Jimmah, Tyranny's Enabler

[Adam's Apple]

Tyranny's Enabler
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Center for Security Policy
April 14, 2008

In point of fact, it seems there is scarcely a serious bad actor on the planet with whom Jimmy Carter has not met. He is a serial tyrant-enabler, the very personification of Rodney King's risible appeal, "Can't we all get along?" Mr. Carter has come to epitomize the notion that "dialogue" is always in order, no matter how odious or dangerous the interlocutor – or the extent to which they or their agendas will benefit from such interactions.

As Barak Obama (whom Carter has all but endorsed) is as wedded as the former President to the idea of condition-free dialogue with tyrants, it is worth reflecting on just a few of the many example's of how this Carteresque practice has produced disastrous results:

for full article:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Home.aspx?SID=66

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, Jimmy's one scary dude.

 

[Larkinn]

Lets look more closely at the charges.

In 1979, then-President Carter undermined the Shah of Iran and made possible the Ayatollah Khomeini's return to Iran and subsequent Islamic revolution. Although the uber-mullah returned the favor with the sacking of Embassy Tehran and seizure of its personnel that assured Carter's would be a one-term presidency, the regime thus born has ever since been a blight on its own people and a state-sponsor of terror and nuclear wannabe that represents an ever-growing menace to its region and the world.

So he undermined...a dictator. Wait, I thought the article was against tyranny?

In 1994, Citizen Carter made a mission to Pyongyang at a time when then-President Bill Clinton was first confronting evidence of North Korea's illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. The former president's intervention gave rise to a deal that lent invaluable prestige to the regime, perpetuated its hold on power and utterly failed to preclude the North's acquisition of a nuclear arsenal.

Wait...did Carter make the deal? No, but apparently he "gave rise to it". Okkkkk then.

# In 2004, Jimmy Carter ignored abundant evidence of official vote-rigging and election fraud in a Venezuelan referendum,

Patently false, since he performed an audit of the results.

handing victory to Hugo Chavez

Again, a lie. As if Chavez needed Carter to hand him victory?

 

[rayboyusmc]

So how well has the Bush doctrine of just not talking to our enemies worked?

Hmmm, they are now dealing with Iran.

To take the fangs away from organizations like Hammas, you force them toward a formalized government. Over time, they will follow the laws because that's how they get what they want.

Ignore them and they continue to kill folks until they get your attention.

To England, we were a bunch of terrorists. We didn't even fight fair. We hid behind trees instead of marching on line into battle.

 

[Swamp Fox]

So how well has the Bush doctrine of just not talking to our enemies worked?

Hmmm, they are now dealing with Iran.

To take the fangs away from organizations like Hammas, you force them toward a formalized government. Over time, they will follow the laws because that's how they get what they want.

Ignore them and they continue to kill folks until they get your attention.

To England, we were a bunch of terrorists. We didn't even fight fair. We hid behind trees instead of marching on line into battle.

Oh, here we go with the old, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument that the libbies drag up everytime they want to write Hamas a check for some AK47s and C4. Difference is, don't recall any of the people fighting in the Revolution TARGETING women and children.

Hamas is the perfect example of giving a mouse a cookie and it's going to want a glass of milk. They think they got where they are through force of arms and their great resistance. That's what they teach the kiddies there. Any guess as to how they're going to try to get more changes done?

 

[Gunny]

So how well has the Bush doctrine of just not talking to our enemies worked?

Hmmm, they are now dealing with Iran.

To take the fangs away from organizations like Hammas, you force them toward a formalized government. Over time, they will follow the laws because that's how they get what they want.

Ignore them and they continue to kill folks until they get your attention.

To England, we were a bunch of terrorists. We didn't even fight fair. We hid behind trees instead of marching on line into battle.

There's a difference between dealing with enemies and dealing with criminals. Giving them what they want just enables them further and the demands get larger.

Who is Jimmy Carter? Hamas wants Israel off the map. Can Jimmy deliver? No.

And comparing us to Islamic terrorists is just plain bull. We waged war against the English Army. We didn't go to London and indisciminantly blow up housewives and kids.

 

[José]

Originally posted by GunnyL
And comparing us to Islamic terrorists is just plain bull. We waged war against the English Army. We didn't go to London and indisciminantly blow up housewives and kids.

Originally posted by Swamp Fox
Difference is, don't recall any of the people fighting in the Revolution TARGETING women and children.

Congratulations on your selective memory.

I "remember" perfectly well the US vaporizing more than 200.000 japanese civilians in order to spare its troops.

And the country wasn't even fighting for the american homeland like the palestinian people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Congratulations on your selective memory.

I "remember" perfectly well the US vaporizing more than 200.000 japanese civilians in order to spare its troops.

And the country wasn't even fighting for the american homeland like the palestinian people.

