Jimmy Carter: The great peacemaker

JimmaCarta does not really understand compassion nor justice. Nor patriotism in a time of war.

And Hamas was originally supported by Israel

And Hamas offered to recognize Israel if they returned to the '67 borders in the Spring of '06 and currently. I guess that happens every other Spring.

And Hamas maintained a 16 month moratorium against attacking Israel while Israel attacked and killed quote a few Palestinians.

And during the British Mandate, Israel had terrorists of their own of which at least 3 became prime ministers. One of Israel's terrorist groups killed a UN representative Bernadotte.

So the issue becomes can we move former terrorists into a peaceful relation or are there no historical precedents for that?

is not and never was appointed to be the ambassador of peace under our current leadership. Instead he has slandered our Commander IN Chief. carter would do himself well to retire and keep his mouth shut because he only spreads dissension. Both Presidents Bush have still been respectful of him, which shows who the better men are, men of valor and honor.

carter does this so people will forget his mistakes: Carter's administration was plagued by sky-high inflation and a 444-day American hostage crisis in Iran. Also, he made us more dependent on foreign oil than ever before.

Speaking of oil, it was the Clinton Administration that raised the gasoline tax to its present rate! "1994 - Gasoline excise tax increases to 18.4 cents per gallon."

President George Bush has not increased the gasoline tax, contrary to what the media reports!

have also stated that they may accept a temporary truce with Jews (because Muhammed did so once) but they absolutely refuse to recognize Israel has a right to exist. They called it Hudna, Truce, not recognition. Until Hamas changes its charter to state that Israel exists, there is no reason for Israel to put itself on the line for them.

As to your Hamas Moratorium, rockets still entered Israel from Gaza, and at least one set of strikes was in response to weapons being smuggled into Gaza. Israel is not innocent or perfect, but again, why are they the only country expected to accept people blowing themselves up at bus depots and resteraunts as acceptable resistance?

"The prophet Mohammad struck a legendary, ten-year hudna with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the seventh century. Over the following two years, Mohammad rearmed and took advantage of a minor Quraysh infraction to break the hudna and launch the full conquest of Mecca" Hudna means temporary break, and says absolutely nothing about recognition. Until the charter changes, nothing has changed. They will (as the last "truce" showed, use the break in hostilities to rearm and build up for the next fight.

thanks for checking in. I appreciate the respect of the Bushs' and even Clinton of Carter, but he does not warrant it. He has interfered with the foreign policy of 3 presidents and been rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize, but has no interest in the needs of the US in the region, only his own glory and as you say str8 talk, refurbishment of his reputation. He only had one real accomplishment as President and that was Camp David and he keeps trying to relive the glory days.

The sad thing is, his best accomplishment in life by far has been his habitat for humanity work, which he won't stick to. He is basically universally respected for that, yet he insists he knows better on foreign policy despite being out of the loop of foreign policy for the past 28 years.

It is a full recognition of Israel. It is in alignment with the arab initiative which has the support of most, if not all, of the Arab nations. Even Iran offered the same recognition in 2003. In fact, it was Israeli academic Naomi Chazan who said that Hamas must be put into the position of keeping its word. That meant that we take them at their word to see if they will keep their word.

What we find objectionable is the requirement of Israel to return to the '67 borders. What the Israeli gov't finds objectionable is the return to the '67 borders because they couldn't even accept a freeze with the current borders. Ever since the Annapolis peace talks, Israel has done everything to show that its main concern is control. They have been expanding or planning to expand settlements--even drawing public criticism from Rice, they have ruled that the use of cluster bombs is ok though the majority of the world is opposed, and they have almost created a catastrophic humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

What is missing in our policies in that region is the practice of equality. THat is we don't require Israel to treat its own Arab citizens as equals let alone treat the Palestinians as equals. Then take their 2006 war on Lebanon.

Why should anyone wonder why there is so much hatred there? We have taught Israel to be like us which means that they take their own actions for granted while taking exception with the actions of others. The hatred toward Israel is wrong but what about Israel's disregard for the Palestinians?

We have yet to see the Hamas' reaction to a situation where Israel and the Palestinians are regarded as equals and judged by the same standards. Until then, criticism of Hamas will be inconclusive.

