Palestinians know Israel will exist, the vast majority just want their own state so they have real rights and hope. The occupation could not help but bring about radicalization of this generation; continuing it only makes things more difficult.

Israel was attacked twice (1948, 1973). Israel attacked three times (1956, 1967, and Lebanon in 1982). But the point was that land for peace worked . After Egypt dealt with Israel and withdrew from the coalition against Israel, there were no more Arab-Israeli wars. But the occupation has breed a threat far worse — terror organizations. They can’t be defeated militarily, and if an agreement isn’t reached don’t be surprised to see nuclear terror in Tel Aviv.

And, of course, innocent Israelis and innocent Palestinians will suffer immensely. That’s why it is foolhardy to just demonize one side and not try to figure out a way to deal with the legitimate interests of each side. Not all Palestinians are terrorists or support terror; taking their interests seriously is not endorsement of terrorism. Calling on radical groups to make clear their willingness to cease hostilities if a peace arrangement is meant is not endorsing their activities.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
He is not saying that. You are lying.
No, I am not Scott. I am trying to have a discussion with you. But you refuse to even remotely accept that Carter’s statement condones if not tacitly endorses terrorism.

BTW - we’re still waiting for a real response to dealing with military targets hiding amongst the civilian population from you. Or are you just going to wait for the class dismissed bell on that one?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
denying basic economic rights
Yeah... What @ssholes them jews are...

"You keep blowing sh*t up here, so none of you can come work here, and we’re not giving you people any more money. We’ll put it in a trust fund so it earns interest, but we’re not handing it over till you cut it the f*ck out."

Man, what jerks. It’s almost like they expect those guys to not try and kill them.

I’d love to audit one of your classes. Just one.

I’m sure I’d not make it all the way through one class without wetting myself from laughing...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Yeah... What @ssholes them jews are...
I can’t tell if you just lack reading comprehension or if you are really so ignorant. I’m pro-Israel. I believe that Israelis deserve security, and the Arabs of 1948 really hurt themselves by not accepting the Israeli state (I understand their position on European colonizers coming in and taking sovereignty of a region, but they should have accepted the UNSCOP plan).

The fact is you simplistically want to see it as two "sides" with one side "good" and the other side "bad." You ignore the reality of the situation to fit it into your biased perspective, and get angry and insult when someone dares question your view.

You have utterly neglected my argument, and instead lie and insult. That is a sign of non-thinking and closed mindedness. What you need to do is go through the arguments, respond, and recognize there is a lot about the history and situation you do not know.

I am convinced, as are many Israelis and Palestinians (and I know personally a number on each side) that the only viable solution is a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestine. Israel won’t accept a viable Palestine without guaranteed security, and the Palestinians won’t guarantee security for Israel until they get a viable state and issues like Jerusalem are settled.

Now things look bleak, but with the Palestinians divided and other Arabs worried about Hezbollah’s power, there may be a lot of external pressure possible from Saudi Arabia, the biggest financial backer of the Palestinians. The reality is one cannot be pro-Israel without being pro-Palestinian, because demonization of either side by the other simply perpetuates the violence. And you cannot deny the way Palestinians have lived without real rights under occupation for two generations, that is guaranteed to create radical movements, that’s what Rabin realized (you do know who Rabin is, don’t you?)

Now you can run away like a coward from arguments, hurling insults as you go, or you can actually do some thinking and engaging. Disagreement on issues like this is good, that’s how people communicate and explore ideas. Feeling a need to attack someone who disagrees shows that you really aren’t confident in your argument, but want to hide it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
No, I am not Scott. I am trying to have a discussion with you. But you refuse to even remotely accept that Carter’s statement condones if not tacitly endorses terrorism.

BTW - we’re still waiting for a real response to dealing with military targets hiding amongst the civilian population from you. Or are you just going to wait for the class dismissed bell on that one?
There is absolutely no way to say that Carter’s statement condones terrorism. None. He never condones terrorism or says it’s acceptable. Never. He calls on people who see themselves at war to promise to end their violence when an agreement is reached on a Palestinian state. Israelis fear they will not, so that promise is necessary. That’s the reality. I’m sure Carter would love them to stop right away, but he’s realistic, he knows that’s not the world we have.

