Carter: My fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner is a “widespread” human-rights violator, you know

posted at 12:01 pm on June 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Every President since Jimmy Carter left office has had reason to wish that Jimmy Carter had left the planet, too, perhaps to colonize Mars for future peanut farmers. Even Bill Clinton ended up tripping over Carter’s idiotic intervention in North Korea, which let Kim Jong-il off the hook that Clinton had carefully crafted.  Now Barack Obama gets to enjoy his predecessor’s political interventions, in this case aimed at Obama specifically:

A former U.S. president is accusing the current president of sanctioning the “widespread abuse of human rights” by authorizingdrone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.

Jimmy Carter, America’s 39 th president, denounced the Obama administration for “clearly violating” 10 of the 30 articles of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the “United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.”

“Instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends,” Carter wrote.

The op-ed itself is rather bizarre, including this statement:

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable.

Er, what?  No one has ever suggested that people other than terrorists don’t get killed by drone strikes, and there is no “rule” that declares all the dead as terrorists — although I’m sure that some would like to believe it.  But that’s the nature of any kind of bombing, not just those conducted by drones.  Arguably, drone strikes can limit the “collateral damage” of other bombing techniques with hyper-accurate targeting and stealthy approaches, which is not to say mistakes aren’t made.  The US and Pakistan got into a row over the deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers from a misdirected strike last year, for instance.

Why conduct the bombing at all, if civilians are at risk?  For the past eleven years, the US position has been that terrorist networks declared war on the US, and that we will pursue them militarily and economically, using all tools at our disposal.  We further warned nations that shelter terrorist networks (willingly or unwillingly) that we would not respect their sovereignty when used as a shield to hide these combatants in a war they declared on us.  Civilian deaths occur in every war (in other words, “inevitable”), but they result in these cases from the nature of the terrorists, who hide among civilians while conducting their war against us.  The only other option in that case is to do nothing, a policy which anyone familiar with Carter’s presidency will recognize.  This, by the way, is the true definition of the Bush Doctrine, which Obama has followed.

Don’t like drone strikes?  Get rid of your terrorists.  Otherwise, we intend to defeat the terrorist networks that declared war on the US and succeeded in murdering nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11.  Those networks grew into lethal form long before we stated targeting them with drone strikes, something that Carter’s trite and insipid argument that “the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families toward terrorist organizations” ignores.  In fact, it’s a lot more true that Carter’s year-long demonstration of impotence at the hands of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini boosted jihadi recruitment a lot more than drone strikes ever did.

Thankfully, Carter’s fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner doesn’t appear inclined at this point to adopt Carter’s idiotic foreign policy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Jimmy Carter – The gift that keeps on giving.

multiuseless on June 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Arafat’s Nobel is a massive repudiation of the Isreali apartheid state, in which case I support it.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM

“Israeli apartheid state”? Would that be the same Israeli state that allows Palestinians and Arabs to serve in the Knesset if they are duly elected? While Israelis in Palestinan and Arab areas usually end up dead?

Most idiotic and xenophobic statement you’ve made yet.

Bitter Clinger on June 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

So, Carter is throwing Obama under the bus? Go figure!

rlyle on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Carter and his fumbling in the Middle East did more to bring about our present state of world-wide Islamic terrorism than any president before or since.

Socratease on June 26, 2012 at 12:52 PM

No, that would be our overthrowing Iran’s constitutional monarchy and installing a dictator in his place. Then it would be opening bases throughout the Mid-East, especially Saudi Arabia, which is the location of Mecca and Medina.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

No, that would be our overthrowing Iran’s constitutional monarchy and installing a dictator in his place. Then it would be opening bases throughout the Mid-East, especially Saudi Arabia, which is the location of Mecca and Medina.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

So we let Iran alone, move out of the ME, and suddenly they’ll stop f-ing with us?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

No, that would be our overthrowing Iran’s constitutional monarchy and installing a dictator in his place. Then it would be opening bases throughout the Mid-East, especially Saudi Arabia, which is the location of Mecca and Medina.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Yeah, the Middle East was such a nice peaceful place till we came along.
//////////////////////////////////

Bitter Clinger on June 26, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Guess he doesn’t want to keep the title of “Worst President Evah.”