The rocket attacks are a serious offense but the casualty stats from the rocket attacks is so minimal compared to the casualty stats of Israeli attacks in Gaza. You are literally comparing single or possibly double digit numbers of casualties from the rocket attacks compared to hundreds of Palestinians killed by Israel's military.

A same comparison could be made in the Lebanon war. How many Israeli soldiers were killed in a cross border raid, called an invasion by some, compared to how many innocent Lebanonese? That is something like 1000 to 8. The Hezbollah missile attacks did not start until Israel was bombing Lebanon.

"We have yet to see the Hamas' reaction to a situation where Israel and the Palestinians are regarded as equals and judged by the same standards"

They are not equals. Not because Palestinians are less human or their suffering is less, but because Palestinians are the ones who still do not and have not recognized the right of Israel to exist. What you are doing in this arguement is assigning moral equivalence to the actions of the two groups of people. There is no moral equivalence. One group is trying to defend itself against the collective will of most of the world and rocket attacks, suicide bombers, and bluff threats against its small population, while the other is determined to see a nation end. Israel cannot treat Hamas as an equal because history shows them that the only way to get an Arab nation to accept Israel is to defeat them. Here is an example:

In 1956, Israel won a war against Egypt, but withdrew from Sinai and agreed to UN peacekeepers in the Sinai. Egypt used this in between time to build up forces and in 1967, Egypt expelled these peacekeepers and massed troops on the border. In 6 days, Israel defeated the combined strength of 7 Arab nations. In the 73 war, it was only this buffer zone that gave Israel time to recover from a bad start and survive. At the end of the 73 war, Israel was unopposed on the road to Cairo, and the Egyptian army was cut off and trapped. It was this reality that brought Sadat to realize that war was futile and hopeless. This is why Camp David succeeded, not because Carter "treated the opposing parties as equals." Egypt had to be beaten soundly to make peace. In 1994 under similar circumstances, after we expelled Saddam from Kuwait and rendered King Husseins one real ally worthless, Jordan also made a peace settlement. Both times that Israel was given realistic peace negotiations were times when the will to fight was crushed on the other side. Every time that Israel attempted to negotiate without first stomping on aggression, the result was more violence. In the Lebanon war, they stopped at creating a southern buffer zone, showing "weakness". In the 90's, they negotiated with the Palestinians with Clinton as mediator, and Arafat could not or would not control his own people from attacking. The lessons here are from Israels own experiences, not from watching and emulating Bush or America.

Dennis Prager wrote a powerful article today on why he ceased to be a Democrat, when they left the positions of Kennedy and Truman and became the party of McGovern and Carter. The fact is, there is a moral difference between sides. If you cannot or will not see this, this debate is futile and circular.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2008/04/15/how_ liberals_lost_a_liberal

whatever happened to "to the victor belong the spoils"???
After every war that Israel fought it ended up giving back territory that it won! Gee, maybe we should give this country back to the Native Americans and Mexicans!

Wil,
Perhaps we are supporting Israel to absolve our guilt. From the beginning of Modern Zionism, which started in the late 19th century, the word on the street was that the land would be taken from Arabs. But that was not the only word on the street, the other word was that this was to be done discreetly rather than openly. This is why when the father of Political Zionism, Theodore Herzl, wrote about this facet of his Zionism, he wrote about it in his diaries while saying something else publicly. But not only did Herzl say this, this was also seen in the writings of settlers. You can consult Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims" to verify what I am saying.

Why would Zionism take such a hard line position? It is because of centuries of anti-Semitism they experienced from Christian Europe. This anti-Semitism certainly peaked during the Holocaust, but it was horrendous before that as well. In other words, today's ruling form of Zionism, there is more than one version of Zionism, from the beginning, has been treating the Palestinians the way they were treated during their persecution in Europe.

Now you mentioned some conflicts. In both 1956 and 1967, Israel was the aggressor. In 1956, Israel, with some European allies, attacked Egypt, I believe, a conflict in which the US tried to quell. In 1967, Israel responded, amongst things, to a defensive positioning of troops by Egypt, by attacking first though both US and IDF intelligence said that Israel was safe. So if Israel takes land in a conflict they started, isn't that called stealing?