I’m not sure what you mean about military targets amongst the civilian population. That certainly doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility for its actions, or justify anything Israel does. But you miss the bigger point: as long as you have all these dead innocents there will be more radicals angry at Israel and more willing to join the extremists. Israel cannot win militarily, that’s what both Rabin and Sharon — two Generals — realized. And as the occupation continues radicalization and anger against the occupation grows. Thus it’s important to end this cycle, and recognize that the Palestinians have legitimate and real interests and complaints, as do the Israelis.

The Palestinians and Israelis are linked by destiny. You can’t really support one without supporting the other. And you can’t support either by supporting th extremists in their midst who simply want to demonize the other.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
" The Palestinian Authority which has agreed that Israel has a right to exist"

LOL. What authority? At the least you should have used the past tense.

"then suddenly all Palestinian innocents are legitimate targets."

That is not what he said. Steverino is right. This is far from the first time you have misstated someone elses words, either, so it is either complete imbecility or outright dishonesty. The good news is that I don’t think you are a complete imbecile. Perhaps this explains why you spend so much of your time time writing on your own blog and places like this instead of reputable professional, peer judged publications.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
A blog, you’ll note, which does not allow comments...

ANd I have a 600+ word reply to Erb’s last two comments, but the itratron ate it... It was good too.. Darn it...

Basicly, I asked he cite my "lies", actively refute anything I’ve said without using "but Bush" or "Carter’s was ok", and there was a good deal of ad hominim attacks (at least I admit it).
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
"and there was a good deal of ad hominim attacks (at least I admit it)."

One man’s ad hominem is another man’s accurate, if unflattering, depiction of reality. Sort of a "We Report, You Decide" kind of thing.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The good news is that I don’t think you are a complete imbecile.
Why thank you, Timactual, you know I live for your compliments!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
And your approval, Prof. Erb, would fill me with shame...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Kumbaya.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
sarcasm/humor alert.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
I’m not sure what you mean about military targets amongst the civilian population. That certainly doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility for its actions, or justify anything Israel does
Simple question: when Hamas (or Hezbollah, or whoever) hides in the houses of civilians, who bears the greater responsibility for the deaths of civilians? Israel or the terrorists? How much greater?
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Simple question: when Hamas (or Hezbollah, or whoever) hides in the houses of civilians, who bears the greater responsibility for the deaths of civilians? Israel or the terrorists? How much greater?
They share responsibility.

But you again ignore the more important point: as long as you have all these dead innocents there will be more radicals angry at Israel and more willing to join the extremists. Israel cannot win militarily, that’s what both Rabin and Sharon — two Generals — realized. And as the occupation continues radicalization and anger against the occupation grows. We can argue about resonsibility and how to protect innocents in fighting an insurgency, but the point is that Israeli tactics benefit Hamas because they gain more support when innocents die than they lose in terms of their own people being killed.

 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The terrorists.

As to how much more responsible they are, I would have to say it’s around "complete and total responsibility"...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
None. He never condones terrorism or says it’s acceptable. Never. He calls on people who see themselves at war to promise to end their violence when an agreement is reached on a Palestinian state.
My last fling in this affair - look at your words Scott. You say (that Carter says) they can ’end their violence when...’ which means it is OK to commit their acts of violence (TERRORISM) now and until such a time comes. Regardless of all your palaver, that is what Jimmuh said.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
They share responsibility.
You deliberately side-stepped the question. The question assumes shared responsibility, I asked which one bears the greater responsibility.

