By Ross Balano, Midwest Voices Columnist 2008
Jimmy Carter is in the Middle East making nice with Hamas despite requests from the State Department and his own Democratic Party not to. He reminds me once again why he is considered by many as the worst president of the 20th century.
Let’s take a little trip down memory lane with Jimmy who was president from 1977 to 1981. Some memories from those years include:
1) Lines at the gas pump.
2) Interest rates approaching 17%.
3) Boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games.
4) General depression of the American People that was so bad Carter himself acknowledged it in his “malaise speech.”
5) Unemployment reaching 7.8% in August of 1980.
6) The Iranians took 52 American Diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days.
7) Under Carter, the American military had become so impotent that a rescue mission failed when helicopters crashed in the desert.
Citing human rights abuses, Carter withdrew American support for the Shah of Iran and in fact demanded that he step down.
Carter ordered the Pentagon to advise the Shah’s military not to oppose Ayatollah Khomeini who was returning from exile. Khomeini’s Islamic revolution was the result, and most of the top military people were executed as one of the first acts of the new government.
Carter’s refusal to send our military into Iran when they took the embassy and our people hostage was his worst mistake in my opinion. Had Carter acted then he would have stopped Khomeini and his radicals in their tracks. By not doing so Carter allowed militant Islam and terrorism to become the threat it is today.
Once again, now, Carter again seems to be siding with terrorists. By placing a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, Carter is paying homage to one of history’s worst terrorists.
I think we should buy Jimmy Carter a new pair of overalls and a new hammer and send him permanently back to Habitat for Humanity. Let him try to build houses instead of tear down America.
Delicious
Digg
Meow! I have yet to address
Meow! I have yet to address an issue?? What do you think I've been doing in this topic? What is it you require for 'addressing' to have occurred? Do I have to provide a picture of Jimma french-kissing Osama Bin Laden to satisfy you? Of COURSE I'm conservative, so what? That's why I dislike liberal positions - I know that may not be obvious to you, but it's true.
But I'm used to discussions like this at this site, and you have to have a thick skin, so I grew one. It's not hard when you try to discuss climate science with a part-time actor (Walter Winch) who, after calling you a denier and screamer and other names, still refused to discuss ONE contradictory article I linked to - so much for some liberals who hyperventilate about "discussing the issues".
I still have no idea what defense one can have for an ex-president visiting the head of a terrorist organization, who said himself that Carter's visit lent legitimacy to Hamas, in a time when these Islamic radicals are in a war with us. This same ex-president apparently thinks it's perfectly fine for him to lend his past presitige to a pack of butchers with American blood on their hands, regardless of the fact that the U.S. strongly asked him not to and when he is not in any elected position that allows him to affect U.S. foreign policy. Yet Jimma thinks he is the center of the universe, and somehow running around hugging our mortal enemies is going to make him into a statesman.
I disagree - I think that it makes him a traitor. And now he's had a second meeting with Hamas - the arrogance of this man is astounding ... and it's from Hamas' own maw that you hear them claiming legitimacy - sickening and disloyal.
DAMASCUS, Syria — Defying U.S. and Israeli warnings, former President Jimmy Carter met again on Saturday with the exiled leader of the militant Hamas group and his deputy.
The two Palestinians are considered terrorists by the U.S. government and Israel accuses them of masterminding attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians. Both governments have sharply criticized Carter's overtures to the militant group.
Carter met Mashaal and his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk, for about an hour Saturday morning, after more than four hours of talks the night before.
Carter, on what he has called a personal peace mission, is the most prominent American to hold talks with Mashaal, whose group claimed new legitimacy from the meetings with the Nobel laureate.
"Political isolation by the American administration has begun to crumble," Mohammed Nazzal, a top figure in Hamas' political bureau, told The Associated Press after Friday's meeting in Damascus. The U.S. government has had no contact with Hamas since designating it a terrorist organization in 1995.
chuckle
Son, I have yet to see you actually "address" an issue. I wish I could say that I realize you strive to understand but judging from the bulk of your posts here, you're in the right-wing whackjob camp, which is rife with unreason and emotion -- not to mention prone to lying and innuendo.
However, congrats on figuring out how to use google to find a definition.
Inter, you're only proving
Inter, you're only proving how enamored liberals are of using ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the issues they claim to want to discuss so fervently. If your argument is so strong, why insist on attacking those you don't agree with?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
You like to keep
You like to keep underscoring my point that you're truly a moron, don't you?
Well Said Grinch
Did I just hear yesterday that Isalamo Whack Job claiming that they were going to take the Vatican over and end the Catholic Religion?
What a bunch of sweeties they are. They only thing they understand or deserve is an M-60 enema.
Well, gee guys, thanks for
Well, gee jenni and inni, thanks for that wonderfully rich response. Inter, I realize you strive to understand but judging from the bulk of your posts here, you're in the liberal camp, which is rife with unreason and emotion. My God, the radical Islamists THEMSELVES say that Christianity is their enemy - how dense do you have to be not to understand this? Well, I guess as dense as yourself.
