Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, August 18, 2006
David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist
Carter: Sympathy for the devil
by David Limbaugh
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Want to know where the Democratic Party stands and where America would be under their leadership? Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Carter is certainly not bashful about bashing the United States, even on foreign soil or to the foreign press. He sat for an interview with Der Spiegel recently and fired with both barrels at President Bush, "fundamentalist" Christians and Israel.

But do Carter's views represent those of the Democratic Party? Well, he sure seems to think so. He told Der Spiegel, "I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country." If so, that's scary.

Expanding on the theme of his latest book, "Our Endangered Values," Carter said the Bush administration has abandoned the nation's "old" moral principles. That's a curious concept: By upholding traditional moral values President Bush has diverted the nation's moral course?

Carter is particularly exercised about Bush's foreign policy. He said, "Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis."

But no less an antiwar Democrat than Sen. John Kerry -- after savaging President Bush for his "preemptive" attack of Iraq -- admitted in the first presidential debate that, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War."

No matter how persistently Carter's Democrats attempt to rewrite history, President Bush attacked Iraq because he believed it was a threat to America's security -- and it was, just like Iran is today. Carter is delusional if he believes Bush was just recreationally flexing America's "imperialistic" muscles to spread democracy.

The debate here between Democrats and Republicans isn't over the use of preemptive war -- as Kerry reluctantly confessed -- but on the assessment of threats to our national security. Specifically, the debate centers on the parties' respective views of the nature and scope of the terrorist threat, whether Israel is seen as more of a victim surrounded by hostile regimes bent on its destruction or a bullying, aggressive nation, and whether we should defer on these questions to anti-American leaders in Europe and the United Nations.

Carter states the Democrats' position quite clearly. Islamo-fascist terrorists aren't that bad. They are probably peace-loving people like the rest of us who just have their noses out of joint over Bush's "unilateral" foreign policy and his "preemptive" attack on Iraq. Indeed, Carter said the Arab world hates us because we invaded Iraq, and even more so for "supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon." Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Carter has a point
“ . . . the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality . . . ”

I think Carter is our Chamberlain, one of the “Anointed” (as in Sowell’s "Visions of the Anointed"), but he has touched on something here. How can a Despot who gains control of a government through treachery and murder be considered equal to those who are democratically elected? The willingness of the latter to negotiate offers some insight.

In order to negotiate successfully, one must be willing to give up something the other wants, an oft-neglected or forgotten requirement of those who always insist on diplomacy to solve all international problems. Important to note here is that what the Despot (e.g., Hitler, Hussein) brings to the table is not really his at all! He has already stolen something from the rest (peace), and, operating from a position of weakness, seeks something in exchange for the return of what he stole; and here is where the “Anointed” make their first big mistake: by agreeing to negotiate under such (perhaps subconscious) assumptions, they have granted to him what he has stolen, and validated his position!

Having the position of strength of "what’s-mine-is-mine,-and-what’s-yours-is-negotiable" thrust upon him, the Despot then is only too willing to accept it. Then it is only a matter of bargaining as to what the Despot is willing to accept and what the “Anointed” are willing to concede. From there, the “Anointed” are usually reduced to such a subordinate position that they can only sheepishly ask questions like, "Do the peasants get to keep their cows?" and hope that the current demands are the last the Despot will make, so the rest can bask in the illusion of having “averted” another war. And once again the powerful will have surrendered their position of strength, their only advantage. It is only a matter of time before the Despot will once more resurrect his threat of war in order to gain more in the bargain. This process is what is known as “appeasement.”

Constituents who are tempted to agree to appease the Despot’s demands whatever the cost should be made aware that that amounts to paying blackmail and that they are endangering a whole younger generation that will bear the greatest hardships of an all-out war, not them or the “Anointed” who never seem to pay a price in blood whatsoever.

Here's your Physics, conspiracy idiots
Maybe ajhil and tanabear have never heard of Pittsburg? You know the Steelers that won the SuperBowl last year? They're named for an industry, not burglers. You know what they do in Pittsburg? THEY MELT STEEL! I can say this with certainty, because I have a degree in physics. Not that that matters too much; anyone should be able to understand it after a "Moden Marvels" episode, or an old PBS show. I bet you'd say something assinine like, "Normal, everyday wind can't destroy a bridge." (See the Tacoma Narrows disaster) You are **accidentally** correct when you say "fire" doesn't destroy a steel structure. You see, it's not the combustion of steel by fire, it is the MELTing of steel by the high temperatures of the fire. This is not to say that the jet fuel melted the structure. I didn't see the towers melt on TV, did you? Don't answer that, we all know you reject the things your eyes tell you,that don't fit your reality. I was watching the towers that day since before the second plane hit. Do you know what a colision like that will do to a steel structure, even one that is designed to withstand the exact event, as the Towers were. All you need for the total colapse of both towers is for them to be weakened by the collisions. Speaking of modern marvels, have you ever changed you TV from PBS and Golden girls long enough to have seen one on a building colapse? All it takes is a combination of weaknesses, like a few poorly made bolts, and some shoddy riveting work done by union workers. So, to sum up, (I'm afraid you've stopped listening by now, though) 1) The towers are weakend by immense collisions, 2) The jet fuel reaches temperatures that can easily break the bonds of the construction, and 1 tower falls. Now you have an additional factor: the seismic/vibrational effects the first colapse has on the remaining tower. I was watching that day. There were no planted explosions going off. The laws of Physics had enough reason for the colapse without our help.
Thanks for listening.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.