Is There Any American More Despicable Than Jimmah?

[Annie]

I can't think of one, which when one considers the Hillary's and Ted's is saying a lot... Many links at site:

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=113

Is Jimmy Carter On The Hamas Payroll?

Well what else could explain his latest finger-wagging at America and Israel?

It is not surprising that Jimmy Carter has penned a Washington Post Op-Ed demanding that the US and Israel give Hamas a chance. Yet no matter how many times Jimmy Carter steps forward to defend terrorists and enemies of this country it still manages to cause a visceral reaction of disgust, anger and shame at this disgraceful excuse for an American, let alone an ex-President.

For years Carter has basically abused what is normally a respected status as an ex-President by becoming the mouthpiece for dictatorships spanning the globe and enemies of America. What's worse, he always seems to make America or its allies the bad guy in every situation, and complaining that if we only understood the plight of these maniacs we could alllive in harmony.

Before we get to his latest apologia for terrorist monsters, let's look at just a smattering of the man's actions since leaving office. He's managed to do the following:

- In 1984, visited the home of then Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. According to Dobryning Carter was concerned about Reagan's defense build-up and explained that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."

- In 1991, wrote a letter to the UN asking them to stop President Bush 41 from removing Saddam from Kuwait

- Stymied the attempt of President Clinton to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, saying of Kim Jong Il: " I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country." As for the North Koreans, Carter said the "people were very friendly and open." The capital, Pyongyang, is a "bustling city," where customers "pack the department stores," which looked like "Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia."

-Told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country."

- Vouched for Fidel Castro's statement that Cuba did not have the capability to produce biological weapons.

- Backed Hugo Chavez's claim that the Venezuelan elections were fair in the face of numerous reports to the contrary by respected election monitors and polling companies​

Keep in mind also that while President, Jimmy lectured Americans about an "irrational fear of communism, as well said that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was

"a man who believed in human rights", called him "a great and courageous leader" who had led his people and protected their freedom."​

With that background, let's turn to the issue at hand - Jimmy Carter's plea of acceptance for a terrorist organization.

Today's Op-Ed is so full of distortions, outrageous statements and ignorance it's hard to know where to start. Let's try from the beginning.

(Former PM) Mahmood Abbas also has the power to select and remove the prime minister, to issue decrees with the force of law when parliament is not in session, and to declare a state of emergency. As commander in chief, he also retains ultimate influence over the National Security Force and Palestinian intelligence.​

What Carter fails to realize is that when he was PM Abbas didn't have control of these organizations, so why in hell would he think Abbas, who is now out of power, would have more power. Well, I guess it's easy to rationalize anything when you are an apologist for terrorists.

Carter continues and explains the genius of the Palestinian system:

After the first session of the new legislature, which was Saturday, the members will elect a speaker, two deputies and a secretary. These legislative officials are not permitted to hold any position in the executive branch, so top Hamas leaders may choose to concentrate their influence in the parliament and propose moderates or technocrats for prime minister and cabinet posts.​

Don't you just love that one? Hamas, "may" choose to propose "moderates" for some posts. What is their definition of "moderate"? Someone who only wants to blow up 100 Jews and infidels at a time rather than 1,000? And how typical is it of Jimmy Carter to place his trust in a bunch of terrorists with a long history of killing to get their way?

But Carter's trust doesn't end there:

Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the "road map." This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, "We want a peaceful unity government." If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.
​

What in the hell has Hamas ever done that would cause any sane person to "give them a chance". Funny how Carter takes the assurances of Hamas leaders who when sworn in said that negotiations with Israel "do not figure in to their plans.

Carter also warns the US and Israel to not do anything that would cause the Hamas government to fail.

Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.
​

More devastating than giving tacit and overt approval to a government whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is already aligned with Iran's madman President and other enemies of freedom like Hugo Chavez and Bashir Assad?

Carter is angry that funds to these terrorists will be cut off and proposes a solution.

Abbas informed me after the election that the Palestinian Authority was $900 million in debt and that he would be unable to meet payrolls during February. Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel. So far they have not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services.​

This of course is the same UN that gave us the Oil For Food scandal, and has been running refugee camps in the area for over 50 years which have become havens for terrorists. Only Jimmy Carter could look at the UN's history of scandal, corruption, ineffectiveness and anti-Semitism and think that's the answer to anything but more of the same.

