Jimmy Carter accused of plagiarism

Hey Bro. Curtis,

1. Egypt and Israel fought before the peace accords. They certainly weren't on friendly terms.
2. Another way to look at it is that Carter chose to work where the most effective starting point could take place. The peace has lasted to this present day.
3. Don't forget the most important point: Carter did more than any of the Presidents who have been elected since his term. Even if you are right in your assertion that "Carter chose a fight he would most likely win," it is still more than the other Presidents have done.

Hope all is well in Montana,
BiR (in Oklahoma)

 

I've never seen or heard of crowds of Egyptians calling for Israel's destruction, Egypt never sent suicide bombers into Israel, in fact, Egypt built a wall bigger than the Israelis did, to keep the Palestinians out.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Carter has long enjoyed a reputation as a Middle East sage, owing, of course, to his role in the original Camp David accords. That reputation, however, rests on shaky grounds. Truth is, Sadat and Begin had their deal worked out before ever approaching Washington. And the facilitators they used were far from saintly Southern Baptists: They used the dreadful King of Morocco and the even more dreadful Ceausescu of Romania! When they had their plan essentially worked out, however, they called the White House (whose occupant just happened to be J.C.) (initials not accidental, he and his most fervent admirers have seemed to think for years).[/FONT]

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-nordlinger101102.asp

 

When was the first suicide bomber that you ever heard of? Suicide bombing is not particularly effective and it is rare for a state to use it.

Hardly a disinterested assessment - note the adjectives: saintly, dreadful. The whole tone is disparaging. I suspect an anti-Carter agenda there.

 

Do you have a fear of people with strong opinions ?

Are there any factual errors in his statement ?

What's so un-dreadful about Ceausescu ?

 

You do realize that this is an opinion column, and the claims are not reinforced by any proof.....

Regards, hope your day goes great,
BiR

 

I know it's an opinion piece, BiR. I only look stupid, in my picture.

Actually, my questions to Daisy apply to you, as well. Take a stab at debunking it.

 

Yes!!!!

I dunno ... not sure....maybe....

Not a bloody thing!!

 

Carter is and was a disaster.....double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, a phony "gas shortage", he couldn't even work with his own party when he was president.

http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2006/12/carters_maps_wo.html

"Middle Eastern sage"? Nope, try anti-Zionist apologist.

 

Why do you think the gas shortage was phony? Were you alive then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

He is by no means for the abolition of Israel. I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-Zionist apologist", though.

 

It makes the whackos cross-eyed with fury when they are reminded that Carter brokered the only lasting peace between Israel and Arabs in the Middle East.

The clown Curtis quoted simply lied. It took a long time, and the negotiations broke down several times at Camp David before the peace was secured. This was well-documented, and openly admitted by Begin and Sadat.

Not to demean the roles of Sadat and Begin; both of them took a terrible chance, and Sadat paid for his vision and courage with his life. In his death, he did a further service to Egypt and to peace; Egyptians were infuriated with the jihadists who killed him, and vigorously prosecuted and suppressed the terrorists in their country. And the notion that Carter somehow manipulated some dictators into actually doing something constructive towards getting the Peace treaty may also irk the neocons, but it seems to me that there's nothing wrong with persuading people to do the right thing regardless of who they are.

Pretty much sour grapes, as the wreckage of their policy and the thousands of American deaths they caused contrasts with Carter's accomplishments.

 

Oftentimes opinions are based on indisputable facts, but you'll never convince some people. If they don't like the opinion, the facts don't matter. That's called...

Hmmmmmmm...

Can't come up with the word, but I think it starts with "L".

 

He plagarized!

Jimmy Carter and Camp David, well, thanks, now I'm cross-eyed with fury. Why is this happening???????????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Barely, but Carter wasn't elected president until 1976. He said we would run out of fossil fuels sometime in the 1990's.

Well, what do you think the title of a book called "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" means?

 

So your position is that even though he only brokered the only lasting peace in the middle east, he used some unauthorized maps in his book, and missed the decline in oil reserves by 20 years?

Still pretty good, isn't it? No president since has done as well. Reagan let his people handle the details; their solution was tribute to the Iranians. Bush I botched the diiplomacy that led to Desert Storm. Clinton's efforts went nowhere. And the Republicans were tossed out of power because of the way Bush handled things in the Middle East.

Face reality for a bit. Not pleasant, but healthy for you.

 

Carter is traitorous to his country and a huge embarrassment to Christians.

 

Although not the most effective president we have had, I like Jimmy Carter. I voted for him in 1976; but remember, he was running against Ford. After Nixon, it was not difficult to vote for a democrat. In fact, my family pretty much favored the democratic party anyway.

 

Well, Carter as president was one thing, after Reagan knocked him back to Plains (where he should have stayed or should have still kept building houses), he went off the deep end to redeem his image.

His own party was arguably his worst political enemy, but now Israel has that honor. You just don't get reality yourself, do you? Even if Carter had been a good or great president (and he wasn't), what he's doing now is the problem.

He's turned himself into a pro-Palestenian shill, next thing you know, he's join the next Holocaust Denial Conference held in Iran. He compared our ally in the Middle East to an apartheid state in a book title.

Puh-leeze, like him all you want, but he compared our ally in the Middle East to an apartheid state in a book title.

 

That's pretty well set now, particularly with Dubya's results in the same area. Carter's stock has risen quite a bit in light of subsequent history.

Getting frustrated and making angry and false accusations probably won't do your credibility any good. Think about what people reading this will think.

 

Ronald Reagan did 100 times better than Jimmy Carter. Remember, Jimmy Carter lost Iran - a horrible blunder on his part that we are still paying for today.

 

Iran was lost long before, when we backed the coup that put the Shah in power. Our support for him gradually turned the people of Iran against us, and thereby subjected Iran to a radical theocracy.

Iraq is merely the latest misguided attempt.

 

Baloney. Carter was president when Iran fell to the Islamofascists. Therefore, he bears the responsibility.

Jimmy Carter is clearly the worst president in U.S. history and there's really is nothing that the Democrats can do about that fact.