Jewish group's pitch: Expose Jimmy Carter

Question to Jimmy Carter about this Anti-Israel book: "You're obviously aware of your main critic, Mr. Stein, who used to be with the Carter Center..."

Carter: "Thirteen years ago! He hasn't been associated with the Carter Center for 13 years."

Uhm, really Jimmy? Maybe you should check your own web site: http://www.cartercenter.org/news/experts/kenneth_stein.html

See why Jimmy was a one-termer?

Here we go again.

I guess the Wingnut party has tired of swiftboating ex-President Clinton.

If they could do policy as good as they run their slime machine they would have no problem getting reelected.

They don't,so they do have a big problem.

Ah John E, I so enjoy your bowling ball-sharp wit!

There's just one very small major problem with your latest pearl of a post. The Anti Defamation League is not the Republic Party* -- which is what I assume you mean by "Wingnut party".

* With a nod to CM.

I see it this way;

We denied our apartheid system for a century, not to mention our miserable treatment of American 'Indians'. Great powers have a hard time admitting big mistakes. Ask Britain and Rome. (Oops, can't ask Rome). Ask Britain.

France, Russia and Germany too, for that matter.

A little story; Me old dad is 86. In hisneighborhood when he was a young boy in the twenties, a cross was burned in his neighbors yard. The neighbors were Catholic! It was in Alliance Ohio!

We were a hard, racist society until very recently. It's a sad true fact. I don't like it, you don't like it, but it's a true fact. In America, if you were black, you could be strung up at any time in the pre sixties period.

Now I am close to my point. The same applied to Jews. They were also strung up. It happened. Jews were hated in this country until very recently. Remember references to the 'Jew York Times'? 'Jew controlled Hollywood? I do. I remember a young couple at our NW Indiana beach in the 50's being beat up because they were thought to be Jews.

Now, we are trying to fix that. We have made some good progress. No doubt.

Israel is a great power. They have nukes, US and UK arms, a navy. They are the adults. They have to make the effort to resolve this mess. It is possible for the oppressed to become the oppressor.

What is the solution? WE DON"T KNOW.

But I can tell you one thing. It won't be 'hard power'.

Juanito, one should never assume, it article is an example of assuming.

Juanito, one should never assume, it article is an example of assuming.

"Apartheid" is probably not an appropriate term. It usually is applied to a political philosophy/legal system that is fundamentally racist.

And I don't mean to diminish the importance of the words we choose to use. Symbols (words) DO matter a good deal. No matter what you think of Carter as a president, he can't be accused of being stupid -- he chose this word knowing very well what would result.

All that being said, he makes a fundamentally important point: To point out that Palestinians are living in a woeful wreck of an economy, have few political rights, and have in no small part been put in that position by Israel is to be called anti-semitic (and worse). In this country, to question the wisdom (much less the morality) of Israeli policies is simply not acceptable. Israel building its wall is just stupid, for instance, and is bound to breed more resentment and more violence on the part of Palestinians. But pointing that out is a sure way to invite charges that you want to see Israel destroyed by terrorists.

Huh? Of course Israel has a right to exist and to protect itself. But so do Palestinian Arabs.

Most Americans have no idea of the real living conditions of Palestinians. And to point out Israel's role in helping to create those conditions is not to diminish the Palestinians' own blame, which is sizable. (The massive corruption and ineptitude of the PLO under Arafat makes the old Soviet Union look like a model of good governance.)

Carter raises questions we've simply chosen to ignore as a nation. I question how he did it with his unfortunate, hyperbolic choice of words. But they're questions we simply have to address at long last.

Is it too soon to advocate for a homeland for Native Americans? A state which cannot be taken at will by the U.S. government? How about Oklahoma? Or even Illinois, so we can kill two birds with one stone and get rid of Chief Illiniwek.

This is what the Israeli-Palestinian issue is all about.

It doesn't sound too good coming from this perspective, does it? But deal with it, we wouldn't accept a state for Native Americans, how does anyone ever expect that the Palestinians and their supporters will ever accept the state of Israel?

c.morris-Good thoughtful post.You forgot to mention their AF,second best in the world, trained by U.S.
Paulo

Last time I was at the Seminole Reservation in Florida the place was booming. Bingo and gambling seems to have finally given the oppressed masses the ability to buy back what was stolen from them. I just read the other day that the Seminole nation bought the entire Hard Rock restaurant and casino empire. Good for them.

