I Know I Should Not Say This About Anyone, Even Jimmy Carter But...

Can you please contract some sort of illness which will prevent former President Carter from speaking. Ever. Again?

I mean, it's not enough that he likes to throw around labels like "apartheid state" without any idea what it means. Especially when a person like President Carter is too much of a coward to debate his ideas. But then again, what should we expect from a man who failed to protect American citizens or safeguard sovereign U.S. territory? Well, that's right, we should expect him to decry other nations for protecting their citizens from murderous, terrorist, theocratic thugs.

So what has President Carter done now? He has asked his ideological progeny, that would be President Obama, to take Hamas off the terrorist watch list. I guess the fact that Hamas supports, sponsors, and orders terror attacks on Israel is something that he overlooked when he shook hands with those murderous outlaws.

Someone should take a look at the Carter foundation books a little more carefully. If he is not being paid to shill for the terrorists, then he has joined them.

And People Still Think This Man Is Worth Listening To?

He writes a book asserting that a functional democracy is an apartheid state.

He lies about who gave him the basis for his charge of that this democracy is an apartheid state.

He refuses to submit his position to a debate public debate.

He also states that a nation which is under attack (via rockets, suicide bombers, and gunmen) does not have any legal or moral justification to defend itself.

Now, he is back in the Middle East, trying to do... what the stated purpose is I am not sure. All he seems to be doing is trying to add legitimacy to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a variety of terrorist groups.

Thanks former President Carter. Please go back to Georgia and stop giving aid and comfort to these outlaws.

Showing His True Colors ... Again

The worst-ex-president-still-living (aka Jimmy Carter) is at it again.

Not content to merely misrepresent the facts of what happened when he was in office, or to use language calculated to inflame the situation, or to present a fair account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the worst-ex-presidnet-still-living has taken to using "fake but true" documents to support his position.

Apparently, in defending his abhorent position that Israel is actually the equivalent of South Africa during the apartheid-era, Mr. Carter is now claiming to have support for his views from someone who lived under apartheid. He states that Nelson Mandela sent a letter to the New York Times' columnist, Thomas Friedman, stating that he shares Mr. Carter's view.

There is only one problem: Mandela never wrote the letter. It was written by Arjan El-Fessed, a man who operates a site called "The Electronic Intifada".

Thanks to Mr. Carter's use of this hoax, it has now been given legitimacy and found its way into a number of reports on Israel as evidence of Israel's perfidity. Including one submitted to the UN.

Let's see, Israel tells the truth and no one listens. Someone cooks up a fake book (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) or a fake document (the El-Fessed letter) and the world swallows it whole without even thinking.

And Mr. Carter calls himself a friend of Israel. I think its more telling who he fights for, rather than who he claims to be a friend of: North Korean and its leader Kim Jong-Il, Cuba and its dictator, Fidel Castro, former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, former Pakistani General Zia ul-Haq, and others. His meddling in North Korea prevented the United States from dealing properly, as it should have, with their attempt to develop nuclear weapons in 1994. Most tellingly, he abandoned American territory and sentenced American personnel to 444 days of captivity and depredation because of his lack of will to stand up for the people of the United States.

He chooses to represent the cause of terrorists, dictators, and gross human rights abusers. At every turn, he undercuts the authority and prestige of not just the United States but of Western ideals in general. Now he chooses to use lies to support his untenable, illogical, and immoral stance. Can we who are not red-staters finally stop beatifying this man and call him what he is?

Still Hiding

I like how President Carter is trying to avoid facing up to what he has done. He is doing the least amount possible to try and look like he has not changed sides to take up the cause of terrorists.

This week, Carter appeared at Brandeis University. However, instead of appearing to debate and defend his ideas, he appeared at an event closed to the public. All the questions were pre-screened. To his credit, he did allow questions asking why his foundation took Saudia Arabia. However, he apparently failed to answer the second part of the question: why had he, or his foundation, never criticized Saudia Arabia for their human rights abuses.



Still, he had a chance to put his ideas to a test. But like virtually all modern "statesmen", he refused. Its shame that this country has gone from a place where leaders were unfraid to confront the most contentious questions of the day in head to head debate, and have now retreated to sniping, and then only owning up to their actions in controlled, private events.

As far as what he said, it is interesting. He admits in an interview that he wrote every word, that there was no one else involved in the writing of the book. However, he says he is being misunderstood for a poor word choice that makes it appears that he supports the continuation terrorism against Israel until Israel unilaterally does everything the Arabs demand. And that the passage in question, on page 213, will be left out of future editions.

Let's see, that has been promised by someone else. Who else promised to take out passages from future editions of something to renouncing the use of terror? That's right, it would have been Yasser Arafat. Worked out real well.

Another Tidbit From Someone Who Believes In Peace

Or at least says he does. I missed this one the other day, but came across it over at Airborne Combat Engineer. The New York Post quotes former president Carter as saying,

"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." (Emphasis added by New York Post.)

Let's think about this statement for a second. The Roadmap for Peace was premised on a few ideas. First, Israel was to accept the formation of a Palestinian state. As a condition for this, the Palestinian Authority was to end certain practices. Which ones? The acts of terrorism and violence.

In fact, it states in the Roadmap for Peace 's agreement, that

At the outset of Phase I:

• Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.

