You gotta excuse the beav, those little kids on the bus traumatized him on MLK day.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

As long as he continues to go abroad and tell the world what a bad country we are, I will continue to bring up his pathetic, sorry, terrorist-appeasing legacy.

It is caused by all the fun people make about cowboy Reagan.

Thanks for posting the articles from Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid in Boston and the ever popular Republican and administration shill Michelle Malkin. I had seen the Herald piece but I quit reading Malkin after her book In Defense of Internment came out. Her views generally do not interest me but I read the part you posted. So many people have such strong opinions about the Middle East with such little knowlege that I have decided to stop blogging about it as it only inflames people.

Let’s consider Cal Thomas’s article, “Israel faces two states of destruction” printed here in last week’s paper.

Cal says: “Whatever their names, be they groups like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda, or states like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, their objectives are identical: the annihilation of the democratic Jewish state and the elimination of all Jews, either by death or displacement, from the land.”

In fact, Fatah has recognized Israel. Saudi Arabia and Syria have endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative which explicitly recognizes Israel and calls for normal diplomatic relations. There is a peace deal which has been worked out between Syria and Israel that returns the Golan Heights to Syria and establishes a de-militarized zone there. It has been stopped by the US which has forbidden Israel to negotiate with Syria, on pain of withholding some US funds, because the US believes a peace deal between the two countries would undermine the fight against Hezbollah.

Cal goes on to say: “Hamas won’t stop with Gaza. After its victory over poorly directed Israeli forces in Lebanon last summer, why should it?”

Well why indeed? Except that Hamas did not fight Israel in Lebanon last summer. Hezbollah did.

Cal states with certainty that “..Israel has two choices: surrender now, or prepare for all-out war with catastrophic results.”

With who? Syria? Not likely. Syria would like to conclude a peace agreement if it could get back the Golan Heights. Jordan? They already have a peace agreement with Israel. Egypt? Peace deal. Saudi Arabia. Nope. And “catastrophic results?” Israel could defeat them all at any time and they know it.

Here is Cal again in full command of the facts, “Since President Bush laid out his “vision” for a two-state solution to Middle East turmoil four years ago this month, Israel has frozen expansion of Jewish communities beyond the armistice lines of 1949 (a major Palestinian demand).”

Nine new Israeli settlements and 65 new outposts in the Palestinian Territories between 2002 and the end of 2003.

In August 2004, the US condemned Israel's announcement Israel’s announced plans for thousands of homes in a new settlement on 3,750 acres of West Bank land, which would be sited between Jerusalem and the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim.

On December 26, 2006, Israel approved a new settlement in the West Bank to house former Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip, in the northern West Bank town of Maskiot (breaking a promise to the U.S. to halt home construction in the Palestinian territories).

On 19 March 2007, a new settlement was established in the heart of a Palestinian neighborhood in Hebron. The Israeli army has redeployed in the city to protect the settlement.

The newest settlement, Nof Zion, is due to open in 2007 and is being built amid 10,000 Palestinian residents of the village Jabel Mukhaber

Do facts even matter?

Cal ends up with, “Apparently enough fools remain in leadership in Israel, the United States and Europe to encourage the killers to fight on until victory is attained.”

Perhaps the leadership of the United States, Israel and the EU are all fools. Perhaps everyone in the parade is out of step except Cal Thomas and Michelle Malkin.

Let me quickly refer to Earl Tilford’s article, “How to avoid the almost certain Iraq hangover” in the same edition of the paper. Dr. Tilford gives several points on how to deal with the Iraq situation starting with, “First, President George W. Bush must assert strategic, political leadership and steal a page from Churchill.” I’ll let that one go. His other points are to pull out some troops and redeploy others to the Kurdish north and to Kuwait while sending some to Afghanistan and while we are doing this, we should also reengage our European and Asian allies. If you have been reading my letters to the editor and blogs, you will know that this is the position I have been advocating for years. I welcome Tilford’s seeming repudiation of everything he has been writing for the last two years but, for me, it’s years too late.

And now to the amazingly stupid article which started this blog, “Father of the Iranian revolution,” by Michael Evans in which he accuses Carter of causing virtually every conflict in the world including, “the birth of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.” If anyone is interested in facts, they can go online to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and look in their Virtual Documents for Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Directive 166.

