Jimmy Carter strikes again

[j2k4]

I would imagine his critics will be criticized for their "Zionist" view of his literary efforts, no matter their pedigree; after all, why would Carter lie and mislead? :dry:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120602171.html?nav=rss_nation&g=1

[bigboab]

I sense a move away from Israeli support. Not just from Carter but the fact that the coalition are trying to negotiate with Iran and Syria. I cant see any agreement from those two without a lot more pressure being put on Israel.

I wonder what would happen if the USA threatened to stop aid to Israel unless there was more movement from them toward a lasting peace. I think I better check my Lottery ticket. More chance there.:)

[j2k4]

The problem seems to be that Carter's book involves easily proven historical inaccuracies, total fabrications, and sundry other contextual abuses.

He is being called-out from quarters which heretofore escaped note.

Aside from that, your want of speculations as re: Israel seems to presumptively place all blame for the conflict at Israel's doorstep, and, by proxy, that of the U.S.

Do you believe this to be true, Bob.

Also, for argument's sake, let us say the U.S. decides, instanter, to forego any active support for Israel.

Do you think Israel, at the precise juncture of absolute desertion, would be shy about "sharing" her nuclear capacity around the mideast?

[DanB]

Do you think Israel, at the precise juncture of absolute desertion, would be shy about "sharing" her nuclear capacity around the mideast?

yes cos they'd get it big time from the rest of the mid east thatrefuses to even entertain the idea of recognising them.

[bigboab]

The problem seems to be that Carter's book involves easily proven historical inaccuracies, total fabrications, and sundry other contextual abuses.

He is being called-out from quarters which heretofore escaped note.

Aside from that, your want of speculations as re: Israel seems to presumptively place all blame for the conflict at Israel's doorstep, and, by proxy, that of the U.S.

Do you believe this to be true, Bob.

Also, for argument's sake, let us say the U.S. decides, instanter, to forego any active support for Israel.

Do you think Israel, at the precise juncture of absolute desertion, would be shy about "sharing" her nuclear capacity around the mideast?

If they have weapons of mass destruction(sorry), should we not invade Israel and destroy them? Especially as she is likely to use them:rolleyes:

[vidcc]

Well I guess anyone that looks at the complete picture and suggests that Israel and the US are not perfect and not totally innocent, and doesn't just blame the Palestinians and any other arab nations, is obviously not just delusional but also a complete idiot.:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

The problem seems to be that Carter's book involves easily proven historical inaccuracies, total fabrications, and sundry other contextual abuses.

He is being called-out from quarters which heretofore escaped note.

Aside from that, your want of speculations as re: Israel seems to presumptively place all blame for the conflict at Israel's doorstep, and, by proxy, that of the U.S.

Do you believe this to be true, Bob.

Also, for argument's sake, let us say the U.S. decides, instanter, to forego any active support for Israel.

Do you think Israel, at the precise juncture of absolute desertion, would be shy about "sharing" her nuclear capacity around the mideast?

If they have weapons of mass destruction(sorry), should we not invade Israel and destroy them? Especially as she is likely to use them:rolleyes:

Does anyone here understand any/all of the permutations of the word "alliance".

Sometimes it goes beyond mere empathy, convenience, or common cause.

The fact we (as a nation) actually like and value the Jewish people puts us at odds with most of the rest of the world; our affinity is, in that sense, neither pragmatic nor practical.

Is that a reason to throw them over.

More to the point of this thread, does it excuse Carter from any requirement of accuracy.

He has attempted to defend himself by saying others should keep an open mind to his...lies. :huh:

Even viewed objectively, that's fucked up.

[Ava Estelle]

More to the point of this thread, does it excuse Carter from any requirement of accuracy.

He has attempted to defend himself by saying others should keep an open mind to his...lies. :huh:

Even viewed objectively, that's fucked up.

Have you actually read the book j2k4?

Or did you allow Kenneth Stein to do that for you?

Criticism of the book, primarily from Jewish groups and leaders, began even before it was published ..

What a surprise! Not mentioned by j2k4 though, that would be to accept that American Jews were somehow biased.

The majority opinion in the world, outside of the US, is that Israel is more to blame than the Palestinians. You can check the accuracy of that by the list of UN resolutions passed against Israel, and vetoed by the US.

[j2k4]

More to the point of this thread, does it excuse Carter from any requirement of accuracy.

He has attempted to defend himself by saying others should keep an open mind to his...lies. :huh:

Even viewed objectively, that's fucked up.

Have you actually read the book j2k4?