BrunoMitchell on June 26, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Blue on Blue at the very top. I like it. This can’t be good for the O regime, a lot of old liberals still worship Jimmah.

JimK on June 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Hey Jimmy, how well are your buddies HAMAS doing at upholding this? Looking good for Egypt?

Incidentally, Dhimmi Carter will pass along, but we have a good 30-40 years of Obama writing garbage like this after his only term.

Greek Fire on June 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Ed, you miss the point. Jimmah is actually doing Obama a favor here, reaching once again for the title of “worst president ever”.

JusDreamin on June 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Obama is Jimmy Carter.

Karmashock on June 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM

“Israeli apartheid state”? Would that be the same Israeli state that allows Palestinians and Arabs to serve in the Knesset if they are duly elected?

What are the requirements for full citizenship in Israel?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM

What are the requirements for full citizenship in Israel?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM

CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS ARE APARTHEID!!

Don’t tell Mexico! APHARTHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

tom daschle concerned on June 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Jimmy Carter is setting an awfully high standard in the worse ex-President category. While Obama is probably a worse President than Carter, I don’t think Obama is going to be able to touch Jimmy Carter’s crown in the ex-President category.

thuja on June 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Ed, you say

Er, what? No one has ever suggested that people other than terrorists don’t get killed by drone strikes, and there is no “rule” that declares all the dead as terrorists

But on May 29, Allah quoting the NYT said that:

If you’ve ever wondered why those drone strikes in Pakistan are so good at avoiding civilian casualties, wonder no longer:

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent

I looks like there may be a rule, just not quite as broad as you characterized it.

infidel2 on June 26, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Every President since Jimmy Carter left office has had reason to wish that Jimmy Carter had left the planet, too, perhaps to colonize Mars for future peanut farmers.

There are canals on Mars …. which means there is water and peanut farmers can grow peanuts there.

percysunshine on June 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Carter doesn’t care….he’s closing in on 88 years old. Why not tell it like he sees it?

Sure Carter was a horrible President who couldn’t pour piss out of a boot but at least he loved America……oh, well…….he used too I guess.

Nevermind, President Lawless 2012!!!!

PappyD61 on June 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM

What are the requirements for full citizenship in Israel?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Citizens of enemy states aren’t allowed.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Citizens of enemy states aren’t allowed.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM

In other words, the same requirements of just about every country ever.

In addition, Arab Israelis have the horrible burden of…a blanket exemption from the mandatory military duty required of all other Israeli citizens.

The horror!

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Ed,
I suspect this comes from the NYT:

Er, what? No one has ever suggested that people other than terrorists don’t get killed by drone strikes, and there is no “rule” that declares all the dead as terrorists — although I’m sure that some would like to believe it.

Their Obama drone article said this:

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Not exactly what Mr Carter is alleging but I suspect it is where he got it from.

Dawnsblood on June 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM

No, that would be our overthrowing Iran’s constitutional monarchy and installing a dictator in his place. Then it would be opening bases throughout the Mid-East, especially Saudi Arabia, which is the location of Mecca and Medina.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Dante, exactly why do you believe the fantastic claims of an anti-Semitic alcoholic braggart who got his job through nepotism? Yes, they are in the CIA files, but guess what? Not everything the CIA classified is true. And if Kermit Roosevelt singlehandedly overthrew Iran with $10,000 and no knowledge of Farsi, the Iranian regime was already so tottering it would have most probably fallen soon anyway.