Can't really see the Jews as the oppressors in this situation, though, as Jimmy is trying to establish. Remember, Israel's the only viable democracy in the middle east (until Iraq gets on its feet). Removing all the questions about Jews, Arabs, a homeland after the Holocaust, the six-day war and everything else it's still vitally important for the future of western society to have a flourishing democracy in that region. When you've got Ahadinejad holding conferences to implore the "western powers" to stop supporting Israel so he can roll his tanks in unopposed then I think Israel's right to exist has got to be the foremost question on the table.

I realize the Palestinians have a right to their own state, too, but I just don't think the climate is right with terrorists such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda ratcheting up rocket attacks on Israel for her existence to be anything but priority one for the US in this equation.

How did the German army deal with resistance supporting towns in WWII? Villages were blown up, homes burnt to the ground. How does Israel deal with militants ( or occupations resistors to some ) that fire from civillian area? They fire missles from tanks, helicoptors or planes into the area. When a individual decides to become a homicide bomber, how does Israel respond? They level the family home of this person.

Israeli soliders have talked openly of using tactics of interorgation against teenagers that leave no marks but can and have lead to the deaths of these children. Soliders sent onto patrols in the territories will regularly enter homes and knock holes in walls between homes rather than walk down the streets exposed.

Zionists legislators propose stripping citizenship of Israeli arabs.

Israel can detroy the lives of Palestinians at will, Palestinians can blindly flail against this powerful country. Both sides trapped in a stuggle neither can come from as the sole victor. Every Palestian bomb plays to the Zionist agenda, every Israeli missle caters to the islamic extremists agenda. And as always those who want peace most pay the price over and over.

I would like to address a couple of historical inadequacies that I've read here. First, the PLO cannot be reasonably compared to the USSR. The Palestinians have no secure borders, no autonomy, and no state. They live in subjection to Israel, plain and simple. The "corruption and ineptitude" referenced by Elizabeth Bennet has perenially been encouraged by Israel, which, for example, originally funded and encouraged Hamas because it wanted a violent, fundamentalist counterpoint to the more secular PLO. The resulting infighting contributed not only to that "corruption and ineptitude," but also to a great deal of violence directed at Israel.

Second, Mr. McFarlin implies that the Israeli position is analogous to that of contemporary Native Americans. A more appropriate comparison would be between the U.S. and Israel. Both are settler states made up of European invaders who wrested land from weakened, outgunned indigenous populations. The primary difference is that while the Native Americans were all but exterminated, the Palestinian Arabs (in Palestine, not counting the millions of refugees) nearly outnumber the Israelis. Also, there is no way to hide the campaign of ethnic cleansing that Israel and its Western supporters are carrying out against the Arabs. Apparently, though, that isn't stopping many people from engaging in aggressively obtuse denial.

Samuel H.
I think Bud meant to compare Israel/Palestine vs US/Native Am.

It's as good an analogy we will find, with the possible exception of apartheid South Africa, in the old days.

Yes, there are always differences, but not too bad a compare.

Bud,
I have often thought we should simply cede the entire Black Hills region to the Indian Nations. It was theirs, until gold was discovered, then we tore up the treaty and took it.

And Rushmore is a travesty that never should have happened. Talk about a victory dance in the end zone.

Zionist agenda is an anti-semitic term. Just making sure we recognize that.

Please explain Bill.

"Remember, Israel's the only viable democracy in the middle east (until Iraq gets on its feet)."

You're funny, Bill.

Zionism: an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.

When someone uses "Zionist agenda" in the context that Thomas C. or Mahmound Ahmadinejad used it recently, they're using it as a pejorative to imply that Israel has some agenda beyond protecting herself and merely continuing to exist. It doesn't. And, like I said in my previous post, with people like Ahmadinejad out there openly questioning Israel's right to exist, it's safety and viability is of paramount importance.

Ahmadinejad's recent comments:
"Israel is about to crash...when I said the Zionist regime must be wiped off, the Zionist media of course harshly blasted me, but everyone must know that just as the USSR disappeared, this will also be the fate of the Zionist regime, and humanity will be free...those who once supported the Zionist regime must know that every day that passes, this regime's interests are in danger, as well as their dignity. We recommend that as they authorized this regime, they should now 'fold' it. I hope that the Zionist regime's supporters will respond positively to this human invitation."