Or did you allow Kenneth Stein to do that for you?

Criticism of the book, primarily from Jewish groups and leaders, began even before it was published ..

What a surprise! Not mentioned by j2k4 though, that would be to accept that American Jews were somehow biased.

The majority opinion in the world, outside of the US, is that Israel is more to blame than the Palestinians. You can check the accuracy of that by the list of UN resolutions passed against Israel, and vetoed by the US.

In this case, it is not the "who is doing it" aspect of the criticism, but the "why is it occurring" that gives rise to questions.

I have already squared my posting as to "majority opinion", I think you'll find.

I haven't read the book, though Stein certainly has, and another fellow named Dennis Ross, whose work-product was mal-appropriated (without attribution, BTW) and mis-used by Carter, has read it as well.

Both of these fellows, it should be noted, are long-time, dyed-in-the-wool democrat functionaries whose pique seems to be directed very specifically at Carter and his book.

This should tell you something about Carter, I'd think.

I find it hilarious that people like yourself find it comforting to defend the man, actually, given his long and comprehensive record of delusion and incompetence.

As has become habit for democrats who miss being in the public eye (George McGovern comes to mind), he cannot resist the urge to pump up the deflated balloon of his non-existent legacy.

After a retirement of pounding nails for Habitat for Humanity, it develops that he'd have been better off pounding sand.

Even in democrat circles he is referred to as "the little peanut farmer from Georgia who became president and fucked up the whole damn universe".

In this instance, he reminds me of Gwyneth Paltrow, but with the unalloyed idiocy to publish his fantasies for posterity.

[Ava Estelle]

I haven't read the book ..
Surprise, surprise!


I find it hilarious that people like yourself find it comforting to defend the man ..
I'm sure it will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that I have never defended Carter, but don't let the truth stand in the way of a cheap shot.

What I find amusing is the way you've had to resort to attacking Carter in order to avoid having to defend Bush. :lol:

[j2k4]

I find it hilarious that people like yourself find it comforting to defend the man ..
I'm sure it will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that I have never defended Carter, but don't let the truth stand in the way of a cheap shot.

You have problems with those who have problems with Carter.

Close enough to defending Carter for me, considering you haven't read the book either, and must rely on lib-news sites and rhetoric to engage others on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

You are part of the discussion owing to your anti-Bush penchant, nothing more.

Fact.

What I find amusing is the way you've had to resort to attacking Carter in order to avoid having to defend Bush. :lol:

If I haven't defended Bush, it is because I choose not to.

Besides, you were the one who started the "worse president ever" thread, in which I mentioned (with emphasis) Carter in order to relieve you of your ignorance.

I even corrected your spelling, so frankly I don't know what more I can do for you.

[Ava Estelle]

You have problems with those who have problems with Carter.

Close enough to defending Carter for me, considering you haven't read the book either, and must rely on lib-news sites and rhetoric to engage others on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

I haven't read the book so I haven't defended it, I haven't defended him as a president either. You, on the other hand, started a thread attacking a book one of your neocon buddies told you was lies and misrepresentation, and you believed him. You needed no proof, you didn't feel the need to find out for yourself, you just followed the party line, like the sheep you are ... baaaa!

[j2k4]

You have problems with those who have problems with Carter.

Close enough to defending Carter for me, considering you haven't read the book either, and must rely on lib-news sites and rhetoric to engage others on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

I haven't read the book so I haven't defended it, I haven't defended him as a president either. You, on the other hand, started a thread attacking a book

Wrong.

one of your neocon buddies told you was lies and misrepresentation, and you believed him.

Wrong again.

You needed no proof, you didn't feel the need to find out for yourself,

And yet again.

you just followed the party line, like the sheep you are ... baaaa!

Now, that's funny, since it is, by and large, the democrat party line. :whistling

[Ava Estelle]

.. you just followed the party line, like the sheep you are ... baaaa!

Now, that's funny, since it is, by and large, the democrat party line. :whistling

The Democrat party line? To attack anything from a Democrat without finding out for oneself? I think not.

[j2k4]

Now, that's funny, since it is, by and large, the democrat party line. :whistling

The Democrat party line? To attack anything from a Democrat without finding out for oneself? I think not.

No, you twit - the irony is that I find myself siding with Stein and Ross, who are both democrats, and whom, I might add, have found out for themselves.

Baaaa, yourself.

[Ava Estelle]

The Democrat party line? To attack anything from a Democrat without finding out for oneself? I think not.

No, you twit - the irony is that I find myself siding with Stein and Ross, who are both democrats, and whom, I might add, have found out for themselves.