America shouldn’t get much credit for the Iranian coup, which the Ayatollahs supported in 1953. It is hypocritical in the extreme that the Ayatollahs now whine about American aid in a coup they supported.

thuja on June 26, 2012 at 1:36 PM

So we let Iran alone, move out of the ME, and suddenly they’ll stop f-ing with us?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

You think they can reach our shores? They’re “f-ing” with us because we’re over there and have been aggressive towards them for decades.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Yeah, the Middle East was such a nice peaceful place till we came along.
//////////////////////////////////

Bitter Clinger on June 26, 2012 at 1:03 PM

And then we made it worse.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Dante, exactly why do you believe the fantastic claims of an anti-Semitic alcoholic braggart who got his job through nepotism? Yes, they are in the CIA files, but guess what? Not everything the CIA classified is true. And if Kermit Roosevelt singlehandedly overthrew Iran with $10,000 and no knowledge of Farsi, the Iranian regime was already so tottering it would have most probably fallen soon anyway.

America shouldn’t get much credit for the Iranian coup, which the Ayatollahs supported in 1953. It is hypocritical in the extreme that the Ayatollahs now whine about American aid in a coup they supported.

thuja on June 26, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Fantastic claims? I have no idea to whom you’re referring, so you might want to check your premise.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Carter is the grandfather of starting the rise of Islamic terrorism….

If Carter had some balls he would have leveled Tehran and we would not
be here today on the brink of a nuclear Iran – thanks a lot Carter – for nothing….
Now STFU you old peanut farmer.

redguy on June 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

You think they can reach our shores?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I have no idea. The seem to only need our airspace.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I have no idea. The seem to only need our airspace.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM

That was Iran? I don’t think so.

Still, though, you did see the part where I mentioned our bases being in Saudi Arabia, right?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Jimmah still hasn’t gotten over the death of his idol Yasser Arafat.

Buttercup on June 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

“Israeli apartheid state”? Would that be the same Israeli state that allows Palestinians and Arabs to serve in the Knesset if they are duly elected?

What are the requirements for full citizenship in Israel?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM

The blowing up types need not apply…

jimver on June 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Jimmy Carter is sad because he realizes his Nobel prize was really just a meaningless lefty gold-star.

Catahoula on June 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Fantastic claims? I have no idea to whom you’re referring, so you might want to check your premise.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

So you have no clue about the basis of your claim that “our overthrowing Iran’s constitutional monarchy and installing a dictator in his place”? You shouldn’t be talking about a subject if you don’t know anything it. It rude because you waste people’s with stupid nonsense. And just to be clear the correct leftist/Muslim line is that the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and installed the king as an authoritarian monarch. You can read the leftist line in the Wikipedia.

At some level, I would like to see people as clueless or stupid as you are banned from Hotair. If you want to spew the leftist line, at least get it right!

thuja on June 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

So you have no clue about the basis of your claim that “our overthrowing Iran’s constitutional monarchy and installing a dictator in his place”? You shouldn’t be talking about a subject if you don’t know anything it. It rude because you waste people’s with stupid nonsense. And just to be clear the correct leftist/Muslim line is that the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and installed the king as an authoritarian monarch. You can read the leftist line in the Wikipedia.

At some level, I would like to see people as clueless or stupid as you are banned from Hotair. If you want to spew the leftist line, at least get it right!

thuja on June 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Sorry, I have no desire to engage your straw man argument.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Sorry, I have no desire to engage your straw man argument.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Why am I not surprised that you also don’t know what a straw man argument is?

thuja on June 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM

You have to say at least Carter is being consistant. If drone strikes and bombing killing innocents was bad under Bush then it should be condemned under Obama. Carter is one of the few liberals who are not complete hypocrites here.

ModerateMan on June 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

That was Iran? I don’t think so.

Nor do I think I said it was. The topic was the Middle East. It’s a bit more than just Iran.

Still, though, you did see the part where I mentioned our bases being in Saudi Arabia, right?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I did read your entire post, yes.

Is that supposed to change my response asking about how they’d leave us alone if we left?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 2:04 PM

With regard to the comment about the quote “Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable,” I think you have misconstrued the first half of the statement.