What moral standard says winner takes all? And btw, Israel hasn't returned all of the land they conquered. If you compare the Israeli-Palestinian borders right after the '67 war and now, you will see that Israel has actively confiscating land and, according to international law, illegally building settlements. And if you include casualty rates of the two sides or look at the infrastructure and living standards, you will see that Israel is suffering no threat of extinction. The Palestinians are. I make no excuses for Palestinian terrorism. What we need to do is to recognize Israel terrorism as well. We have trouble doing so because we take our own actions, as well as those of our allies, for granted while taking exception at the actions of others.

C5 once again proves his ignorance of history. Abdel Nassar admitted that the Egyptian and Syrian forces were about to launch their offensives when Israel brilliantly made their pre-emptive strikes. A massing of troops along a border is not considered a defensive movement.

Since Jimmy The Dhimmi has continually taken the side of the terrorists, Israel's PM didn't let Shin Bet give Carter protection during his Israel visit, nor did the PM meet with him.

Israeli offenses were in response to intolerable threats. In 56, the Egyptians had been undertaking cross border raids and requiring constant alerts and reserve call ups by their threats. For a small nation, living under this threat is intolerable. In 67, as Crawfish notes, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers and massed troops on the border. This is hardly a defensive maneuver. As for Israel facing no threat of extinction, If the US had stayed the original 13 colonies, and the rest of North America was made up of 23 nations who had sworn to annihilate us, and even though most of those nations signed peace treaties, they all were still calling for our destruction in their press and supporting Cherokee and Iroquois "freedom fighters" in our midst, how secure would we feel about our future, even if we had won 5 wars of independence?

of anything other than effectiveness of fighting. In WW2, Germany had a much higher casualty rate than Britain. Does this mean Britain was the aggressor? Conversely, The Soviets had a higher rate than Germany. All Casualty rate tells you is who has died, nothing about the morality or immorality of the fight.

because it is in our interest to do so. By the way the land that was "taken from the Arabs" was home to only about 700,000 people at the time of the Balfour declaration. It was a void wasteland. It was not until the British Mandate and later Israel began to work at making use of resources that Palestine became a land with some promise.

By your logic by the way, all people of European descent should go back to Europe and leave America, Africa, and Austrailia to the natives we dispossessed. Our actions were far worse than Israels.

Coming back to the topic at hand, you consider the Israelis and Palestinians morally equivalent. Does a nation havea right to respond when wrongs are done to it, or not? If yes, what response is "appropriate?"

You are absolutely right about Nasser. As for US policy, most of the state department was pro Arab from the Eisenhower through the Nixon years. It was considered logistically illogical to support a few Jews who were mostly immigrants from Russia with natural ties to the Soviet state over supporting millons of Arabs who theoretically had more to fear and loathe from the "Godless" Soviets living nearby than the nominally Christian Americans on the other side of the world.

And Carter has now ruined whatever credibility he had with Israel by legitimizing Hamas. He will never be seen as a neutral negotiator if he ever was one.

So only 700,000 Arabs living in the land that their families had lived in means that outsiders can claim that land for themselves and kick the indigenous people off? Or is it because the Israelis made "better" use of the land that justifies them taking it away from the Palestinians?

If your question is it in our best interest to support Israel in whatever they desire to do, then you have reduced the issue to what is good business for us and have eliminated any moral issue involved.

But part of what you are saying illustrates a desire to be consistent. That is when you made the analogy with America and the Indians. Did the early European settlers have the right to ethnically cleanse the land of Indians here in America? Certainly there is nothing we can do about it now but, this applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because Israel is still taking more land, than it gives back, from the Palestinians.

BTW, I was aware of provocative statements by Nasser. It doesn't change the facts, especially since Egypt was already engaged in a civil war in Yemen. Egypt was not going to attack and IDF intelligence had also said that war was not likely a few weeks before. And again, Egypt had taken up defensive positions.

So the question I had for you was were you aware of Menachim Begin's statement that said:

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Did Begin consider the attack justified? Yes. But the point was this, Israel decided to attack and Egypt, despite Nasser's statements, were not planning to attack.

I'd take this man and charge him with treason. And, prior to him going to visit Hamas I would have pulled his passport.

This man is such a loser. One of the most failed foreign policy presidents running amok in the ME!

God help us all.

Actually, there are Israelis who would applaud Carter talking with Hamas. For example, when Hamas first offered to recognize Israel and was observing a 16 month moratorium against attack Israel despite Israeli attacks on Palestinians, Naomi Chazan, an Israeli academic said that we should put Hamas into the position of keeping their word.