So Denise here’s the bottom line for me. It takes a lot of time for me to refute the stuff posted here, no matter how silly it is. Further, I have decided that I don’t really care what Michael Evans, Michelle Malkin, et. al. have to say. The blogging has been fun but everybody here knows what everybody here thinks by now. For me, there seems to be very little upside.

I’m taking a break.

"Jimmy Carter is right," agrees The Red Menance (New Democratic Party member and a fighter for Revolutionary Marxism, the "organic home for all progressive tendencies," i.e., socialism)

_____________________________

Thought I'd see what the take on Carter's latest doings are at The Huffington Post (great source for news), and here are a few of the news stories and blogs linked to from HuffPo:

"Carter's Nutzpah" (INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY)

Has Jimmy Carter gone off the deep end? He's now scolding the West for refusing to bankroll Hamas terrorists who've just seized power at gunpoint in Gaza. It's a new low in coddling terrorism.

As the Gaza Strip flamed into Hamas gang warfare and the West Bank slid into another civil war, Carter — cozy in distant Ireland accepting another "human rights" award — found cause Tuesday to blame America first for all the violence.

Amid wine, cheese and good feeling, America's worst ex-president drew a bead on the West. The refusal by the U.S., Israel and the EU to support Hamas, an armed terror group that just launched a coup d'etat and civil war in full view of the world, was nothing but a "criminal" act at the root of the trouble there, Carter asserted.

"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.

The statement was so malevolent and illogical as to border on insane. Carter wasn't honest enough to say he was rooting for terrorists who started a terrifying new war in the region and trashed what little democratic rule the Palestinians had. Instead, he tut-tutted the West for being insufficiently sensitive to the fact that Hamas thugs were democratically elected in 2006 in an "orderly and fair" vote.

When one party has started a civil war, democracy isn't exactly the issue anymore. Just being elected does not justify making warfare on your fellow citizens. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly points out that those who are elected democratically have an obligation to govern democratically or they aren't democrats. Hamas has blown its right to democracy.

Carter also misstated and distorted technical aspects of democratic rule in the Palestinian Authority itself, further calling into question his intentions. Hamas' 42% plurality in the last parliamentary election gave the terror group a right to participate in government, but not absolute power.

Carter neglected to notice that President Mahmoud Abbas, Palestine's head of state, not only had a full democratic right to appoint Hamas members to his Cabinet, but he also had the right to dismiss them as he did Thursday. Carter's selective respect for the power-sharing aspect of Palestine's democracy stands out as significantly skewed toward Hamas.

Crazier still, Carter insisted Hamas was entitled to American aid because Fatah had been getting it. But he left out some details: Hamas is a terrorist organization that had broken six previous cease-fires, and its campaign platform vowed to destroy Israel. Hamas would gladly take Western cash to make good on that campaign promise to voters.

No one in the West is obligated to support an international terrorist organization just because it "won" an election. The proper response is to cut it off until it renounces violence.

For refusing to fund Hamas but propping up the slightly less unworthy Fatah, Carter charged the U.S. with trying to "divide the Palestinians into two peoples."

With such words, Carter can hardly be called a peacemaker. In fact, he should have been profoundly ashamed at his acceptance of his Nobel Prize. Ironically, his partner in peace, Yasser Arafat, got his stolen and desecrated by the very Hamas Carter defends. That ought to give him pause as he defends terrorists as democrats.

(The satiric touch is effective, in my opinion.)
_____________________________

"Carter Blasts U.S. Policy on Palestinians"

The Associated Press story carried by the Star-Telegram, The Washington Post, et al.

_____________________________

"GIVE HAMAS A CHANCE: CARTER" (New York Post)

Referring to the John Lennon (of the Beatles) song "Give Peace a Chance"?

_____________________________

Reuters: In May [Carter] described Bush's presidency as "the worst in history". [sic]

"This departure on human rights [for terrorists?] is completely incompatible with all the predecessors in the White House," he said.

(I guess he didn't read Michelle Malkin's book either.)
_____________________________

"Jimmah Cahtah: Don’t Be A Menace To Hamas"

And this may be fresh news to people like the Wise Peanut of Jihad, but here it is, in words that he can understand: Palestininian [sic] voters putting a terrorist organization that includes not only a refusal to recognize, but to eradicate Israel in its charter is NOT in our best national interest.

Here’s one thing I can’t help but notice: nowhere in any of the quotes I use in this post, or in the entire article these quotes are pulled from, does Uncle Jimmah come up with one good reason based on its political platform to explain Hamas’ victory as a basis for dealing with them. His only explanation for why we should now accept them as bona fide political players: they did a better job of selecting candidates.