In one of the articles on drone strikes, it might have been the NYTs, there was a reference to the White House retroactively/retrospectively declaring unintended casualties “enemy terrorists.” No matter how you slice it, that is a mendacious protocol worthy of censure.

FBones on June 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Drone attack on Planter’s Peanut Factory in five, four, three, two, GO!

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I like reading Dante and libfreeordie, as they have humorous leftest takes on the threads they are on. Dante, it would be enlightening for you to state the information you based your statement “No, that would be our overthrowing Iran’s constitutional monarchy and installing a dictator in his place. Then it would be opening bases throughout the Mid-East, especially Saudi Arabia, which is the location of Mecca and Medina.”

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

From what I have read, the Shah was constitutionally authorized to select and fire his prime minsters at will. Could you expound on why having American bases in the ME should be such a problem to Islam?

Libfreeordie I ask you to expound on your statement of Israel being an apartheid state. Give us your reasons and facts for this claim. I don’t wish to come to the conclusion that you are an anti-Semite.

Gebirgsjager on June 26, 2012 at 2:16 PM

No, that would be our overthrowing Iran’s constitutional monarchy and installing a dictator in his place. Then it would be opening bases throughout the Mid-East, especially Saudi Arabia, which is the location of Mecca and Medina.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

The western world is not responsible for:
- The ideological squabbles between different groups of Muslims nor the bloodshed those squabbles engender.
-
- Muslims believing that a thieving, vindictive, murderous liar unable to control his lust for money and small girls should be their role model.
- Muslim beliefs of superiority in the absence of evidence, nor beliefs that Islam should dominate the world, by force if necessary.
- The concepts of House of Darb and House of Islam.

In short, the Western nations didn’t write their vile books nor expound them to advocate dysfunctional societies.

YiZhangZhe on June 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

If drone strikes and bombing killing innocents was bad under Bush then it should be condemned under Obama.

ModerateMan on June 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Is there an instance where killing innocents isn’t bad???

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Is there an instance where killing innocents isn’t bad???

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Yes, when you whitewash it cause your side is doing it. That’s clearly Moderate’s point here.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM

YiZhangZhe on June 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But we are responsible for intervening in their affairs, and can’t expect to not suffer blowback.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Bitter Clinger on June 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

That statement was a talking point. I doubt very much he even composed it himself. He stole that ludicrous talking point from somewhere else.

NotCoach on June 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

As far as smart trolls are concerned, they are all voter registering Micky Mouse, the dead, and illegal aliens to pull off the Nov win.

Gebirgsjager on June 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM

From what I have read, the Shah was constitutionally authorized to select and fire his prime minsters at will. Could you expound on why having American bases in the ME should be such a problem to Islam?

Gebirgsjager on June 26, 2012 at 2:16 PM

A leftist take. How amusing.

So the Shah was authorized to select and fire his prime ministers at will. This does not refute the fact that Eisenhower authorized the CIA to stage a coup. Regardless, of their political system, it was not our business.

As for the bases in Saudi Arabia, it was one of the reasons bin Laden gave in his 1996 fatwah. We were occupying Holy Land. Regardless, Saudi Arabia is not part of the United States. We shouldn’t have a single base or troop there.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:31 PM

But we are responsible for intervening in their affairs, and can’t expect to not suffer blowback.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

True. Theo Van Gough was warned multiple times.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 2:31 PM

YiZhangZhe on June 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But we are responsible for intervening in their affairs, and can’t expect to not suffer blowback.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

So, going back to 1776, please list and and all grievances that the Muslim/ME had with the US, not Eurpoe, not the UK, not just the West, just the USA.
We need a chicken/egg analysis here to see which came first.
I will wait.

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Regardless, Saudi Arabia is not part of the United States.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Nor is it bin Laden’s.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

What are the requirements for full citizenship in Israel?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Edumacate yourself before stealing canned talking points.

Israeli Nationality Law

Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law

NotCoach on June 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

So we let Iran alone, move out of the ME, and suddenly they’ll stop f-ing with us?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

We splat their nuclear ambitions hard, bug out of the ME, and start fixing our home security, which resembles a piece of Swiss cheese used for target practice.