"Remember, Israel's the only viable democracy in the middle east (until Iraq gets on its feet)."

Bill-

Lebanon was well down the road to being a viable, open democracy. Then Israel decided to bomb them back to the stone age, while the US stood idley by.

Much like our disaster in Iraq, Israel made Hamas stronger and made the prospects for democratic developement less likely.

Correction: I meant Hezbollah, not Hamas.

Sorry Tony, no dice. Any government that considers a terrorist organization like Hezbollah a viable political party is not in any way on the road to democracy. Hezbollah attacked Israel, they were just responding and eliminating the infrastructure in Lebanon to launch rocket attacks at Israel with and the terrorist organization's resupply routes.

Plus, you don't even know which anti-Israel terrorist organization the Israeli Army was trying to cripple. It was Hezbollah, not Hamas.

Cheryl, name me one other democratically-elected state in the Middle East? If you're laughing at the prospect of Iraq becoming a viable democracy then I don't really don't think there's anything to laugh about. Sure, Iraq's a mess right now but as Senator McCain has repeatedly said, winning the war there and putting a real Arab democracy in place is of vital importance not just for the future of the region but for the image and future of the United States.

Sorry, Tony, I posted before your correction went live on the site. I take back the snarky comment.

Bill,

Was Ben Gurion (SP?) a terrorist or a hero?

Were the IRA terrorists of heros?

'One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'??

Lebanon was well on the way to viable democracy. Now Hez's hand is so strong, it may never make it.

And our friends in the Iraqi gvmt? Infiltrated by terrorists, I suspect, just like our Iraqi army allies. I suspect we don't make a move without the insurgency knowing about it in advance.

I'll continue to respectfully disagree about Lebanon being on its way to democracy. Hezbollah was ridiculously powerful in that government. They might've gained more converts after the Israeli incursion but they were already pulling the strings of Lebanese government just as they are now.

The Iraqi needs to get its house in order. If it's infiltrated by terrorists (not proven) it's their responsibility to root them out.

C.Morris,

The slogan "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is too trite by double.

You're treading on thin ice, buddy. At their worst, the IRA were not comparable to Hezzbollah for nastiness, IMO. That aside, the IRA has disarmed and is now functioning as a political entity rather than as a paramilitary organization. First one, then the next.

When Hezzbollah does the same, when they are no longer the stooges of Iran and Syria, when they stop RANDOMLY lobbing rockets into Israeli civilian centers (ironically, also victimizing Israeli Arabs in the process)* when they stop using the Lebanese population as human shields, and THEN show a willingness to participate in a democratic system as a political party...

then I'll call them a political party.

I am not a kneejerk apologist for Israel. Especially with Sharon administration they have royally screwed the pooch. They have moved away from working to establish Palestinian autonomy. That's not only unjust, it is creating a serious threat to their own security.

However Bill is correct in pointing out that it is urgently important for the West -- and all of the civilized world -- to support Israel as it is the only functioning democracy (for all of its flaws) in the region.

On another point, I dispute what you seem to be saying about American antisemitism being a thing of the past. A few of the posts in this thread disprove that.

* At least the Israelis MAKE AN EFFORT to focus their attacks. YES there is invariably collateral damage and YES that is always a tragedy, but Hezzbollah makes no such effort.

Bill,
General philosophic agreement.

I still think my meta-question is something libs and cons should address on high level-critical terms;

'Is one mans/womans terrorist another mans/womans freedom fighter?'

I ask this with absence of malice. I will attempt answer it myself.
THis could provoke an ongoing, non-confrontational discussions.

Cheryl,

I'm not sure what you find funny here.

If you think that Israel is not a democracy -- however imperfect -- then you you're shockingly uninformed.

If Iraq does not become a viable democracy --- and you find that AMUSING!? -- then you have a perverting sense of humor.

Juanito,

I don't think anti-semitism is a thing of the past. I said "We have made some good progress." People can't use the K word to describe them anymore, due to political correctness. That's some progress, I guess.

Yes, racial and religious hatred still exist in the USA. Really, the RR has simply replaced the word 'Jew' with 'Liberal' in the culture war rap.