Moron, but then we already knew that. We have had this discussion before.

 

[Gunny]

Congratulations on your selective memory.

I "remember" perfectly well the US vaporizing more than 200.000 japanese civilians in order to spare its troops.

And the country wasn't even fighting for the american homeland like the palestinian people.

As usual, you make comparing apples and oranges the staple of your intellectually dishonest argument.

What homeland are Palestinians fighting for? WHEN exactly was the last time Palestine existed as an autonomous Nation? Palestine was a state within Transjordan which was in turn subjugated by the Ottoman Empire. There was no "homeland."

In turn, these Palestinians have waged a war of murder against non-military targets, using suicide bombers and firing missiles indiscriminantly into cities and towns.

Comparing THAT reprehensible and unacceptable behavior to the US waging a war against another nation that was started by the latter is laughable at best. Even then, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major Japanese industrial hubs -- part of the Japanese war effort and as such were legitimate military targets by anyone's standards of war.

You have no argument.

 

[Adam's Apple]

So he undermined...a dictator. Wait, I thought the article was against tyranny?

Not only did Carter undermine the Shah of Iran, a proven friend of the U.S., but his undermining led to the coming to power of an anti-U.S., theocratic government that has proven to be far worse than the Shah's. I’ll bet the Irani people, as well as the American people, would be happy to have the Shah back in power.

Patently false, since he performed an audit of the results.

Jimmy Carter was only in Venezuela a very short time, so the audit had to be cursory, not in-depth. You can opine that it was patently false that Carter ignored evidence of official vote-rigging and election fraud, but there is credible evidence that he did. (www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm) Carter is an avowed opponent of the use of exit polls in elections, so his decision against this evidence just supported his own thinking.

Prior to the Venezuelan election, Europeans declined to serve as election observers because they felt too many restrictions were placed upon them by the Chavez government. Carter should have been so wise.

Again, a lie. As if Chavez needed Carter to hand him victory?

Well, you got that right. Since Chavez controlled all facets of the government, having an election in Venezuela was like having an election in Putin’s Russia or Castro’s Cuba. Carter’s participation in approving the election results after a cursory audit did nothing but lend creditability to Chavez’s government. Carter’s main talent is lending credibility to tyrannical governments.

 

[Adam's Apple]

So how well has the Bush doctrine of just not talking to our enemies worked?

The Bush Administration and Iran have been having informal talks for the past five years.
(http://agonist.org/hannes_artens/20080415/u_s_has_held_secret_talks_with_Iran_for_five_years)

To take the fangs away from organizations like Hammas, you force them toward a formalized government.

Hamas is currently a functioning part of the Palestinian government, but I don’t remember anyone forcing them to become participants.

To England, we were a bunch of terrorists. We didn't even fight fair. We hid behind trees instead of marching on line into battle.

You just got outsmarted by a rag-tag bunch of colonists, who didn't have a one-star general among them.

 

[Larkinn]

Not only did Carter undermine the Shah of Iran, a proven friend of the U.S., but his undermining led to the coming to power of an anti-U.S., theocratic government that has proven to be far worse than the Shah's. I’ll bet the Irani people, as well as the American people, would be happy to have the Shah back in power.

I'm sure the American people would want the Shah back. However, the American people deciding over sovreign nations governments for them is exactly what tyranny is.

As I said...your interest isn't in tyranny. You don't seem to care about that.

Jimmy Carter was only in Venezuela a very short time, so the audit had to be cursory, not in-depth. You can opine that it was patently false that Carter ignored evidence of official vote-rigging and election fraud, but there is credible evidence that he did. (www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm) Carter is an avowed opponent of the use of exit polls in elections, so his decision against this evidence just supported his own thinking.

Was there evidence of vote-rigging? Yes. However Carter did an Audit after the vote to check into that evidence. So, as I said, its patently false to claim he lied.

Well, you got that right. Since Chavez controlled all facets of the government, having an election in Venezuela was like having an election in Putin’s Russia or Castro’s Cuba. Carter’s participation in approving the election results after a cursory audit did nothing but lend creditability to Chavez’s government. Carter’s main talent is lending credibility to tyrannical governments.

When was the last time Putin/Castro lost a vote? When was the last time Chavez lost a vote?

They aren't the same.

Chavez is significantly more democratic than the Shah of Iran was. But you don't care about Democracy or tyranny do you? You only care about anti-Americanism.

 

[Adam's Apple]

What a b.s. post. But you're entitled to your opinion. Believe what you want to believe.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What a b.s. post. But you're entitled to your opinion. Believe what you want to believe.

Why bother with Larkinn, he twists and spins everything. He thinks he wins points by parsing what is means. I love when he stammers out " words have meanings" as he engages in proving they really do not. At least if one were to listen to his mindless blather, twisting, spinning and parsing.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Congratulations on your selective memory.

