Doesn't this guy know that the only way to peace is endless war and killing?

First Iran, then Syria, Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela....

War is Peace!

"McCain's Foriegn Policy Team",

Apparently Carter's methods are so effective, that Hamas immediately backed away from making any promises or being bound by any agreements.

Jimma Carter is only involved in this foreign relations because of he and his wife's reaction to the Richard Nixon funeral when Nixon was praised for diplomacy and significant diplomatic breakthroughs.
Rosalyn was livid and told Jimma to start world hopping to build up his legacy.
But as we all know he was America's worst President.
He raised interest rates with his buddy Paul Volcker to 22.5 percent.
He turned Iran from the Shah over too wild eyed Islamic Jihadists who literally have ruined the country.
He couldn't handle the Iran terrorist crisis . It took Ronald Reagan's election to get the hostages home.
The high interests rates ruined the real estate industry many Realtors and builders went broke.
His energy policy and his crazy oil embargo ruined the hotel/motel industry with many filing for bankruptcy because of high energy prices.
He rationed gasoline and Americans for the first time were angry because Carter closed all gas stations on Sundays and there were long lines at the pump.His Treasury Secretary was a ccrook and his brother was a gas station owner in Plains who got drunk and urinated on the wall at his gas station. He also sold Billy beer.Jimma Carter Forgetabouthim. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Is this like the time that Jimmy called Kim Jong-Il "eloquent" and assured us that he and North Korea weren't pursuing nuclear weapons? Sure, Jimmy, you've got credibility. Right.

Carter has always been a fool, a champion of idiots and liberals.

But in this case his actions are dangerous, he sides with people that use children to carry bombs and blow up pizza parlors.

It took an eighty year old man, a peace prize winner, a former Democratic President well versed in nuclear physics, to secure a starting point, in the negotiations for peace, in the Israeli-Palestinian debacle! He undertook the job because an inept, Republican President was too preoccupied with the Occupation of another country, which, it turns out, has been destroyed, for all intents and purposes!!
I guaranty you, one thing, history will smile, very broadly, upon the Presidency of President Carter, while it will bemoan the fact that President Bush, the Occupier of Iraq, was ever elected!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

An obvious question is, why would the State Department lie about the nature of its conversations with Carter?

Um, because this administration lies about everything else?

Don Fitzgerald, I know having a clue is not part of your lexicon, but the Palestinians and Israelis have been talking for years now. It all began during the First Bush presidency in early 1990s, continued into the Clinton presidency and now into the second Bush presidency. One Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has been negotiating with the Israelis, has met with Israeli leaders and met with U.S. leaders, including Rice and President Bush. The problem, Mr. Fitzgerald is that Hamas has never been interested in peace. The stated goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel and their leaders even said as much a week ago.
Let's see some public statements from Hamas that they want peace with Israel and not just Peanut-brain's belief. As already noted, Peanutbrain has spoken of the wonders of Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez and other "nice and sweet" leaders.

If you want to present an accurate picture, " John D ", you would have stated that, Hamas wasn't interested in the " peace " that Israel was proposing!! They were seeking a fairer proposal than the Israelis were offering!!! I hope that clears up the picture for you, " John D "!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Another "occupation" showing years of success.

I know having a clue is not part of your lexicon, but the Palestinians and Israelis have been talking for years now. It all began during the First Bush presidency in early 1990s, continued into the Clinton presidency and now into the second Bush presidency

Johnny Dumbelll, ever hear of
Anwar Sadat, Begin and the Camp David Peace Accords? Or was that during the time you were getting your lunch money stolen on a daily basis therefore causing you to become the misogynist are today?

Don:

Carter went and spoke to Hamas because he is incurably gullible. Hamas has milked this meeting for all of its propaganda value. As soon as they were finished, they were bragging that their meeting with Carter gave them the "legitimacy" they previously lacked in the court of world opinion.

Hamas will be good for a lot more bloodshed now because of that meeting. You can count on it. Hamas has no intention of coming to peace terms with Israel. Had they intended to come to peaceful terms, they would have done so by now. The rest of the Palestinian Authority previously tried to work out peace agreements that Hamas thwarted with their conduct.

Hamas leaders are lying- as they deem it their right to lie and cheat - to get their way to get a better position in their fight. Don't count on anything they say as paving the way to peace. The will kill again.

"Let's see some public statements from Hamas that they want peace with Israel and not just Peanut-brain's belief."

Ask and you will recieve.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665/

I guaranty you, one thing, history will smile, very broadly, upon the Presidency of President Carter, ...

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 21, 2008 12:16 PM

This, of course, would be a Marxist History book.
One other thing that it needs to be sure to include is the picture of the ignominious Jimmy Carter, with Mrs. Carter by his side, laying a wreath on one of the World's all time truly great terrorist, Arafat, founding leader of al fatah. In this very moving moment, the worthless Jimmy Carter looked so sad, oviously longing for his terrorist buddy. Why did he have to die so soon.