As in;
'Jew controlled New York Times'
'Jew controlled Hollywood'
'Jew controlled international banking'
On and on. Just put Liberal in place of Jew.

Next up is the 'Jewish war on Christmas'?
See my Seattle posting.

To answer my question; Is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter'?

Yes, of course.

That's been true throughout history, in Israel, this country, N. Ireland, everywhere. Heck, the French Resistance was considered a terrorist org. by the Gestapo.

c.morris, short answer, yes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. But the problem with the Middle East is not everyone on the Arab side is fighting for the righteous cause of a Palestinian state. I don't doubt that most Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza are, but it's the rhetoric and religion-intensified mission of men like Ahmadinejhad to wipe Israel off the map. You can derive no freedom from a mission to kill off a nation and a people

It's been the same mission for Ahmadinejhad and his ilk for more than 50 years. Let's not kid ourselves, when Egypt, Iraq and Syria engaged in a six day war back in 1967 (which Egypt started by blockading the Straits of Tiran) their entire objective was to wipe Israel off the map. It was only after Israel's sons proved they were made of sterner stuff that the issue of the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, West Bank and Gaza strip ever became an issue.

It's fair for the Palestinians to want that land back, and much of its already been returned, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend that a huge percentage of Middle East leaders don't still want to see Israel cease to exist as a nation. Heck, the quote I posted above from Ahmadinejhad was given at a conference he convened, whose entire purpose was denying the Holocaust ever happened.

C.Morris,

Right, one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter. The Khmer Rouge saw their cause as righteous. The Khmer Rouge's and the al Queda's of the world can always rationalize their actions. Moral relativism comes into play.

But should it?

The larger question is, is morality relative? Or can it be, or should it be? Are there universal norms of right and wrong that apply to all of human behavior, or not? ☮

Wow -- you guys are getting pretty heavy here. That can only mean it's high time for the sensible girl to step in.

Interesting as it is to ponder questions such as "Are there universal norms of right and wrong?", such pondering doesn't get us very far. Knowing full well that I run the risk of appearing to be a fan of Kissinger, I tell you that only by trying to find real, practical solutions to real problems in which real people find themselves can we hope to be civilized -- and moral.

A "realpolitik" outlook would have told Israel not to invade Lebanon. Finding Hezbollah (a classic guerilla group) is nigh impossible, the inevitable damage to civilian property and life will only intensify dislike of Israel, and most of the world will find it impossible to support you.

And here is where my pacifist sympathies are exposed: to make the profound changes in civil society that we're talking about, you cannot be pointing guns at people. You're talking about taking a deeply hierarchical, profoundly patriarchal culture and turning it into a culture that respects the voices of all of the world's citizens. The only way to achieve that is to change the ways in which people think, on a very fundamental level. That can only be done over time.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make Israel any safer right now. It won't be safer next Tuesday, or next year, or even in five years. However, had Israel been taking this long-term approach with its occupied territories, perhaps this generation of suicide bombers would not exist in the numbers it does. Perhaps, instead, it would have a generation of people who want jobs rather than status as martyrs. Perhaps, instead, the nuts who run Iran would remain fringe nuts rather than people running whole countries.

This kind of change CAN happen. It HAS happened, right here in the good ol' US of A, as a matter of fact. But it only happens if real people see the real benefits of changes in their thinking and behavior. What benefit is there to Palestinians in thinking that Israel is just fine? What benefit is there to Iraqis in supporting the American occupation?

Israel and the US have not just failed to think and behave morally, they've failed to think of long-term practicality. One will help to lead to the other.

Bill, Juanito,
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Of course, the question of 'moral relativism' and 'is one mans terrorist/freedom fighter', are pretty much the same question.

But hasn't moral relativism always been an integral part of America? Look as slavery (tolerated), mis-treatment of American Indians, (done with relish), and, in one word, 'Hiroshima'.

Now I don't try to second guess Truman, or the men who directed that operation. We, nearly all of us I think, say to ourselves;

'I might not even be here if they didn't drop the bomb. My dad (or G-dad) would probably have been killed in the invasion of Japan'.

Now that is a powerful argument, but morally relative.