We can get our own oil; the Suez and Israel are the only things we need intact in that hellhole. And we’ve just learned the hard way that Muslims don’t have a frigging clue what to do with democracy.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 2:37 PM

What are the requirements for full citizenship in Israel?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Since you asked, Sparky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_nationality_law

Naturalization
Adults may acquire Israeli citizenship through naturalization. To be eligible for naturalization, a person must have resided in Israel for three years out of the previous five years. In addition, the applicant must have a right to reside in Israel on a permanent basis. All naturalization requests are, however, at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior.

On top of that, Israel even permits dual citizenships.

You are weak – as usual.

PJ Emeritus on June 26, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Don’t like drone strikes? Get rid of your terrorists. Otherwise, we intend to defeat the terrorist networks that declared war on the US and succeeded in murdering nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

And how do you get rid of terrorists? You can’t kill them all, because the method of force we’d use to kill them all would only succeed in creating more terrorists. So, again, how do you get rid of or end the terrorist threat?

You stop policing the world.

fatlibertarianinokc on June 26, 2012 at 3:10 PM

And how do you get rid of terrorists? You can’t kill them all, because the method of force we’d use to kill them all would only succeed in creating more terrorists. So, again, how do you get rid of or end the terrorist threat?

You stop policing the world.

fatlibertarianinokc on June 26, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Yup, and all those nice folks will just fade back into pre-modern times, and leave the west alone.

Some people are just to eager to accept propaganda.

Don L on June 26, 2012 at 3:15 PM

And we’ve just learned the hard way that Muslims don’t have a frigging clue what to do with democracy.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 2:37 PM

But they do. One man, one vote, one time. As to Egypt, in about a decade the unislamic pyramids will go the way of those irreplaceable Afghanistan Buddhas and the Islam can continue its main mission outside the Middle East which is to convert, subdue or kill infidels.

Annar on June 26, 2012 at 3:15 PM

And how do you get rid of terrorists? You can’t kill them all, because the method of force we’d use to kill them all would only succeed in creating more terrorists. So, again, how do you get rid of or end the terrorist threat?

You stop policing the world.

fatlibertarianinokc on June 26, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Yeah, cause Al Qaeda is so much stronger now that we’ve tried to kill so many of them. It’s like Fantasia for terrorist hunting. We cut down one, two sprout up.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Love the blue on blue here, but Obama’s use of drones against American citizens, however odious they are, (e.g. Al-Awlaki) sets a disturbing precedent.

First Obama claimed that he didn’t have anything to do with these strikes, that the CIA picked the targets (which is troubling in itself).

Then we found out about the Tuesday kill list meeting, where Obama acts as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

OK, there is a case to be made for the Executive doing this in wartime, but when does the “war” end, with all it’s attendant exceptions to Constitutional protections–the 4th Amendment and the TSA come to mind, as well as the detention without recourse, the requirement for two witness testimony in open court for a treason conviction, etc?

Dude, where’s my Liberty?

Arms Merchant on June 26, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Jimmy Carter – The gift that keeps on giving.

multiuseless on June 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I shudder to think what piles of “gifts” we’ll get when Obama is sent back to Chicago or Hawaii or wherever he’ll go.

Fallon on June 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Arafat’s Nobel is a massive repudiation of the Isreali apartheid state, in which case I support it.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Are you teaching this to your “students” as well?

You’ve obviously too ignorant to know that immediately before he signed the Oslo Accords (which were what won him and Peres and Rabin the Peace Prize), Arafat signed the following letter:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Drone attack on Planter’s Peanut Factory in five, four, three, two, GO!

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I like Peanut Butter. I prefer Creamy over Chunky is there a White House app for that?