Well, to be completely honest, he makes a decent point: No Hamas candidate ever said “I agreed to kill as many Jews as possible after I disagreed to.” No flip-flopping there. (Ummmm, John Kerry, how does it feel to have run a worse political strategy than a Hamas thug?) You see, we should recognize Hamas and treat them like any other political party carried to to a leadership position not because they’re a bunch of murderous thugs who have throughout the years literally bribed and brainwashed the Palestinian population into being their tools of mayhem and murder, but we should dutifully recognize them because they are politically savvy murderous thugs who have throughout the years literally bribed and brainwashed the Palestinian population into being their tools of mayhem and murder.

Subtle difference, in a moral relativistic kind of way, ain’t it?

What is criminal is not the necessary and logical American and (gasp) European reaction to the ultimate mainstreaming of a terrorist group by a group of people who have been fed a steady dose of despair, corruption, violence and hate, as Carter would have us believe. What is criminal is Carter’s gut-wrenching willingness to prostitute the very meaning of the word “terrorism” by condoning Hamas’ rise to power while, at the same time, paying vacuous lip service to principles of peace, justice, and understanding. The old opportunist described by the left as a tireless fighter for a better world seems to lay his arms down might fast when it come to really confronting the problems of this world.

_____________________________

"FOR THE REALITY-CHALLENGED COMMUNITY" from Dr. Sanity

Jimmy Carter wants the U.S. to make nice with Hamas [video & commentary at powerlineblog.com]? Well here's a little history lesson [“Father of the Iranian revolution” at jpost.com] for the reality-challenged community who sees Carter as some sort of saint:

The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."

Read it all and weep. That Jimmy Carter today enjoys a 'blessed icon' status within the ranks of the reality-challenged political left illustrates the degree of self-delusion and denial to which they have sunk. Not a single lefty blog commented on Carter's pimping for Hamas.

As Ed Morrissey [link] asks: [Exerpt]

Even more ridiculous, Carter feels that we should applaud the organizational skills of a terrorist group that just murdered its way to the top of the Gaza power structure. He applauds their "superior skills and discipline," while turning a blind eye to the ways in which they apply them. Rather than scold them for using violence to achieve their political goals, Carter wants the global community to welcome and reward them for it.

But this is the modus operandi of the left: they distort history [link] and aggressively appease and/or reward evil wherever they find it. Additionally, as Siggy notes [link], What else do defenders of dysfunctional, racist and bigoted regimes post on? America of course!

For the intellectual and moral pygmies of the left, it is always America and Israel who are to blame for the behavior of all those poor, helpless terrorists out there, who only kill innocents and each other because we force them to [link]!

And Jimmy Carter is, without a doubt, the most reality and morally-challenged leftist pygmy of the lot.

_____________________________

"Father of the Iranian Revolution" on Jerusalem Post
_____________________________

"Carter Attacks US"

Former American, peanut farmer Jimmy Carter has slammed the Bush administration for their "wanton" interference with the Iranian nuclear programme.

In a speech to the IRA in Dublin he said it was "unfair" and "illogical" that Iran should not have the same means to destroy humanity as the US.

After thanking the Irish Government for their $1.2 million gift to his favourite charity, the brown-tongued turncoat launched a frenzied attack on the US and UK Governments. Reaching into his pocket for a small black moustache which he placed under his nose, he called on the IRA to join Hamas and overthrow "the imperialist enemy". [sic]

Carter, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with his late chum, embezzler Yasser Arafat, told his audience that "Human rights dictate that the IRA should also become a nuclear power so it can have a fair chance of achieving regime change in Northern Ireland". [sic]

In front of a stunned crowd the disgraced ex-President then left the podium to reveal knee length leather boots and began goose-stepping around the auditorium.

Mel Gibson, a close friend of Carter told "The Spoof", "The guy's been under a lot of strain lately. He hasn't even made the last two KKK meetings". [sic]

_____________________________

Jeff, thanks for the information, but I guess a lot of people just don't perceive Carter the same way (pictures of him with Arafat and Castro come to mind).

Michelle Malkin, a "shill" (one who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.)? Are you implying that Democrats/liberals are the only ones who can think for themselves?

You really should find out what Michelle is saying about a lot of topics, and you'd see that she's no "shill" for "the ever popular [???] Republican and administration," especially on the immigration bill. I don't think that Republicans have been "duped" on that issue.