Baaaa, yourself.

Oh I see, you mean you have no opinion of your own so you found a couple of people whose opinions you can live with. Fair enough.

[Ava Estelle]

This is an article from the LA Times from someone who HAS read the book, Jimmy Carter ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.story?coll=la-opinion-center

[j2k4]

This is an article from the LA Times from someone who HAS read the book, Jimmy Carter ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.story?coll=la-opinion-center



This is hilarious.

You attempt to vouchsafe a book and it's bone fides by quoting a self-serving puff-piece written by it's author.

That we live in a world where this can be contemplated with any presumption of legitimacy by anyone, anywhere is surely a sign of the apocalypse.

Mr. Carter may have written the book; perhaps he should have read it as well, eh?

[Ava Estelle]

Blah, blah, blah ... all rhetoric and no substance, as usual.

I'm attempting to vouchsafe nothing, as I said before, I refuse to comment on a book I haven't read just because I have a prior opinion of the author, I'll leave that sort of thing to you.

I posted the link so people can read Carter's own words, nothing more.

[j2k4]

Blah, blah, blah ... all rhetoric and no substance, as usual.

I'm attempting to vouchsafe nothing, as I said before, I refuse to comment on a book I haven't read just because I have a prior opinion of the author, I'll leave that sort of thing to you.

I posted the link so people can read Carter's own words, nothing more.

As you say, you have no knowledge of the book, yet you fail to mention you have no knowledge of Mr. Carter, either.

You have not the competency to comment, one way or the other, but that's fine; no one ever said free speech had to be accurate or coherent. :whistling

[Ava Estelle]

.. you fail to mention you have no knowledge of Mr. Carter, either.

You have no way of knowing what I know of Carter, so another nothing post.

You really have gone down hill, a bit like the party you cling to.

[j2k4]

.. you fail to mention you have no knowledge of Mr. Carter, either.

You have no way of knowing what I know of Carter, so another nothing post.

You really have gone down hill, a bit like the party you cling to.

Apart from the fact I am the one attempting to save you the embarrassment, have you noticed that you are the only other person participating in this thread.

I admit I have no use whatsoever for the man.

What say you?

[Ava Estelle]

Apart from the fact I am the one attempting to save you the embarrassment,

Haha! What a strange thing to say, you're the one who should be embarrassed, you've been made to look a complete fool.



I admit I have no use whatsoever for the man.

What say you?

I say he didn't bring the world to the brink of disaster, he didn't illegally invade another country, and he didn't lie and cheat his way through his term.

Here's a few other things he did ...

With bipartisan support he and Congress deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries. Carter bolstered the social security system; and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. In foreign affairs, Carter's major initiatives included the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the creation of full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and the negotiation of the SALT II Treaty. In addition, he is seen as a champion of human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

[j2k4]

Haha! What a strange thing to say, you're the one who should be embarrassed, you've been made to look a complete fool.



I admit I have no use whatsoever for the man.

What say you?

I say he didn't bring the world to the brink of disaster, he didn't illegally invade another country, and he didn't lie and cheat his way through his term.

Here's a few other things he did ...

With bipartisan support he and Congress deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries. Carter bolstered the social security system; and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. In foreign affairs, Carter's major initiatives included the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the creation of full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and the negotiation of the SALT II Treaty. In addition, he is seen as a champion of human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Then it is plain you've bought the popular line, rather than the true one.

Tell me this:

How would you know if what you thought was wrong?

[ilw]

Haha! What a strange thing to say, you're the one who should be embarrassed, you've been made to look a complete fool.




I say he didn't bring the world to the brink of disaster, he didn't illegally invade another country, and he didn't lie and cheat his way through his term.

Here's a few other things he did ...

With bipartisan support he and Congress deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries. Carter bolstered the social security system; and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. In foreign affairs, Carter's major initiatives included the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the creation of full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and the negotiation of the SALT II Treaty. In addition, he is seen as a champion of human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Then it is plain you've bought the popular line, rather than the true one.

Tell me this:

How would you know if what you thought was wrong?

he knows plenty, that paragraph is a quote from carter's not particularly flattering wikipedia article

[j2k4]

Then it is plain you've bought the popular line, rather than the true one.

Tell me this:

How would you know if what you thought was wrong?

he knows plenty, that paragraph is a quote from carter's not particularly flattering wikipedia article

I don't bother with Wiki-whatever, but I have heard anyone can "update" the information espoused there.

Mayhap I'll treat Jimmah to a wee corrective makeover...