Dr Evil on June 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I have no idea. The seem to only need our airspace.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM

That was Iran? I don’t think so.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Hey Lew, remember a few months back when I told you about a Federal Judge who was appointed by Bill Clinton ruled in 2003 in Lower Manhattan that the evidence presented at trial was compelling enough to confirm that Iraq played a role in 9/11? You replied “I don’t believe the Judge!”.

Well, in the same Federal Court in Lower Manhattan last year, a totally different Federal Judge, also appointed by Bill Clinton, ruled in another lawsuit that Iran also played a role in the 9/11 attacks.

In Havlish, et al. v. bin La den, et al. Judge (George) Daniels held that the Islamic Republic of Iran, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Iran’s agencies and instrumentalities, including, among others, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”), the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”), and Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah, all materially aided and supported al Qaeda before and after 9/11.

No need to respond to my post, Lew. I’ll simply post your response right here.

“I don’t believe the Judge!”

Now run home, Cindy Sheehan has a nice glass of Hemlock waiting for ya!

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable.

Jimma is apparently unaware of the attack on the World Trade Center that killed about 3,000 innocent people minding their own business and caused trillions of dollars in economic damage.

So far, no op-ed piece from the peanut farmer on how many violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the terrorists have violated. And nothing yet on jihadists blowing up people attending weddings and funerals or just shopping in market places or for belonging to the wrong tribe or for being a woman.

This guy has very, very serious mental problems–and the American people elected him as President of the United States. Obama is proof that history repeats itself because the little people never learn the lessons of the past.

BMF on June 26, 2012 at 3:34 PM

And we’ve just learned the hard way that Muslims don’t have a frigging clue what to do with democracy.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Nor would we without a Constitution. I have very little faith in democracy for democracy’s sake.

Interested in what you mean by: We splat their nuclear ambitions hard

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Carter is relishing in the fect that he is no longer the worst president this country has ever had.

Cherokee on June 26, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Lew?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Nor would we without a Constitution.

(DISCLAIMER: I intend no insult to the Constitution, the writers thereof, or the ideas behind it.)

Esthier, the Constitution is just a piece of parchment. It does not and cannot make America civilized.

If every document from America’s founding days were to be burned, America would still be a democratic nation the next day. If you had Kinkos print off ten billion copies of the Constitution and made it rain paper over Iran, they’d still be a bunch of fundie brutes.

All the difference in the world is with the people who make up the nation.

Interested in what you mean by: We splat their nuclear ambitions hard

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Kill as many of their brainy-bunch as we can, blow their buildings to rubble and then turn the rubble so toxic that they need spacesuits just to poke through the ashes.

We cannot do “Iraq 2.0″ on them; we have neither the logistics or the willpower. But we CAN keep nukes out of their bloodstained hands.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Since Carter has in the past said that critics of Obama are racist, what should we conclude here?

Madisonian on June 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Jimmy Carter is setting an awfully high standard in the worse ex-President category. While Obama is probably a worse President than Carter, I don’t think Obama is going to be able to touch Jimmy Carter’s crown in the ex-President category.

thuja on June 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I’m hoping you’re right, but I’d bet the house, the boat, and the farm that you’re wrong! Once 0bama can pick up the megaphone with all the prestige of an “ex-president,” he will be forever interjecting himself into policy in ways that Carter never even dreamed of.

Tomolena1 on June 26, 2012 at 3:59 PM

All the difference in the world is with the people who make up the nation.

I likewise mean no offense, but at the time the document was written, we were enslaving an entire group of people based on our perceived superiority. It took a Civil War, which was of course anything but what its adjective implies, to change this and many, many more years later before they were treated as equal citizens under the law.

Minorities and women would not have been given equal treatment under the law without pieces of paper demanding as much.

And even now, we have a president who is arguably acting outside of his constitutional authority and have no other recourse but to point to the piece of parchment and hope its arbiters will reverse his course, which they are legally empowered to do because of that document.

I respectfully disagree that this nation would at all be the same if we’d gone with direct democracy rather than establishing a Republic based on the Constitution.