But, Carter says, we must have some sympathy for the poor Palestinians.

This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies.
​

No offense, but the Palestinians have made their bed, elected these terrorists with their eyes wide open and knowing the repercussions of their actions. Elections have consequences, and it's not as if many of these people have taken the Gandhi route over the past 6 decades. Why Carter ignorantly hopes that Palestinians will "moderate" their cause given that their radical views won the election is beyond me. I wonder what color the sky is in Jimmy Carter's world.

But what follows is perhaps the single most idiotic piece of garbage I've heard, perhaps ever.

A negotiated agreement is the only path to a permanent two-state solution, providing peace for Israel and justice for the Palestinians. In fact, if Israel is willing to include the Palestinians in the process, Abbas can still play this unique negotiating role as the unchallenged leader of the PLO (not the government that includes Hamas).

It was under this umbrella and not the Palestinian Authority that Arafat negotiated with Israeli leaders to conclude the Oslo peace agreement. Abbas has sought peace talks with Israel since his election a year ago, and there is nothing to prevent direct talks with him, even if Hamas does not soon take the ultimately inevitable steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist.

It would not violate any political principles to at least give the Palestinians their own money; let humanitarian assistance continue through U.N. and private agencies; encourage Russia, Egypt and other nations to exert maximum influence on Hamas to moderate its negative policies; and support President Abbas in his efforts to ease tension, avoid violence and explore steps toward a lasting peace.
​

Read that again. He thinks that Israel can have talks with Abbas even if Hamas won't talk. Keep in mind that Abbas has bargaining power or leverage.

And why in God's name does Carter think that Hamas will "inevitably" renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist. Perhaps Carter is clairvoyant because, as stated above, they refused today to even talk to Israel.

What's even more telling is how he describes Hamas' stated policy of driving Israel off the map and ridding the whole area of Jews. He calls it a "negative" policy. These people convince mothers and fathers to allow their sons and daughters to strap explosives to themselves to blow up innocent men, women, and children and all the outrage this embarrassing excuse for a man can offer is to call in it a "negative policy".

This coming from a man who is more afraid of giant rabbits than genocidal maniacs.

We're often told that Carter is not a "dumb" person. I agree with that. It's impossible for him to be so stupid as to think that Hamas is ever going to change, so you have to wonder why he's lending his name and alleged prestige (all of which is outside this country, because Americans have rightfully rejected him as a hapless, cowardly self-absorbed egomaniac) to these murderous thugs who wish the destruction of our way of life.

It's really too bad that President Bush doesn't call Carter on the carpet publicly for the harm he has caused and continues to cause to this country. That's OK, we'll do it for him. One does wonder at this. Instead it seems that he and Bush 41 are friends, I wonder if GW sees him as a 'father' like BC is his 'brother?'

And let's keep one final thing in mind, this is the person that the Democrat party featured prominently at their convention, even allowing Michael Moore to share to VIP box with him.

When will someone in the Democrat party have a "Sister Souljah moment" and call out Carter for what he is - a friend to America's enemies? Could it be because the base of the Democrat party today shares the same beliefs as Carter? How sad is it that a Democrat wanting to be President can't stand up to the lunacy of Jimmy Carter for fear of alienating the party faithful? I think that in and of itself explains why the American people don't trust Democrats on national security.

See also: Captain Ed and Betsy Newmark

 

[Abbey Normal]

Why don't you have a poll on this question? It would be interesting who wins. I would add Professor Ward Churchill to the competition.

 

[Annie]

Why don't you have a poll on this question? It would be interesting who wins. I would add Professor Ward Churchill to the competition.

Hmm, I though WC considered himself part of the Native American Nation. I'll go for my first poll.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Hmm, I though WC considered himself part of the Native American Nation. I'll go for my first poll.

Great!

If Wardi-poo has a U.S. Passport, he should be eligible.

 

[Annie]

Great!

If Wardi-poo has a U.S. Passport, he should be eligible.

Done,