This is the second time I’ve caught you in intellectual dishonesty in this thread alone. It’s clear you won’t debate the issue honestly: you’ve shown your true colors to all of us here.
But you again ignore the more important point: as long as you have all these dead innocents there will be more radicals angry at Israel and more willing to join the extremists.
I’m not ignoring anything. The point is that Hamas (or whatever) is creating its own martyrs while at the same time deliberately targeting Israeli civilians. That you think they’re on the same moral footing as Israel is utterly reprehensible and inhuman.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
But you again ignore the more important point: as long as you have all these dead innocents there will be more radicals angry at Israel and more willing to join the extremists.
And you ignore the fact that these dead innocents would never be made dead if Hamas didn’t use them as ablative meat-shields.
Israel cannot win militarily
Oh, I’m pretty sure they could. They just have more restraint than I, since they haven’t used the "glass it and make it glow" option.
We can argue about resonsibility and how to protect innocents in fighting an insurgency, but the point is that Israeli tactics benefit Hamas because they gain more support when innocents die than they lose in terms of their own people being killed.
That’s because those innocent Palastinians are apparently morons. Hamas/Hez/who-the-hell-ever uses the civilians as - as I said - ablative meat-shields, and push Israel into responding. Israel responds and said meat-shields die. A population of greater average intelligence would figure out that if they get the Terrorists the hell outta their houses/neighborhoods, they wouldn’t get killed.

If the general population ever figures out that simple cause and effect realtionship, the Terrorists are screwed...

However I doubt that will ever happen, because they will always have people like you willing to make excuses on behalf of the Terrorists, thus allowing the cycle to continue.
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Golda Meir was once asked how the Israelis could be so good war. Her response was crucial to the debate regarding Isreal, "We have no alternative!" Scott Erb - Let me pose to you a simple alternative.

Alternative 1: The Palestinians lay down their arms, accept Israel’s right to exist and pledge to never again to attack Israel. What happens?

Alternative 2: Israel lays down its arms and pledge to end all hostile actions, even defensive, for all time. What happens?

What happens, Erb? Let me give you a hint. In alternative #1, the war is over - period. Negotiations proceed and a Palestinian state is soon recognized and garunteed by Israel. In alternative #2 - again the war is over - 6 months or so later when the last Jew is dead!

The Nobel Peace Prize that Carter won for Palestine was essentially based upon those two alternative actions. Israel committed to withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian (if the ever was such a term) lands (Wes Bank and Gaza) when the Palestinians fulfilled two simple promises. Recognize Israel’s right to exist and promise to stop offensive operations from all parties within the Palestinian Authority.

You are right, Israel did not give in on all counts. The exceptions being Jerusalem and the Palestinian demand regarding return rights. (Golan Heights do not count - that was a Syrian thing, not Palestinian.)

But everybody shook hands, signed the treaty and Carter stomped off to Stockholm to pick up his trophy. Meanwhile Arrafat turned around and instead of doing the two simple things he needed to establish a Palestinian State recognized and garunteed by Israel, he kicked off the intifada!

So began the protracted conflict that we see today. And then Israel decides to unilaterally cede the West Bank and Gaza in hopes the Palestinians would follow up with their promises to recognize Israel. So the Israelis begin their torturous withdrawal from "occupied lands". And the Palestinian response? The day after Gaza is clear, missiles are fired into Israel from Gaza. The very next day!

You can defend Carter all you want. Carter is only answering to his Saudi masters, who are paying his bills, by making the absurb statements he does. His last book brought howels of protest even from his own Board of Governors. And you are defending the man?

You spend a lot of time talking about the reality of the situation. You need to take a moment and, biblically, remove the beam from your own eye. Carter is one of the greatest deterrences to peace in the Middle East that ever lived. His perfidy keeps alive Palestinian hope for the West to turn its back on Israel and turn a blind eye to the holocaust to come. Because that is their stated objective - written into the charters of both Fatah and Hamas.

Slam that man down. Send a message to the Palestinians. You want your own country? It is there and all parties, Israel included, is ready for you to step up and be worthy of it. Now act like you deserve your own country and not at the expense of your neighbors!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
My last fling in this affair - look at your words Scott. You say (that Carter says) they can ’end their violence when...’ which means it is OK to commit their acts of violence (TERRORISM) now and until such a time comes. Regardless of all your palaver, that is what Jimmuh said.
You are 100% wrong. He knows that the violence will continue in current circumstances. He knows Israel is afraid that even with an agreement they will continue to try to destroy Israel. Part one (not the only part, there has to be verification built in) of a plan to end the conflict is make clear that if there is an agreement the combattants against Israel will cease hostilities. He called on them to make that clear, and he was right to do so. You’re interpretation is totally unsubstantiated and I think you know it. You altered the quote and added the word "can." this is the quote (as quoted above): "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

That is an imperative. And nothing there justifies the actions, he’s pragmatically trying to navigate a path to end the violence.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
And you ignore the fact that these dead innocents would never be made dead if Hamas didn’t use them as ablative meat-shields.
And you ignore that Hamas was only able to rise as a response to the continued humiliation of the Palestinian people through the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel.

