Decision ‘08

Carter Blames Israel - Again

Our ex-President from Georgia is an embarrassment:

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international “road map” for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel’s official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal. [Emphasis mine]

I suppose it was Israel that walked away from Oslo, not Arafat. I suppose it was Israel that kidnapped its own soldiers, not Hezbollah and Hamas. I suppose it is Israel that is calling for its own extermination, not the Iranian President. I suppose it is Israel that is using the Shebaa Farms myth as an excuse for violence in violation of UN Resolution 1680, not Syria.

Jimmy, don’t you have some homes to build or something?…

16 Responses to “Carter Blames Israel - Again”

1 too many steves Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 9:40 am
And let’s not forget UN resolution 1559 that mandated the disarmament of Hezbollah - that is certainly Israel’s fault as well, both the resolution and the failure to implement it.
2 Ron Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 9:45 am
This from a man who can lead a nation through 444 days of Americans held in captivity and do nothing that gets results! Go pound sand, Jimmy! …or at least a few nails.
3 Jaime Raúl Molina Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 9:51 am
I wonder how this man got to be president of the United States. Fortunately you Americans corrected course 4 years later and put in The Chair a real man.

Jimmy Carter is the same man who not only failed to denounce the electoral fraud that he “oversaw” in the Referendum for revoking Hugo Chavez mandate in Venezuela a few years ago. He not only failed to condemn what every person who is not totally blind knows was a gigantic fraud, but he even ENDORSED the results.
4 megapotamus Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 9:55 am
Another lowlight: I think it was on the Matthews show a year or so back wherein Jimmah denounced the American Revolution as a gratuitous excercise in bellicosity. Why, we could have done just what the Canadians did, remain under the Empire, then the Commonwealth and then finally negotiate independence centuries later. A modern President who does not support the Revolution of 200 years ago… I gotta say, if that isn’t anti-American then there is no such thing even hypothetically.
5 Webloggin Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 10:47 am
Hasn't Jimmy Carter Caused Enough Harm Already?

Carter is quite aware that he is selectively picking and choosing which condemnation to cite in his anti-Israel screed. He would rather cite the condemnation surrounding the airstrike on Qana; an event whose characterizations are undergoing scrutiny it…
6 Ryan Bonneville Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 10:49 am
Wait, Carter denounced the American Revolution? I am going to Google right now. As if he weren’t already an insufferable idiot…
7 Colin Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 10:53 am
Ryan,

Let us know what you come up with.
8 Dave Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 11:17 am
Didn’t Carter do enough harm to America with his double-digit interest rates and lame foreign policy when he was president? Carter makes Clinton look good. What an embarrassment.
9 Brian Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 11:22 am
Yep he said so back in October 2004 on Hardball. Here’s a snippet of the conversation. (Notice Matthews ridiculous question trying to draw a moral equivalency between the patriots fighting in the American Revolution and the civilian attacking cowards that the liberals call “Iraqi insurgents”. I don’t recall one story about American soldiers slipping into civilian clothes and using bombs against British soldiers in densely populated town squares with lots of innocent people around.)

————————————-

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about—this is going to cause some trouble with people—but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?

CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.

——————————————-

If you want to see it all here is the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6281085/

I am from the great state of Georgia and I can say that I am honestly ashamed this weak minded appeaser hails from my home state. Lots of other Georgians feel the same way. We live in a great state but Jimmy Carter is proof that we aren’t a perfect place and we can’t always turn out good people.

Go frame a house Jimmy!!!
10 Mark Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 11:38 am
Mega, I have to (gulp!) take up for Carter on this one (I know, I know). He really was implying it was unnessary because of the ignorance of the British:

…[I]n some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.
11 PartisanTimes.com Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
The Protocols Of The Elder Carter

From the jumbled mind of Jimmy Carter comes the most incoherent argument on the Islamo-Israeli Conflict ever published by the Washington Post; indeed, Band-Aid Treatment alone cannot begin to hold this piece together. Apparently, Jimmy wants to remind …
12 Chris Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

The Civil War made the Revolutionary War look like a skirmish. That’s not recent.

Jimmy was not only a miserable president and currently a miserable ex-president, he also lacks any historical knowledge.
13 megapotamus Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Sorry Mark, no sale. The Canadian to Commonweal bits blow that out of the water. All that mealy-mouthism amounts to, what they call in the biz, a Mighty Big “IF”.

When will you fools learn to just BELIEVE ME!?!?!?!?
14 Mark Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, as they say in the big leagues - my interpretation is that Carter was saying it was the British who forced the Revolutionary War with their bullheadedness and intransigence, and I have a hard time disagreeing with him

Honest people can differ, of course!…
15 ASensibleGuy Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Sorry, you all. On main point, Carter’s right. As anyone who’s ever been a kid knows, just because he/she did that to you doesn’t mean that it was right for you to do that to them.

C’mon guys/gals. Both sides shouldn’t give each other any room for an excuse for their respectively deplorable actions. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a full scope political settlement is required, including the Palestinian problem. These continuing attempts at pressuring each other’ s leadership to make a political move by harming its citizens/followers does nothing but build militancy and further the distance from the ultimate goal of a sustainable peace.

PS - The dictionary definition of terrorism is:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sorry to say, both sides are doing it now. (Haifa, Lebanese Power Plants and Grain Silos, etc.) And both still are giving each other excuses to do so (security, occupation, hostages/prisoners, etc.). Worst of all, our American government is supporting the tactic.
16 Jaime Raúl Molina Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 10:16 pm
“PS - The dictionary definition of terrorism is:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sorry to say, both sides are doing it now. (Haifa, Lebanese Power Plants and Grain Silos, etc.) And both still are giving each other excuses to do so (security, occupation, hostages/prisoners, etc.). Worst of all, our American government is supporting the tactic.”

That definition is as ambiguos as it can be. It defines nothing. It just let anyone apply the term to anything. Under that definition, if cornered and threatened by a mugger in the street, I have to draw my gun to make it clear I mean business, then I am using a terrorist tactic. Because, obviously, it is my intention to DISSUADE the mugger from continuing his threat. That is the precise objective of DISSUATION or DETERRENCE. Deterrence only works precisely because I am conveying the attacker the message that if he continues his threat against me, he will suffer badly. The idea is to convince him that in the net balance, he will come out losing instead of winning, so that he then decides it’s just not worth it.

If you are gonna say that any use of this deterrence principle amounts to terrorism, as your dictionary definition amounts to, then the word loses any meaning. Then whenever I punish my kid because of bad behaviour, I am a terrorist. Then you and I are no different from islamofascists who blow themselves up and tens of innocent people, just because they hate Jews and Americans and basically anybody who does not submit to their totalitarian views. That moral relativism I cannot accept.

Now, going back to reality: Hezbollah initiated the attacks. Israel has the right to defend themselves. You have only to take a look at the fact that in the Middle East no country that has never thrown a bomb, rocket, or patronized terrorist attacks on Israel, has ever suffered bombings or retaliation by Israel. You want peace from me? Right. Just don’t try to kill me or my kids, or to take what’s mine, and you will never have to worry about my gun being even pointed at you. But as soon as you start threatening my life or my family’s life or property, I am in survival gear and have an absolute right to defend myself from aggresion, using deadly force if that is necessary. And that who uses force only to defend himself from aggression, has a moral position very high above that of the aggressor.

Don’t believe me? Check your Bible. No God has ever expected their sheep to willingly accept their execution.