I haven't read her book In Defense of Internment, although it's been recommended as thought-provoking. She is defending the actions of a DEMOCRAT (FDR, the greatest Dem president ever), isn't she? Rather interesting topic for a Republican "shill" and the daughter of immigrants.

Rupert Murdoch controls the Boston Herald editorial staff? (Like the way zany leftist Ted Turner controlled CNN?) Ever consider that there are other voices out there? Thanks to the internet and talk radio and, yes, Fox News they get to be heard.

Perhaps you should take Carter with you on your break. He seems to need a break (from the spot light for criticizing the U.S.). Then he wouldn't have all of these mean, ignorant people responding to his public comments, "as it only inflames people."

(No personal antagonism meant toward you, or even Carter)

Well, you drew me back.

One of the fundamental differences between your side and my side is that your side thinks that groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, the Sandinistas, the SPLA and such can be defeated militarily. Of course it never works, and it radicalizes them like al Qaeda by promoting their most radical elements, but hope springs eternal. What does work is to allow these groups into the government then have them be responsible for building roads, schools, health care, etc. It’s very hard for them to do. It’s very hard for them to maintain their revolutionary retoric when they are the ones responsible for making a government work. It’s very hard for them to be “oppressed” when they are the ones in charge and are responsible to their people. This approach virtually wiped out the armed wings of the IRA, SPLA and Sandinistas. It might have worked with Hamas. Would you rather Israel have a government to negotiate with or a terrorist group hiding behind masks waving AK-47s? After Hamas won the election, they were isolated, Palestinian tax funds were withheld, food and medical supplies were withdrawn, school teachers and police could not be paid. These actions were not helpful to the government (and yes, I know we wanted the government to fail). It further radicalized the fringe wing of Hamas. Worse, we supplied $76 million worth of “police equipment” to Fatah to enable them to sustain their attacks against Hamas. A guarantee of further radicalization. Now we seem surprised that a civil war is brewing. Now we are saying how great Fatah is and how they should be supported. Remember when the PLO was a terrorist group? Until they took over the government and had to perform as one. Remember when Fatah was a terrorist group? Remember these Fatah groups: Black September, Abu Nidal's Fatah-Revolutionary Council, Abu Musa's the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine? Now they are moderates? Our friends? Israel’s friends? No. What happened to them? They faded away and were subsumed by more moderate elements of Fatah. Why? Because Fatah became part of the government.

So, I know this will not change your mind but thanks for the listening. For me it’s a choice between a course of attack and isolation, which does not work, and slow incorporation into government and responsibility which is excruciatingly slow and painful and mostly not pretty but which has proven to be successful over the long run as shown in Ireland, Nicaragua, Liberia, Mozambique, Southern Sudan, with the PLO, with Fatah and with others. In every conflict, there comes a time when either one side has won or they have fought to a withering stand-still. In the case of a stand-still, sometimes there is a moment when a peace deal can be tried. There was a chance with Hamas after the election and it was not tried. Who is better off because of it? Now we will further isolate Hamas and give further succor to their most radical elements. Do you think that is going to work?

I will give you a prediction, and when it happens I will have been justified and your side will have been repudiated. After it happens, if you’re interested, ask and I will write another dissertation for you explaining the minutia of its significance. And please don’t interpret that as any kind of criticism of you not having the extremely specialized knowledge of the conflict. Here is my prediction:

Israel will free Marwan Barghouti from prison

I still can't comprehend how putting terrorists/murderers/thugs in positions of power changes them from being terrorists/murderers/thugs. Saddam Hussein and his sons were murderers and thugs who terrorized so many people. They lived in luxury at the expense of the people over whom they ruled. Aren't the very people that you're referring to guilty of a lot more than "revolutionary rhetoric"?

"It’s very hard for them to be 'oppressed' when they are the ones in charge and are responsible to their people." -- I just question how "responsible" they will be. Perhaps they would trade bombing civilians for a decadent lifestyle (like Saddam), but it seems that bombing civilians and destruction is more appealing to them than building schools. I don't see how it would solve their intense hatred for Israel either. Seems that they'd just use their power to fight Israel with more force -- revenge for their "oppression."

I do NOT know much about all of the inter-relationships over there; so these comments are just my impressions after reading and hearing news reports. A lot of what the State Dept. does doesn't make sense to me (such as the "$76 million worth of 'police equipment' to Fatah").