In addition, we need to remember from history that Israel had their own terrorists during the British Mandate. In fact, around 3 Israeli PMs were terrorists during that time.

So, how has Carter committed treason?

I think I know how you will respond but which PMs were "terrorists"? And from what I've read, Hamas can't seem to make up its mind to recognize Israel. Have you read much on Islam? They have a unique way of "diplomacy" with infidels which Wil has partially covered.

Islamic groups are as believable and trustworthy as China or Cuba or the old U.S.S.R. You can choose to believe them on blind faith or you can pay attention to their actions instead.

Regarding past Israeli PMs, around 3 of them were terrorists during the British Mandate. One was involved in a group that killed a UN envoy who was sent to negotiate for peace. It in the history books.

I think the difference between us is in where we see the Jihadists. My first impression, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you see the radical Jihadists, or their ideology, as being a more normative representation of Islam while I see it a very small minority. One of my references is the book "Al-Qaeda: Casting A Shadow Of Terror" by Jason Burke. Burke comes well recommended by former CIA analyst and author of the book "Imperial Hubris," Michael Scheuer.

Burke proposes that the key to winning the "War On Terror" is to win the vast majority of moderate Muslims to our side. But he also states that using violence has been counterproductive in so doing.

As for Hamas, you will find that when they first started, they were backed by Israel. I think what makes it tough to read Hamas, which I agree with, is that much of what they say is reactionary. They are primarily responding to Israel's oppression against Palestinians and the occupation. Their terrorism is definitely wrong. But if terrorists from past groups have turned and been welcomed into the international community, then it is worth our effort to try to get Hamas to do the same. But we can't do that as long as there is an Israeli occupation that grossly violates international law. I see two actions that must occur simultaneously: Hamas observing another cease fire and Israel following international law by ceasing to attack the Palestinians and returning to the '67 borders.

BTW, sorry I didn't name the Israeli PMs who were terrorists during the British Mandate. I have 2 below, there is a third one, I think, and will get back to you:

1. Menachem Begin- with Irgun
2. Yitzhak Shamir- with LHI

Israel gave back all of Gaza, pulled out settlements, and attacks increased. Just as when they pulled out of Sinai in good faith, Egypt used Sinai as a place to mass troops, expelling UN peacekeepers just before the 67 war. With these two preceding incidents to go by, why would anyone risk their safety on the "good will" of Hamas or even Fatah. Camp David only succeeded because Sadat saw that destruction was the alternative in 73 and Begin was negotiating from a position of strength.

As for Terrorist Istraeli PMs, I do not know about Shamir, I knew about Begin with Irgun, notice though that before Israel made him PM, he had spent 30 years being a discredited rebel against mainstream Israeli politics. He was not invited to sit in a coalition government while leading Irgun or voted in by Israeli people. I assumed one of the three was Ariel Sharon who was held responsible for "War Crimes" in Lebanon.

Once again, the overall point is that there is not moral equivilency between the two sides. In 49, and even in 67, Israel ONLY fought because the other side would not accept peaceful partition. History has taught Israel that peace in the absence of committment to peace on the Arab side is a recipe for disaster. These leaders of Hamas are not "former terrorists like Begin", they are current terrorists.

"Egypt, despite Nasser's statements, were not planning to attack."

Nasser was the leader of Egypt and Syria. If he says that they were about to attack, then they were about to attack on his order.

Again, Egypt took defensive positions being already occupied with a rebellion elsewhere. BTW, the "defensive" attribute was not given by me, less any man question my knowledge of History, but by Israeli historian Benny Morris. And the indications, with the quote I left from Begin, along with the IDF intelligence I cited and an American intelligence report I could include, were that an attack was not coming from Egypt.

In fact, the war in '73, which Egypt launched on occupied territory, was after a prolonged Egyptian attempt to negotiate for the land peacefully. Those negotiations, btw, did not include any consideration for the Palestinians.

If you take the initial war after Israel became a state, that came after a civil war in which you see the beginnings of an ethnic cleansing attempt by Israel. You can see "The Ethnic Cleansing Of Palestine" by Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe for that evidence.