Since 2003, when the Roadmap for Peace was announced, the Palestinian Authority has yet to follow through on its commitment to end violence. In fact, the government of the Palestinian Authority, now made up primarily of officials of the terrorist group Hamas, have made it clear that they are fundamentally opposed to any peace negotiations with Israel. In fact, article thirteen of its charter states, "[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement." So the government elected by the arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip elect people who refuse to participate in peace negotiations. Instead, only wanting the elimination of Israel as its pre-condition to peace.

Its nice to know that Mr. Carter, who has made such helpful contributions of late to the situation in the Middle East, such as labelling the only functional democracy that allows all of its citizens the chance to vote as an Apartheid state, is willing to stand up for peace and call on Arabs and Muslims extremists to lay down their weapons of destruction after Israel has capitulated fully and totally to their demands.

What do you call this type of person?

Perhaps you know the type. They are the ones who make statements that insult and demean others under the guise of promoting peace or diversity or some other platitude. They are the ones who, when called upon to defend their ideas refuse.

Sometimes they have an excuse. Sometimes they just say that they refuse because the person challenging them to defend their ideas, in their opinion only, is described as someone who knows nothing about the situation.

I know what I would call them.

Now in the case that I am thinking of, the invitation for a debate was not issued by either Oxford or Cambridge Union. It was, however, offered by a univeristy which does have an interest in the situation and desire to promote discourse on the subject. Furthermore, it is not as if the person involved was being challenged to defend his position against a drunken, un-educated lout. In fact, the person who was going to put the ideas espoused by this person is a professor with more than a passing interest in matter.

So, given that situation, what would you call the person who refused to take the opportunity to defend his position?

Unfortunately, I have to call him Mr. Carter. The idea he is promoting is that Israel practices a policy of apartheid and is not committed to seeking peace, and instead seeks to perpetuate the violence in the Middle East.

The person who was offered to debate him is Allan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor. The site of the debate was to Brandeis University.

And Mr. Carter's response was, "I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz," Carter said in Friday's Boston Globe. "There is no need ... to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

Now what do you call someone like this?

The Worst President and Now The Worst Ex-President

James Earl "Jimmy" Carter was, in my humble opinion, one of the least effective presidents we ever put in office. One of the few good things which could be said about his administration is that it ended after only four years. He managed to create a deadlock with Congress (controlled by his own party), preside over stagflation, allowed Americans in Iran to be held hostage for more than a year, and made the most ineffectual protest to an act of aggression by cancelling the United States' participation in the 1980 Summer Olympics.

After leaving office his triumphs have included the now failed North Korean nuclear weapons deal. This was supposed to provide a solution to the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula.

And now, almost thirty years after the Camp David Accords, Mr. Carter has decided to weigh in again with a new book and speaking tour. Its nice to see that he is providing a balanced look at the Arab-Israeli problem with comments such as:

"No, that's not true at all," responded Carter. "Israel hasn't really tried to give 'Palestine' back to the Palestinians. They did give up some of Gaza. And then they moved out, and the Palestinians captured one soldier and tried to swap [him] for 300 children – some as young as 12 years old – and 94 women, but the Israelis wouldn't swap. So then Israel reinvaded Gaza. But if Israel ever wants peace – and they do want peace – a majority of Israelis have always said, 'Let's get rid of the land, and let's have peace.' That's what we need to have."

and this lovely pronouncement from a man who failed to rescue people under his leadership

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

An advocate of trades, he fails to see what trading prisoners for hostages has gotten Israel. In his own article, Carter notes that the three of trades involved, "1,150 Arabs, mostly Palestinians, for three Israeli soldiers in 1985; 123 Lebanese for the remains of two Israeli soldiers in 1996; and 433 Palestinians and others for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers in 2004."

And what have these trades gotten Israel? Certainly, it has not put an end to the Arab practice of taking Israelis hostage. It has not increased the chances of a workable peace, since it merely returns willing foot-soldiers to the ranks of the terrorist groups which seek the destruction of Israel. In reading the Washington Post editorial from August 1, 2006, it is clear what he wants: for Israel to appease, at all costs, the demands of the Arabs. He makes the obligatory remark that Israel is entitled to defend itself, and then immediately undercuts this position by stating that its attempts to are per se inhumane and counterproductive and should be abandoned. IF that is the case, then under Mr. Carter's formulation, national self-defense against outlaw groups can never be justified if civilians sheltering them might be injured or killed.

In case anyone wonders who the people that the Arabs seeks the release of from Israelis prisons, here is one that has been at the top of their demand list for years. His name is Samir Kuntar, his story is here. Its nice to see that an ex-president of the United States is urging the release of people who have committed those crimes. Had he been tried in some U.S. courts, he would have long since been executed.

Mr. Carter, on the off chance you are reading this, please stop talking and writing about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Your stature as an ex-president gives too much weight to your ill-conceived notions of what is right and what is just in that region. Your desire for peace appears to be a peace at any price, in much the same way that in an earlier generation Mr. Chamberlain desired peace over the Czecheslovakian-German dispute. Please, quiet your voice and stop adding stature and support to people who have been unwilling to make peace at any price short of the destruction of what is still the only functioning democracy in the Middle East.