Jimmy For Terror

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01152007/postopinion/editorials/jimmy_for_terror_editorials_.htm


JIMMY FOR TERROR


January 15, 2007 -- Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?

Sure looks that way.

How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter's new anti-Israel screed, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"?

To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)

You don't have to read between the lines here.

Carter isn't calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they've achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.

Certainly, that's how 14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board read that paragraph. Indeed, it's why they angrily submitted their resignations last week.

That's also how Melvin Konner read it. He's a respected anthropology professor at Emory University and had been asked to be part of an academic group meant to advise the former president and the Carter Center on how to respond to criticism of the book.

As Konner wrote to John Hardman, the center's executive director, in declining the invitation: "I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. The sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger."

Konner, by the way, is no Carter-basher; he describes the former president as "one of my greatest heroes."

 

Besides the votes I cast for Bush in the last two elections, the vote I regret most was the one for Carter in 1976. The death of former President Ford and recounting the history made this quite clear.

Since Bush is still in office, the final chapter has not been written on him yet. BUt discounting that, Carter is the worst President in my lifetime with LBJ a close second.

 

REALLY?
So, both Carter and LBJ were worse than Nixon? Interesting.

Don't forget that it was under LBJ that we finally had the Civil Rights Act. For me, that atones for a multitude of sins.

Regards, hope you and yours are well,
BiR

 

LOl, Chomsky. And Pelosi epitonmizes the center. Regular ThirdWayer there.

Hey, carpro, Pelsoi IS really a far-left liberal. So is Jimmuh Carter, his opinion's up for sale:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=252633226827963

And then there's the infamous page 213 of his new book. He's not a peacebroker anymore, just another paid advocate

 

Me, too.:thumbs:

 

Amen, and he's also the worst living ex-president.

 

How many other President's served as a Baptist missionary and taught Sunday School while in office?

 

President Ford stumbled through his term in office. He did 'ok', but he did not do well.

And while I cam pained for Ford (against Carter), I have always believed that Jimmy Carter became a better 'President' than Ford was. Where President Carter adjusted his politic to fit the office, Ford was always Ford.

The President needs to rise above his individual party and lead the country as a whole. Albeit, Ford was distracted by the crimes of his predecessor, but he was a professional politician and could have done more.

 

PS - I do want to be clear: while I think that Pres. Carter became a much better President than he was a candidate - I still could not vote for him . . . he was more to the left than he should have been.

 

Why did Bush allow the bin-Laden family to fly out of the U.S. the day after 9/11 when all other planes were grounded? Talk about collusion with the Arabs.

 

Please read this: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

It was a lapse in security, beyond retarded IMO, no collusion.

On that other thread, Congress cut off funding for the war, Nixon had no choice but to retreat , just to let you know. The Fall of Saigon and its aftermath, don't and don't.

On topic, I don't think Jimmuh's "for terror", but the people he's chosed to align with and accept money from sure are.