I personally don't believe in any god or religion, but I can certainly figure out what's going on when one of them is actively attacking the other, cutting heads off, lobbing rockets into civilian centers, blowing up pizzerias, nightclubs and school buses. With those people, you don't hug like Jimma - you kill them, period, or neutralize them politically.
If you don't agree, fine, but Jimma goes over and hugs the leader of a United States-designated terrorist organization. I just read this morning that a bill is being introduced to strip the Carter Center of taxpayer funding (nauseating, isn't it?) and noise is being made about revoking his passport according to U.S. law.
There ARE consequences to one's actions, even to a lil ole peanut head like Jimma "Hug a Thug" Cah-tah.
Just for you losers Interface and Jenni-poo
http://townhall.com/funnies/2008/04/18/3
Ha, Ha, Ha......
Wow. That was a truly dumb
Wow. That was a truly dumb post. This was one particular gem:
"Christianity right now, whether you understand it or not, is locked in a mortal struggle with radical Islamists"
Oh that we could all have the higher understanding possessed by "Grinch."
God, what a moron.
Its funny,
The GOP must really be in sad shape that they feel the need to complain about Jimmy Carter.
Not one thread here on this site about George W Bush. You know the current occupant. I wonder why not.....
Well, I guess Jimma is as moral as Hamas, right?
I mean, both the president of the U.S. and the Israeli government asked him not to meet with Hamas, a terrorist organization who is very fond of foreign movies, blue jeans and lobbing rockets blindly into civilian towns. This isn't out of character for this miserable excuse for a human being - he has consistently agitated against Israel - and Jimma finds no moral qualms whatsoever about dishonoring the presidency and what this country stands for by hugging the Hamas leader, a butcher with so much blood on his hands it would make a slaughterhouse worker blanch.
And yet we have people rushing to defend Jimma. Well, I don't understand you. Christianity right now, whether you understand it or not, is locked in a mortal struggle with radical Islamists, a group of whom are also known as Hamas. Jimma should be meeting with those who stand against these terrorists - we don't need to 'reach out' or 'understand' them (we already do, that's the problem) - we need to neutralize them.
Jimma's posturing for the enemy is sickening, and I am ashamed this person slunk into and out of the highest office this country has to offer. Here's an excerpt from a Townhall column I agree with, to back up my feelings ...
Will Jimmy Carter please just go away?
By Burt Prelutsky
Friday, December 22, 2006
And, finally, how is it that Jimmy Carter, that sanctimonious phony who was a disaster during his four years in the White House and a disgrace in the quarter of a century since, can pass himself off as equal parts statesman and saint? While most of us wished that he would simply slink back to his peanut farm after Ronald Reagan whupped his butt in ‘80, we hadn’t realized how starved he was for the spotlight.
Recently, he has been barnstorming all over the country, peddling his book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” Carter contends that his purpose in writing the book -- in the unlikely event it was he and not some anonymous ghost who actually put Carter’s vile thoughts on paper -- was to open a dialogue about the Middle East. He calls upon America to take what he calls a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. He claims that America unfairly favors Israel because of the Jewish lobby. He also compares Israel to South Africa in the bad old days, equating the fence they’ve built as protection against terrorists with apartheid.
Where does one begin to deal with all the lies foisted off by Mr. Peanut? Would he have called for a balanced approach to Germany and Czechoslovakia or Germany and Poland in the 1930s? Would he have carried Chamberlain’s umbrella back from Munich?
Forgetting Jews in congress and the senate, why would any American, aside from Steven (“Munich”) Spielberg, find a moral equivalency between Palestinians and Israelis? Israel keeps trying to trade land for peace, and they keep getting their school buses and pizza parlors blown up in exchange. For people who are traditionally known to be pretty sharp when it comes to horse-trading, this doesn’t seem like a very smart way to conduct business. But, God knows, they keep trying.
Something that Carter, who has often boasted of his close friendship with Yasser Arafat, insists on overlooking is that prior to 1948, the “Palestinians” were in fact the Jews living on the land that was the basis for the modern state of Israel. It was land, mainly sand, they had bought at inflated prices from Arabs for over 50 years. The fact that it is now the Arabs who are known as Palestinians is the result of a clever P.R. firm that suggested that if they wanted to picture themselves as underdogs in order to garner sympathy, they should stop calling themselves Arabs. After all, there were only about five million Jews in Israel and about 125 million Arabs surrounding them, and calling for their extinction.
Now why on earth would Carter call for a balanced approach? After all, Israel, in spite of occasional differences with the U.S., is a staunch ally, one of the few nations that sides us with us at the U.N., and is the only western democracy in a part of the world where Islamic Nazis run wild.
Whenever I hear an American claim that he favors Arabs in this ongoing conflict, a conflict perpetuated by a people who think Hitler left the job only half-done, I wonder why. Whenever I hear an American claim that people who treat their women like chattel; who live under theocratic rule; who oppose freedom of speech and certainly religion; who cheered and danced on 9/11 and then, for good measure, insisted that Israel was behind the attack; and who pay homage to suicide bombers; are preferable to Israelis, a people who share our values and who are exactly like us, except that they’re Jewish, I know that I’m in the presence of an anti-Semite.
Even if he happens to be a former president of the United States.