You see one perspective and simply demonize the other side completely. That’s shoddy and biased thinking. I understand both perspectives, and see errors on each side. You end up with emotion and assertion, but nothing of substance.

Carter’s efforts are important; it’s those who demonize one side, who are driven by bias, and can’t recognize the difficulty of the situation and the need to engage in a variety of efforts to neutralize terrorists and radicals, create security for Israel, and allow moderates to build a viable Palestine. It’s easy to feel macho and hurl out slogans in a blog. Reality is much more difficult — it isn’t one side good the other side evil. You can’t paint all Israelis or Palestinians with the same brush; and anyone who tries to demonize all Palestinians and call them morons clearly is ignorant of the situation.

But I guess that’s what drives some — emotion and wanting easy answers with violence as key. Alas, that’s fantasy, not reality.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Did everyone else notice Erb ducking the question yet again?
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Did everyone else notice Erb ducking the question yet again?
Your question is an attempt to duck my point and not respond.

I answered the question.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You see one perspective and simply demonize the other side completely.
Correct. I tend to demonize any group that uses women and children (ignore the fact that guys do it) as walking explosive delivery devices, with the targets being places where other women and children hang out (buses, cafe’s, malls, etc.).

That you FAIL to demonize them shows how pathetic you are.

"Pro-Israel" my ass.
Carter’s efforts are important
That’s good, because his outcome failed utterly BECAUSE OF THE PALASTINIANS!!
those who demonize one side, who are driven by bias, and can’t recognize the difficulty of the situation and the need to engage in a variety of efforts to neutralize terrorists and radicals, create security for Israel, and allow moderates to build a viable Palestine.
The fact that every single cease-fire, even the "peace" negotiated by Saint Carter, was broken by the Palastinians escapes you completely, doesn’t it... You can continue claiming that Israel needs to make steps, but it only further proves your bias against Israel. I say that because they HAVE made the steps requested/required, and Palastine still attacks. To claim that it is at ALL Israel’s fault at this point is to ignore who the continued agressors are in this instance.

Here’s a hint if you can’t figure out who that is... They don’t light the menorah.
wanting easy answers with violence as key. Alas, that’s fantasy, not reality.
I don’t know why it isn’t ok, Commrade Professor... It’s exactly the tactics used by Hamas and Hezbolah, and you seem just fine with them...

Or at the least, you excuse the hell outta them.
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
By the way, Stevorino, your question illustrates how differently we approach this issue. You seem to think it’s primarily a moral question — is Israel "more" moral in its tactics than Hamas, and if so, then Israel is "right" and Hamas "wrong." I’m arguing on pragmatic grounds that Israel’s strategy can’t work and only makes Hamas stronger. It’s not a moral issue, I’m not attacking the morality of Israel’s actions (though clearly depending on the case they may be more culpable if victims die or less — it’s a case by case question). The question is pragmatic: how does this end. How do you get the killing of innocents to stop?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Your question is an attempt to duck my point and not respond.

I answered the question.
No, Erb, you did not answer my question. As I said, my question implied both sides shared in the blame, what I wanted to know was which side bore the greater blame. You didn’t answer that, primarily because you think Israel is on the same moral ground as Hamas, etc.
I’m arguing on pragmatic grounds that Israel’s strategy can’t work and only makes Hamas stronger. It’s not a moral issue, I’m not attacking the morality of Israel’s actions (though clearly depending on the case they may be more culpable if victims die or less — it’s a case by case question).
The point is that should Israel stop what it’s doing, Hamas, et al., will continue to attack them. In fact, the attacks will become worse. Less "Palestinians" will die, and I guess less people would die overall, but Israel giving up will not stop the killing. You won’t admit that, because you are so inflexible in your thinking that Israel responding to attacks is just as bad as the attacks themselves. You pride yourself in your pragmatism, but you ignore that fact that you are not recognizing evil for what it is.