How many innocent Jews / innocent Palestinians died because of this worthless appeaser??? That photo moment is certainly an image I will never forget.

So, Bill r., you're saying Israel has no right to exist? Even though Jerusalem was the home of the Jews for thousands of years before the current palestinians got there?

Oh, and if anyone STILL questions whether or not Jimmy Carter is stupid and ineffective, check out this Hamas leader contradicting everything Jimmy said in this post: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/21/carter.hamas/index.html

How many innocent Jews / innocent Palestinians died because of this worthless appeaser??? That photo moment is certainly an image I will never forget.

Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | April 21, 2008 3:26 PM

How many innocent Jews and Egyptians are alive because Jimmy Carter brokered a lasting peace between those powers?

The photo of Carter, Begin (an ex-terrorist), and Sadat clasping hands is one I will never forget.

No...I'm saying that those thousands of years play heavy in the middle east and should have been taken in to account with all the other reasons Cheney knew about before invading Iraq. Would you fight tooth and nail if our country was occupied?

Jeff,
Where is the contradiction? I haven't seen President Carter say that Hamas would recognize Israel. The comments on this post only say he said Hamas would accept a peace agreement negotiated with Israel.

Jeff.....It's because of those thousands of years that the middle east will continue to fight occupiers for ever.

Bill, the Hamas statement says that they will never recognize Israel. Do you and Jimmy honestly think Israel is going to negotiate with an entity that does not recognize it as a sovereign country with a right to exist? C'mon.

PB:

You didn’t read the article very well. Hamas said they would offer a “Hudna” – a cease fire - for 10 years in exchange for the 1967 borders.

That is not peace. A Hudna, in the tradition of Islam, is a truce undertaken for the purpose of gaining some advantage over one’s enemy. They are offered with a clear intent to resume hostilities at a later time. Thus, by offering a Hudna, Hamas would still reserve the right to wage war against Israel after the lapse of 10 years (if some pretext doesn’t make them break the peace sooner). In the meantime, Hamas gets the benefit of time to make repairs, train their personnel and acquire new and better weapons in order to carry out warfare at a later time. They also get the benefit of more land with which to plan and launch attacks in the future.

If you think that’s Peace – or that Israel ought to give up the land occupied in ’67 in exchange for such a flimsy offer – then I have some bridges in New York and San Francisco to sell you for a cheap price.

p.s. Also, there's a freely-elected Iraqi gov't in charge over there. We're not occupying anything. Our Air Force in Rammstein doesn't mean we're occupying Germany, although I know you and Barack have a hard time understanding that.

Well, Luke @ 4:20 p.m., I suppose that we have to choose to remember what we choose to remeber.

In the 1973 War against Egypt AND Syria, Israel, was, as usual surrounded, outnumbered and subjected to a surprise attack. It took a few days, but Israel gained the advantage and was poised to put an complete end to the Egyptian Army. Various outside entities intervined, including the UN, and Israel stood down and did not seal the deal.

I can easily imagine that Sadat had a change in heart with respect to his country's military powess, and his need to destroy Israel. As a result of that little failed military effort, he seemed to have felt a very real need to negotiate a REAL peace. So, it was certainly in his best interest, and I would have to give him a lot of the credit for coming to that point of view and working towards a peace agreement worth more than the paper that it was written on. Carter had some part in convening with Sadat and Begin, I surely know not exactly what, and I would even concede him some credit for something, but I also don't know what exactly. Probably not going to give him nearly as much credit as you or his fan base.

The Carter problem NOW, is his clear inability to recognize Real Life-Time Committed Terrorists that he keeps partnering with in the vain hope of doing something. All this ever does is undermine legitimate efforts that the State Department is undertaking to negotiate something of value with these despotic autocrats.

I do not think that Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama will appreciate the efforts of this inept, renegade negotiator or whatever it is he calls whatever it is he does, IF either of them do become President of the United States. How would you like for me to make a few adjustments on your valve lifters. I tend to over-use a hammer, a cold chisel and J-B weld. Respectfully,

Thank you, Scott! Someone finally gets it!

Israel encircled the entire Egyptian Army and THAT is what made Sadat come to the negotiating table. Jimmy gave the whole thing the legitimacy of a US-government-sanctioned peace accord but the threat of losing his whole army is what made Sadat negotiate. That and the fact that Egypt was already planning on breaking with the Soviet Union, anyway.

What most liberal thinkers fail to recognize is that Egypt's recognition of Israel only affected herself and Jordan. Hafez al-Assad was a threat to Israel after the Yom Kippur war and the son he handed Syria off to is still a threat today.