But the primary problem was with modern Zionism and the current form it took. The form of Zionism that held sway stated that they wanted to remove the Arabs from the land. THey wanted to do this legally and quietly while they were not in power. Then these actions became more bold afterwards. THere are a number of quotes that give evidence for this

But less Zionism becomes the scapegoat here. Just as Arab terrorism is a reaction to Zionism, Zionism was a reaction to centuries of Western Civ anti-Semitism. Prior to Zionism, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in relative peace in Palestine.

Finally, Begen became PM regardless of the time it took and he had important positions in gov't before that time. Here is the point, our current policy operates on the belief that once a terrorist, always a terrorist. THat Israel had PMs who were terrorists shows that belief is false. In addition, while Hamas kept to a 16 month moratorium from attacking Israel, a couple of years ago, Israel was still attacking and killing Palestinians. Also, removal of the settlements in Gaza did not mean Israel had no control of the territory. In addition, they were confiscating land in the WB during that time.

The Jews never called for the elimination of all arabs, while Hamas and the others have called for the complete and total destruction of the Jews. The Jews just wanted the arabs to have all of the land currently owned by arab nations, leaving a small nation for the Jews. It's not like the arabs are hurting for land (Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco...).

Actually, many Zionists did call for the elimination of the Arabs in the land that they saw as theirs, land up to the border of Jordan. What you are confusing is elimination with extermination.

For example, Martin Luther called for the elimination of Jews from Germany, a sentiment that was in Germany even in the 19th century. It was Hitler who tweaked Luther's anti-Semitism to use extermination as the means of elimination. Before that, elimination simply meant getting rid of the Jews either through expelling or attrition.

Much of the rhetoric against Israel is aimed at the domination that came with Zionism rather than extermination of Jews. In fact, a correct translation of Ahmadinejad's comments, comments that he has no gov'tal powers to implement, is aimed at eliminating Zionism. This is not to say that there are not comments that also target all Jews.

The key point is that before the domination that came with modern Zionism, was peace between the groups. The fault with supporting this form of Zionism is not of wanting the Jews to have their own country but that the country they inhabited already had people whose families had lived on and farmed the land for many generations.

A supplemental point can be made that Jewish religious conservatives not only did not embrace modern Zionism, but were antagonistic to it until the Holocaust. Modern Zionism is a secular Jewish venture, not a religious one. It started in the late 19th century as a frustrated reaction to centuries of horrific Christian anti-Semitism. This anti-Semitism only reached its zenith in the Holocaust, it did not start then.

What we can learn from all of this is that a factor in how people treat others can be seen in how others have treated them. So though past persecution can be used, by Israel, to justify an aggressive approach against the Arabs; they must realize that just as past persecution played a role in their aggression, their persecution of the Palestinians will move the Arabs to return the favor.

When will we decide to change?

What was absent in your note regarding Egypt and their expulsion of UN forces is that, during negotiations prior to the Israeli attack, they did invite the UN forces back so long as they were positioned in Israel.

Also, the key factor in Israel attacking in both cases was not military, but the closing of access to ships. THe difference between the '56 and '67 conflicts were that Israel checked with the US to see if they would get support before attacking in '67.

In addition, Israel conducted their own raids. For example, prior to the '67 war, Israel was attacking Syrian bulldozers without military provocation. The dispute was over water.

Nothing has changed. The 2006 attack on Lebanon which was in response to a cross border raid by Hezbollah, was a response to actions that the IDF also participates in--that is cross border raids. In fact, prior to Hezbollah's raid, which was condemned by people on the left like Noam Chomsky, was the abduction of an Israeli soldier by Hamas in Gaza. However, what preceded Hamas' abduction of an Israeli soldier was Israel's abduction of 2 Palestinians in Gaza.

In short, the mistake we can make in all of this is to scapegoat either the Jews or the Arabs. Both have guilt and both threaten each other. There are no innocent parties here.

to advocate the destruction or elimination of a race is unspeakable. And Hama, and most Arab leaders have advocate, and continue to advocate just that.

And they continue to brainwash their kids into hating the Jews and will hteir destruction.

http://thinkingamerican.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/02/palesti nian_brainwashing_their_children.thtml

Actually you are incorrect here. This spring is the second time Hamas has offered to recognize Israel. In addition, they had observed a 16 month moratorium against attacking Israel despite many Israeli attacks against Gaza. In addition, the Arab initiative has clearly stated that Israel will be recognized contingent on their returning to the '67 borders. In 2003, Iran agreed with that initiative.