Let’s frame it in a different war: a whole lot of innocents died in WW2. Now, not nearly so many of them would have died had the Allied powers capitulated immediately and let the Axis powers have everything they wanted. That’s certainly a pragmatic solution, but it’s not the correct one.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other "Palestinian" groups that deliberately target civilians through suicide bombings (and now missile launchings) are evil. To refuse to fight against evil is evil in itself.

Once more, I will ask you this question. Failure to answer it, or attempting to deflect it, will prove that you are incapable of debating with any shred of intellectual honesty:

When Hamas (or Hezbollah, or whoever) hides in the houses of civilians, who bears the greater responsibility for the deaths of civilians? Israel or the terrorists? How much greater?


I’m guessing you don’t have the guts to face this question with any honesty.

 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Oh, this little tidbit is from the AP wire:
A new attempt at cease-fire in the fierce battle at a Palestinian refugee camp fell apart Tuesday when Lebanese troops and Islamic militants resumed barrages after a pause that lasted nearly an hour.
Palestinians can’t keep a cease-fire among themselves for more than an hour. Why should Israel trust any offer of cease-fire from them?
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
The fact that every single cease-fire, even the "peace" negotiated by Saint Carter, was broken by the Palastinians escapes you completely, doesn’t it... You can continue claiming that Israel needs to make steps, but it only further proves your bias against Israel. I say that because they HAVE made the steps requested/required, and Palastine still attacks. To claim that it is at ALL Israel’s fault at this point is to ignore who the continued agressors are in this instance.
You’re making this up as you along, aren’t you? If you want to be able to talk about a serious issue you have to educate yourself on the realities because you are factually wrong.

Your blame of "the Palestinians" as a group for everything is simply absurd. Oh well, you can remain willfully ignorant. I doubt you’re in a position to do much harm. But here’s a clue to understand life — things aren’t black and white. The innocent Palestinians and Israelis are all humans of equal value, and all suffer because of extremists on both sides. And you need a dose of realism — if you’re a weak group confronting a strong military, you will find it rational to use terror strategies. That’s not condoning them, that’s noting the reality. As I note in my blog today, this is world politics, not Kindergarten. It’s not pointing fingers and saying "they’re being naughty," it’s dealing with complex situations. Grow up.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The point is that should Israel stop what it’s doing, Hamas, et al., will continue to attack them. In fact, the attacks will become worse. Less "Palestinians" will die, and I guess less people would die overall, but Israel giving up will not stop the killing. You won’t admit that, because you are so inflexible in your thinking that Israel responding to attacks is just as bad as the attacks themselves. You pride yourself in your pragmatism, but you ignore that fact that you are not recognizing evil for what it is.
If you look at the history, increased Israeli violence usually leads to increased Palestinian radicalism. Radicalism and violence are driven by rage and hopelessness, only the hard core is truly going to fight until the end; most get seduced by the evildoers because of anger at losing a loved one or having new economic hope — plus the history of occupation and humiliation. That has to be recognized, you can’t just dismiss it.

Yet you are right that Israel can’t just ignore Hamas, they need security tactics, and these will include military actions. Innocents will die, but that’s inevitable given the situation. Israel deserves security, it won’t get it just by doing nothing.

Your question on who bares greater responsibility if innocents die makes no sense, I deny it’s basic premise: that this is something that can be quantified in general terms. Moreover, as I point out, I’m not making a moral argument about those deaths but a pragmatic one: Israel’s policies don’t work if they kill too many innocents because that helps Hamas recruit and generate hate and ill will. Who bares "more responsibility" is an abstract, meaningless question. It is irrelevant to the issue of how best to end the violence and protect the innocents.

After all, when you have a big military you have the luxury of sophisticated bombs and being able to kill within a military framework. If you’re fighting the kind of insurgency Hamas is, the logical tactic is to hide in homes and try to use Israel’s tactics against them. Both sides are acting rationally. Both can be morally questioned. That’s for philosophers to debate; to me the issue is pragmatic: what is the best way to end the fighting? We can’t tell Israel to stop what they’re doing, we can’t tell Hamas to stop what they’re doing (we can, but each side would ignore us). So how do you deal with the real situation at hand, recognizing the the only solution for the situation is a SECURE Israel alongside a VIABLE Palestine.