John W-

Under what circumstances will Israel not reserve the right to wage war on the Palestinians at a later date? Is thier refusal to return
the 1967 borders not based on their military needs to be able to strike their neighbors if needed?

"Carter had some part in convening with Sadat and Begin, I surely know not exactly what, and I would even concede him some credit for something, but I also don't know what exactly. Probably not going to give him nearly as much credit as you or his fan base."

So Scot, your own admitted ignorance of the facts is the basis of your opinion, huh?

Meanwhile Jeff is living tin the fantasy world that the Camp David Accords were negotiated while the Yom Kippur war was still going on. The war had been over for 5 years at that point. The Egyptian Army was not "surrounded". Sadat was under no threat of losing his entire army.

Aren't Republicans allowed to read history books? Or does your love of war just blind you to the value of peace?

Thanks, Jeff. I do tend to remember historical events that have transpired in my life, along with mathematical formulas, history in general, and assorted useless trivia.

I could not say that facing a crushing military force and getting your tail handed right back to you always works or always has the desired benefits, but there are surely those times when it does. The point is this: It takes two to make peace, and neither one of those two is named Jimmy Carter. Thanks, Jeff.

* * * * *

Posted by: PB | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM

PB:

Number One, the U.N. resolutions calling for the return of the occupied West Bank and other territories acquired in the �67 war also demanded the recognition of Israel�s right to exist. Israel views these two conditions as mutual and dependent. That is, it sees recognition � which includes the cessation of hostility - as the quid pro quo for return of any territory. Israel maintains a land for peace policy. The reason they still hold the occupied territories is that their recognition as a sovereign nation with a right to exist hasn�t proceeded much beyond lip service by those who seek the occupied lands.

Contrary to your suggestion, they are not holding lands to maintain the ability to strike their neighbors if needed. They had a lot less land when they whipped Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt in �48, and when they beat Syria, Egypt and Jordan in �67. Yet, Egypt got the Sinai peninsula back when it signed the peace accords. Does that paint a good enough picture for you?

Number Two, you have conveniently changed the subject from that of Hamas� non-offer of peace in the form of a Hudna. Contrary to gullible Jimmy Carter�s beliefs (and yours too, apparently), Hamas is not willing to recognize Israel or agree to anything that resembles a lasting peace. The fact Hamas was willing to offer only a Hudna � a tactical truce � proves their intention is to continue waging war against Israel.

The point was that you erroneously represented this offer of a Hudna � as reported in the article to which you cited � as proof that Hamas was willing to make peace with Israel. The exact opposite is true. What you said was untrue, and I called you on it.

Fin.

JohnW-

So Israel will give back East Jerusalem in return for recognition then? They'll remove ALL of the west bank settlements?

Not hardly.

When are we going to see a clear statement from Israel that they want peace with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders?

Contrary to your guillible beliefs, the Israeli's are not willing to allow a full and viable Palestinian state in the whole of Pre-1967 Palestine. Not now, not ever. Theyn maintain a land for conquest policy.

That's not what I said at all, Luke. You should get a job with the Obama campaign, you're good at lying and putting words into other people's mouths.

LOSING the Yom Kippur war - and I know PLO supporters still claim that the Arab states "won" while getting bailed out by the UN - was what finally pushed Sadat to recognize Israel. He did not want the UN to have to save his nation the way it had to save his Army. Period. And Egypt was breaking with the Soviet Union, anyway.

Why should Israel give up those lands? They were attacked in '67 and they won the lands in the ensuing war. Keeping them sends the message to their neighbors that any attack on Israel will come with serious consequences. The Arab states refuse to recognize Israel, after all.

Jeff-

Your ignorance is showing again. Israel wasn't attacked in 1967. They struck first.

Are you implying that Israel was intending on attack Eqypt again to "destroy it"? What does that mean Jeff? Surely if Sadat was so totally defeated militarily as you claim it was no threat to Israel, and there would be no reason for Israel to destroy them, right?

* * * * *

Posted by: Luke | April 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Luke:

Egypt committed an unambiguous act of war by closing the Straits of Tiran to all shipping bearing the Israeli flag – prior to the outbreak of actual hostilities. In addition, the Egyptians had expelled the U.N. peacekeepers in the Sinai and massed an enormous host of tanks and infantry on the Sinai border with Israel. To all but the deaf, dumb, blind, and liberal, it was clearly apparent that Israel was at war and that an attack from Egypt was imminent. This was all before Israel fired a shot.

In addition, the Syrians - who were openly allied with Egypt - (look up the U.A.R.) - had been shelling Israeli territories for some time in the vicinity of Lake Tiberias. Those also constituted attacks and acts of war.

In short, Israel had more than ample ground to open up on the Egyptians the way they did. One doesn't have to wait to be overrun to be justified in opening hostilities when there already exists a state of war and the circumstances demonstrate the obvious and imminent attack.