On the other hand, Israel keeps confiscating land and resources(water) from the Palestinians.

A lot of hot air and hooey here. Phony ideological rhetoric aside, the facts say territory anywhere on earth is held by victors in a conflcit to posess it. True on every continent. Also true, Hamas and Fatah will kill every Israeli if they can. Also true, Arabs don't give a dam about the Palestinians or they would accept them. Last truth, Jimmy Carter is the worst failed president our country ever elected, and his unforgivable actions in the Middle East should have serious consequences, even the revokation of his passport. Liberalism must be completely defeated, vanquished and moved to the dustbin of history.

I can't tell you what I think of Jimmy Carter here on TH since I'd be sent to Siberia.

But, the man need his passport revoked and tried for treason IMHO.

The only positive thing about this is I hope it makes the dims look worse than they do. They have another big problem on their hands with him and I've heard they are wondering how they will get out of having him at their convention this summer.

This man is so arrogant, one of our most failed presidents and the gall of him to go over there when this was not approved. He's a busy body and an anti-Semitic. And, a total embarrassment to our country.

Do you really believe that the territory always goes to the victors? For example, if someone executed a home invasion of your house because they could, do you believe that the territory goes to the victors? And if that home invasion did occur, would the victors be free to treat you and your family any way they wanted because the territory goes to the victors? Do you believe that the law should say that "the strong do what they can and the weak do what they must"?

And how much worse is this principle when applied to countries where millions of people are at the mercy of the victors? Were the Nazis' only crime that they loss the war?

Your thinking that to the victors go the spoils is pre-WWII thinking. Since WWII, when we discovered that over 50 million people can die when we believe to the victors go the spoils, and when we developed weapons that could destroy the world, the international community said we must have laws that prevent war from happening again. So the Nazis were put on trial and convicted of conducting wars of aggression. The Nazi defense was that they anticipated a war with the Bolshevicks and decided to invade first. The German citizens were told, during the Nazi invasion of Eastern Europe, that their soldiers were fighting to preserve their freedom and security.

In addition, international laws were written to put controls on the behavior of countries. You might not like those laws but breaking the law because you do not agree with it does not mean you are innocent.

Did you know that Palestinians are Semites along with Jews?

Caday, you have managed to keep all posts on topic and not resort to name calling and for that I can respect you. (A bit) But as I expend an awful lot of energy on this debate I can see that it will never come to resolution. Why? Because your words here and elsewhere show that you consider everyone morally equivalent. You consider it xenophobic for an American, an Israeli, or anyone else to consider their own country special or their own actions justified.
I do not.

Israel has been in 5 wars since its inception in addition to being the object of two Intifadas and a myriad of domestic and international terror attacks, including the incident at Munich. Their actions for self defense from these atrocities has been limited to reprisals of specific scope by their "allies" and the International Community. Some of these wars were preemptive and some were responsive. In your view, no preemptive war is ever justified, and responsive ones must be limited in scope, and subject to the rigors of international scrutiny. I say Israel has every right to defend itself and that its enemies have shown the only thing that brings them to the bargaining table in reality and not just nominally is utter defeat (like Egypt in 73) or fear (like Jordan in the 90's).

Our views are so far apart, rooted in such opposition idealogically, that I feel there is no point in debating you, and so I won't. If you choose to continue debating, I will no longer respond. Your way of thinking leads to surrender. When your enemy won't play by the "rules" or even worse when they get to say what the rules are, you are fighting a rigged fight, and loss in inevitable. If you don't see this, debate is "worthless wrangling over words"

you are both right. I think Carter will hurt Obama with his endorsement, he has failed repeatedly in foreign affairs and does nothing but harm Democrats credentials on the subject.

The Haj by Leon Uris is a very good fictional book that looks in part at how the Palestinians were encouraged to fight Israel at all costs, then shunned, especially by Egypt and Jordan, when some of them tried to assimilate into other Arab nations. They are just about the only people in history to live for more than a full generation essentially in concentration camps, and the fault is not all Israels, a lot of it goes to their Arab brothers.

I have a new coalition I'm trying to form to shut Carter up, I've named it "Against Carter Having Mouth Ever Deliberate" or ACHMED for short. Or as Jeff Dunham spells it A C phlegm.

New post on my blog, not political, purely entertainment.