My whole objection, in fact, to Kirkpatrick's/Bennett's/the RR's use of the term is the fact they try to imply that they themselves were not or are not guilty of the same thing.

**

Re Supporting Israel; We should and do guarantee her right to exist.

But I disagree (and maybe you too?) that we should back Israel on every one of their actions. A stern public scolding now and again might not hurt.

And they nuked up, on their own.

Anyone know how Israel tested their weapons? Did they? I don't know.

I'm busy at work (damn capitalism!) so brief responses (maybe more later)

CM sez: "My whole objection, in fact, to Kirkpatrick's/Bennett's/the RR's use of the term is the fact they try to imply that they themselves were not or are not guilty of the same thing."

Aye, there's the rub. Most people agree that there are universal moral absulutes, but they can't agree on how to apply them to human affairs.

EB sez: "...had Israel been taking [a] long-term approach with its occupied territories, perhaps this generation of suicide bombers would not exist in the numbers it does."

I wholeheartedly agree. When Israel began its occupation it should have also begun to integrate the Arabs and Palestinians into Israeli society. That would have been the moral thing to do, and the practical thing -- for the sake of the nation's security, these people should have a stake in the nation instead of being shut out.

PS to CM: I believe I read once that Israel's nukes were never actually tested, or that they were "tested" on paper, so to speak.

And yes, I agree we should spank them from time-to-time.

Israel could use a good public scolding, no doubt about it. Especially some of the actions of the Sharon administration. I'm not sure how they nuked up, but I'm willing to wager that someone high up in our government knew about it and chose not to publicize the fact that this was happening.

This is every bit as bad as North Korea nuking up in stealth and if it becomes known that the U.S. looked the other way or, God forbid, helped Israel join the nuclear club then we're going to be in for a world of hurt, and not just diplomatically.

Easy for me to say, right? It's easy to tell you to think of the long-term when I'm calmly observing your battles from a few thousand miles away.

That's what people always tell me when I oppose one military action or another. I do appreciate, for instance, that Israel's existence was tenuous for its first several years. One of the reasons that Palestinian Arabs were not embraced in Israel was the fear that bringing them into the fold would quickly bring an end to its nature as a Jewish state. And its jewishness is important -- it was founded on a post-holocaust grave, after all.

Self-defense must always be a consideration, for any person or group. But here's where it gets tricky -- how do we balance short-term and long-term aims? How do we preserve a Jewish homeland in the short-term, and gain acceptance in the long-term?

No one said long-term thinking is easy, and I don't mean to imply that. But short-term thinking is just plain counter-productive. And dangerous.

Which brings me to my point. ("Finally!" they all sigh.) Now that the West and its authoritarian allies have completely screwed up the short-term in the middle-east, what next? Is there any possible way to help the situation in the short-term, and implement a long-term strategy?

Re. nuke test on paper.

I know one of the big criticisms of France for doing those late '90's live tests was;
The US and UK have 99% effective statistical testing available to ensure 'target servicing' at a highly reliable rate.

But Is. would not have access to that historic statistical info., would they?

We live in the shadow of TSAR BOMBA!
☭ us ✡ uk ☪ ガ ✈ = ☢ ♨ ☹

Ms Lizzy, ya make me dizzy with your thoughtful, intel. posts.
General agreement, but no solutions.

Here's a song, though!
(Please take it in the spirit of fun, 1964 style)

(The Beatles)
You make me dizzy Miss Lizzy,
The way you rock'n'roll.
You make me dizzy Miss Lizzy,
When you do the stroll.
Come on, Miss Lizzy,
love me 'fore I grow too old. (Too late! I think Juan likes you, anyway)

Come on, give me fever,
Put your little hand in mine.
You make me dizzy Dizzy Lizzy,
Girl, you look so fine.
You're just a-rockin' and a-rollin',
Girl I Said I wish you were mine.

AHHHH!!! OWWWW!! WOOO!!

You make me dizzy Miss Lizzy,
When you call my name.
O-o-o-o-oh baby,
Say you're driving me insane.
Come on, come on, come on, come on baby,
I want to be your lover man.

AHHH!! ooh! ooh! OWWW!

Run and tell your mama
I want you to be my bride.
Run and tell your brother,
Baby don't run and hide.
You make me dizzy, Miss Lizzy,
Girl I want to marry you. (Juan?)