"So, I know this will not change your mind but thanks for the listening." -- You gave me something to think about.

"And please don’t interpret that as any kind of criticism of you not having the extremely specialized knowledge of the conflict." -- I freely admit that I don't and I won't even try.

About Marwan Barghouti -- Since in the past he has advocated for peace with Israel and was a "strong campaigner against the corruption festering in the Fatah movement" (and he's educated and wasn't "lock-step" with Yasser Arafat), you're likely right.

It seems that he did advocate suicide bombings (and other kinds of attacks?) against Israeli civilians in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Jerusalem, as well as against the Israeli military. He tried to disassociate himself from some suicide bombings but was convicted. For that he deserves to stay in prison. How can anyone respect someone who would do those things to civilians? Suicide bombings are dishonorable (if that's the right word) because the victims can't defend themselves or fight back. They cause so much distrust and chaos. So how could you trust a person who uses those tactics as a leader? Also, if a person believes in suicide bombings, why doesn't he blow himself up rather than using someone else?

Since Israeli President Shimon Peres declared while he was Deputy Prime Minister that he would sign a presidential pardon for Marwan Barghouti when elected, he may do it. It doesn't seem to have kept him from becoming president.

"After it happens, if you’re interested, ask and I will write another dissertation for you explaining the minutia of its significance." -- Anything that you know about politics over there -- less controversial than local politics -- I'd be interested in your opinion. But don't get too technical on me (or maybe for a lot of us here)! Keeping up with things here keeps me busy!

Since so much of our taxpayers' money goes to other countries, I should know more; but I guess that I'd not have much effect on foreign policy! I hope someone's watching the politicians and holding them accountable because that $76 million could have been much better spent, in my opinion.

to read this one, first in a while, but you did me in with comparing Ignorant, Alcoholic, doper Bush to Peace Prize winner, Peanut Farmer Carter!
Your comparing one terrorist group in Palestine with another as to who is the best one is laughable---or at least you quoted others who did.
Are you people trying to throw the scent the hounds have on this stupid administration onto a US President of many, many years ago?
He knows more about that bunch in the middle east than the entire bunch who comment on this blog, including me.
If Pace, Rumsfeld and many others had said those things Carter has said at least three years ago, we would be out of that horror, which will still be there for another 4,000 years!
My Lord we need Hillary for awhile, I think.

There are very few absolutes in life, but one thing is certain: whenever Jimmy Carter opens his mouth; the Reich-wing starts frothing.

I've noticed the Michelle Malkins of the world and her goose-stepping followers are now condemning former President Carter for saying that Hamas (which the United States has designated a terra-ist group) should be treated the same as Fatah.(which the United States has also designated a terra-ist group). Oh, and have you noticed the major political party in Israel is the Likud, and they have also been designated a terra-ist group?

Right wingnuts never, ever offer any solution to the problems facing Israel. They can only offer shiny eyed ranting and spittle-flecked oratory when statesmen like Mr. Carter say something that might lead to a solution.

please tell us you are kidding. Tell us you don't really believe this buffoon has done or will ever do anything to negate the ridiculous statements he makes and the support he has given the terrorist.

No doubt Jimmy Carter is a well meaning Christian but the terrorist have a koranical edict to eradicate Christians and Jimmy just doesn't get it.

Look at the big picture? Sure, and Carter continues to confirm every time he opens his mouth that he was and is still an incompetent leader.

Twenty years ago he had a chance to keep building houses and possibly repair his world image but all hope for doing that is down the tube now.

I'm more concerned, at this time, with Jimmy's most recent statement during a press conference, where he is quoted as stating that the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."

If he really thinks that the administration is committing criminal acts against a terrorist organization, then he should speak up and demand an inquiry. Otherwise he is just undermining the U.S. and showing support for a bunch of middle-eastern thugs.

They say you can tell a lot about a person by who his enemies are.

Terrorists like Hamas are an enemy to the U.S., which speaks volumes about Jimmy Carter.

Name one of his Hamas friends.

Jimmy is a friend to all of Hamas and an enemy to the U.S. when he shoots his mouth of overseas (as he usually does because he is so gutless) by saying that the Bush administration actions are criminal because they won't give legitimacy to a known terrorist organization.

Remember Jeff, when Palestineans lay down their arms, there will be peace. If the Israelis lay down their arms, they will be annihilated. Is that what Jimmy wants?

that you wouldn't be able to name one?