And perhaps there is no solution, and the violence will just continue. But that could lead to some very bad events.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Palestinians can’t keep a cease-fire among themselves for more than an hour. Why should Israel trust any offer of cease-fire from them?
Actually the Palestinian internal problems may actually pave the way for a break through with Israel — old patterns are being broken down and creative diplomacy could do wonders. No one should just "trust" an offer, but there needs to be verification and tests. But ultimately the status quo is untenable. Israel can’t annex the lands because Palestinians could ultimately vote Israel out of existence if made citizens. Ethnic cleansing would create mass violence and Israelis wouldn’t agree to the moralitiy of such actions anyway. Continuing occupation will increase radicalism until utlimately you get nuclear terror and a lot of dead Israelis and Palestinians — the region could end up a radioactive wasteland.

So difficult or no, the two have to figure out a way to develop peaceful relations. The only way this is likely to work is with regional and US involvement, in part to assure Israeli security. Because the destinies are linked, the Palestinians and Israelis will either learn to live together or they will die together.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Did everyone else notice Erb ducking the question yet again?
Why do you think I totally ignore him? That’s his MO from years back. That and about every logical fallacy you can imagine and then some I’m sure you could name after him alone.

Not worth the effort or the time.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"But here’s a clue to understand life — things aren’t black and white."

And here is another little clue to life- although things are not always black or white, the available choices sometimes are.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Your question on who bares greater responsibility if innocents die makes no sense, I deny it’s basic premise: that this is something that can be quantified in general terms. Moreover, as I point out, I’m not making a moral argument about those deaths but a pragmatic one: Israel’s policies don’t work if they kill too many innocents because that helps Hamas recruit and generate hate and ill will. Who bares "more responsibility" is an abstract, meaningless question. It is irrelevant to the issue of how best to end the violence and protect the innocents.
Once again, you side-step the question, showing you are incapable of honest debate.

First, it’s "bears responsibility", not "bares". I should think a college professor would have enough education in English to know this.

More importantly, however, the side which uses innocents as shields bears full responsibility for the deaths of those innocents. It’s no different from a man shooting at police while using a little girl to hide behind. But you pride yourself in pragmatism to the point where you don’t see the evil inherent in it.

You can prate all you want about not making a moral argument, but the point is that there is an enormous moral component to this struggle that you deliberately ignore. I submit that you ignore it because you know that Israel has the moral high ground, and you are so enamored with your ability to see both sides that you cannot allow any advandtage to Israel.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Once again, you side-step the question, showing you are incapable of honest debate.
You are wrong. I said I do not believe in the premise of your question, nor do I think I can give an answer. That’s not sidestepping, that’s a direct statement that I cannot answer your question.

Thanks for the spelling flame, I always enjoy those.

I’m not sure what you mean by ’moral high ground.’ When I read reports of Israeli soldiers luring kids out so they can shoot at them, I put those Israelis in the same league as the terrorists. When I read reports of Israeli government officials doing all they can to make their attacks premise and limit the death of innocents, I put them on a moral high ground. When I read of Hamas tactics of suicide bombing or hiding amongst civilians when they know they’ll be attacked, they are at the moral low ground. When I read of Palestinians working for peace and reconciliation, as many are, I see them occupying the moral high ground.

One reason your question is flawed is you are assuming two collective identities, Israel and Palestinian, and burdening the "Palestinian" identity with all the evil they do. By wanting to see this as a morality play where one has the high ground and one the low ground, you also ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians under occupation and how that kind of experience breeds terror. You also completely sidestep my argument about the reality of the situation.

That is an answer to your question: a claim I disagree with the premise and thus can’t answer it, followed by a detailed explanation of what I think is wrong with the question and how it leads you to judge the situation in a way I consider misguided. If you are interested in honest debate you can’t just say "you didn’t answer it the way I wanted to" and ignore what I wrote.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
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