I "remember" perfectly well the US vaporizing more than 200.000 japanese civilians in order to spare its troops.

And the country wasn't even fighting for the american homeland like the palestinian people.

Once again, Josie, you make your argument based on entirely different situations that do not even begin to compare. This argument is so fucking moronic, I'm not even sure where to start on destroying it.

I'll keep it simple for you and use small words. World War II was a total war where civilians were a target (that's why they called it a WORLD war) as compared to a revolution where civilians were not targeted.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Why bother with Larkinn, he twists and spins everything. He thinks he wins points by parsing what is means.

you are such a frigging hippo crit. You constatnly accuses others of what you do all the time.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Funny, but the majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas.

Sort of like the majority of Americans want US out of Iraq and think it was a mistake.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It must be a liberal thing:

[Like it or not, Hamas’s standing among Palestinians means that there is absolutely no way to reach a deal without accommodating the group and its supporters. We can talk to Hamas or spend the next twenty years in the woods. Indeed, the idea of dialogue with Hamas has recently been gaining support in the foreign policy establishment, and has been endorsed by figures such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Lee Hamilton and Colin Powell (“[A]s distasteful as I find some of their positions . . . Hamas has to be engaged,” the latter has said.)

Here’s another good reason to talk to Hamas, if I can cite my old story for the magazine, Parties of God:

For years the IRA was considered to be Europe’s most dangerous terrorist organization. In the extremity of its rhetoric, it painted itself as incapable of reason or compromise. “This war is to the end,” it stated in 1984. “There will be no interval. . . . When we put away our guns, Britain will be out of Ireland.” But after twenty-five years of bloody attacks on civilians and soldiers aimed at ending British control of Northern Ireland, the IRA called a cease-fire in 1994 and began negotiations with the British government. The Clinton Administration strongly backed those talks and engaged with the IRA; the following year, the movement’s political wing, Sinn Féin, was allowed to open a Washington office, and Gerry Adams, its leader, attended a St. Patrick’s Day party at the White House.

Negotiations with the IRA took years and were not always smooth. For many years the group refused to dismantle its paramilitary wing, leading at times to the suspension of the cease-fire and to renewed bombings and violence. It was only last October, fifteen months after the IRA declared an end to its armed campaign and pledged to seek to achieve its goals “through exclusively peaceful means,” that a government commission declared that the group had undergone a “transformation” and fully renounced terrorism. Meanwhile, Sinn Féin became a leftist, grassroots political party that in 2002, during Ireland’s last parliamentary elections, won 6.5 percent of the vote, and it also holds 24 of the 108 seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

No perfect political parallel can be drawn between Islamic groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the IRA, but Augustus Norton, the adviser to the Iraq Study Group, believes there are enough similarities to merit study. “It’s imagined that Islamic groups are esoteric and exotic, and don’t conform to the behavior of other groups in other settings,” he said. “But that assumption skews the debate and should be turned on its head. Unlike the millenarian aims of Osama bin Laden, [political Islamists] have goals that are in many ways pragmatic and even prosaic, and they are amenable to reasonable solutions and compromise.”

It’s too bad that people continue to portray the problems in the Middle East as a battle between homicidal Arabs and besieged Israelis. Here’s one example: Jeffrey Goldberg has a story in The Atlantic’s May issue that begins: “In early August of 2006, four weeks after the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, which has as its goal the physical elimination of Israel (and the ancillary ambition of murdering, whenever practicable, Jews elsewhere in the world), killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more in a cross-border raid, Israel found itself in an exceedingly disagreeable position.”
/QUOTE]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002846

 

[Larkinn]

Why bother with Larkinn, he twists and spins everything. He thinks he wins points by parsing what is means. I love when he stammers out " words have meanings" as he engages in proving they really do not. At least if one were to listen to his mindless blather, twisting, spinning and parsing.

Aww, how cute. Same old, same old. One day you'll grow up and stop being a retard and actually learn to read. But doubt that day will come anytime soon.

But good luck RGS. We are all rooting for you!

 

[José]

Originally posted by GunnyL
Comparing THAT reprehensible and unacceptable behavior to the US waging a war against another nation that was started by the latter is laughable at best. Even then, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major Japanese industrial hubs -- part of the Japanese war effort and as such were legitimate military targets by anyone's standards of war.

You have no argument.

Originally posted by Swamp Fox
I'll keep it simple for you and use small words. World War II was a total war where civilians were a target (that's why they called it a WORLD war) as compared to a revolution where civilians were not targeted.

Come on Gunny/Fox

Let's be consistent here.

If you give a free pass to a military colossus like the US it’s only fair to give it to a pathetically weak third world people too.