Come on, give me fever,
Put your little hand in mine, girl.
You make me dizzy dizzy Lizzy,
Girl, you look so fine.
You're just a-rockin' and a-rollin',
Woo! I Said I wish you were mine.

Oh, C Morris, you wacky guy, you. You just know how to make a girl's heart go pitter-pat don't you?

I hasten to tell you, though, that I'm not to be had for the price of a Beatles cover. No matter how much I like John, Paul, George and Ringo, I DO have my standards!

ouch, good slap down.
I have been actually looking for a good post to use that old song, but decided, lets just have some fun this AM.

And I think the copy written "AHHH!! ooh! ooh! OWWW!" is hilarious. Only goes to show, R and R is a performance art!!

c.morris, EB, Juanito, Bill, etc.
Wow. I'm impressed by this last string of posts with hardly a "looney left" or "reality-challenged wingnut" in the bunch. Thanks for raising the level of the discussion.

Tom O

sometimes we try

Lizzy,

I hope for the nation's sake there is a way to save face in the short term and win the long term. If we pull out of Iraq and civil war escalates it'll not only destabilize the region but set our country at least 50 years in terms of security and diplomatic sway. We broke it. We bought it.

Self-defense must always be a consideration, for any person or group. But here's where it gets tricky ...

A "realpolitik" outlook would have told Israel not to invade Lebanon. Finding Hezbollah (a classic guerilla group) is nigh impossible, the inevitable damage to civilian property and life will only intensify dislike of Israel, and most of the world will find it impossible to support you.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make Israel any safer right now ...

Posted by: Elizabeth Bennet

Ms Bennet, the posts from which the above comments were quoted are well thought out and well said, but how do you defend yourself from an enemy that hides amoung the civilian population.

I agree the Palestinians would be much better off today if they hadn't been forced to live in squalor in refugee camps. I don't think that is completely Israels fault. The oil-rich Arab countries in the region could have sent money to build schools and hospitals instead of just weapons.

Respectfully, I believe that if the enemy sees the tactic of using civilians as human shields works, it is a tactic they will use all the time. It doesn't and shouldn't take away the right to self defense. The only way to stop this is to attack the enemy and take this (deplorable) tactic away.

Collateral damage (I hate that phrase) is inevitable and should always be kept to a minimum. But the fear of collateral damage can not be an excuse to let someone continue to kill innocent men, women, and children with impunity.

Israel wouldn't be safer if it did nothing.

Stan -- you're absolutely right. As I said in a previous post, it's easy for me to say all of this from the comfort of my suburban office complex. If keeping one's eye on the long-term and acting rationally and well were easy, somebody would be batting 1.000 by now!

Bill -- I wish I were more of an optimist. Then I'd be able to hope along with you.

"The oil-rich Arab countries in the region could have sent money to build schools and hospitals instead of just weapons."

Posted by: Stan | Dec 14, 2006 2:04:14 PM

An excellent point, Stan, and one that is seldom made. Oh, BTW, besides supplying weapons they also give cash to the families of suicide bombers. An incentive plan, don't you know... charming!

The Arab world as a whole wants nothing to do with solving the real-life problems of the Palestinians, but they are all too willing to cynically exploit them as anti Western propaganda tools.

Bill,

I fear that hope is fading for a positive outcome in Iraq if only because there is an irresistable public urge for a stampede out. I think that McCain's principled stand will doom his presidential run and most politicians will pander to the short sighted get-out-now-at-any-cost types.

Brace yourselves, everbody. Life is likely going to get brutal in the next few years.

Juanito,

I lived in Saudi for three years. The press there always showed the bloody bodies of children killed by the Israelis, but never showed the carnage caused by suicide bombers they glorified.

I truly feel sorry for the Palestinian people, they need and deserve better, but picking Hamas to lead them was a stupid (even if desperate) move.

LET'S HOPE IN NEAR FUTURE WORLD SHOW THE SAME AMOUNT OF ATTENTION TO CARTER ON HIS POLITICAL ACTIONS ON IRAN IN1970s.
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO STILL DON'T KNOW THAT HOW JIMMY CARTER UNLEASHED TALIBANS ,KHOMINI ,BINLADIN AND PAVED THE ROAD FOR 9/11 & INVASION OF IRAQ BY USA AND UK .