Kill as many of their brainy-bunch as we can, blow their buildings to rubble and then turn the rubble so toxic that they need spacesuits just to poke through the ashes.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 3:44 PM

And how do we justify this without also justifying their retaliation as a declaration of war?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM

YiZhangZhe on June 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But we are responsible for intervening in their affairs, and can’t expect to not suffer blowback.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

So, going back to 1776, please list any and all grievances that the Muslim/ME had with the US, not Europe, not the UK, not just the West, just the USA.
We need a chicken/egg analysis here to see which came first.
I will wait.

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Dante?

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM

And how do we justify this without also justifying their retaliation as a declaration of war?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM

What, like they love us to death already?

Use the WMD justification. It worked for Iraq.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 4:10 PM

A very timely article with a question that should give evryone pause

Making the world safe for Islamism

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 4:19 PM

As much as I despise Carter, I agree with him on this, and I’ll bet Ron Paul does too.

woodNfish on June 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Another great article linked in the comments section:

“On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.”

Whose War?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Use the WMD justification. It worked for Iraq.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Says who?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Says who?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM

*looks at Iraq*

Hmm…I’d sure say it worked.

Of course, it didn’t turn Iraq into a Western democracy, but that’s another story.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Yeah, well a few years before that, we did actually go to war with the country.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM

*looks at Iraq*

Hmm…I’d sure say it worked.

Of course, it didn’t turn Iraq into a Western democracy, but that’s another story.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 4:57 PM

The WMD excuse worked? Seriously?

We actually found weapons that the Iraq government was required by the treaty to get rid of, but I still doubt you can find a handful of people who think it was a legitimate excuse to go to war with Iraq.

Do you honestly believe Bush could have gotten the support for war with Iraq without 9/11?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I don’t agree with Jimmy Carter and his Middle East meddling, but if I remember correctly, at least he did something to win the Peace Prize (undeservedly.) The prize was already cheapened (Arafat,) but then to give it to Obama at the beginning of his administration on the basis of a forecast of what he might do… That is just totally in the twilight zone.

jazzuscounty on June 26, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Do you honestly believe Bush could have gotten the support for war with Iraq without 9/11?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Just want to clarify I haven’t misread your comment Esthier. Are you saying Bush would have tried to get authorization without 9 11?

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 5:20 PM

A very timely article with a question that should give evryone pause

Making the world safe for Islamism

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 4:19 PM

You gonna answer my chicken/egg question, Lew? Is he still sticking Cindy Sheehan, btw?

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Whose War?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Dante, left you a message, here.

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Lew?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Del is referring to this Lew.

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Just want to clarify I haven’t misread your comment Esthier. Are you saying Bush would have tried to get authorization without 9 11?

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I don’t know. I would have supported some action against Iraq regardless just because the little show they put on for the inspectors was getting ridiculous, but it doesn’t seem likely to me outside of that context. The world was a very different place late September of 2001.

As for why I mentioned it there, my point is only that I don’t think a WMD excuse will work against Iran today, especially not in “nuke all their nerds” sort of way that MelonCollie seems to be suggesting.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Del is referring to this Lew.

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Thanks. I was wondering.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Where’s Dante? Did he have to face east and bow to his masters?

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM

As for why I mentioned it there, my point is only that I don’t think a WMD excuse will work against Iran today, especially not in “nuke all their nerds” sort of way that MelonCollie seems to be suggesting.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Thanks, I was confused for a second. ; )

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 5:32 PM

There can be but one answer, Jimmy Carter is RACIST!

GarandFan on June 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Yeah, well a few years before that, we did actually go to war with the country.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Did you read the articles?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Thanks, I was confused for a second. ; )

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Then I’m glad you asked. :)

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Where’s Dante? Did he have to face east and bow to his masters?

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM

The only one that guy bows to is Murray’s Rothbard’s Ghost.

thebrokenrattle on June 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM

The world was a very different place late September of 2001.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM

The world was no different after 9/11 than the time before 9/11.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Did you read the articles?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM

No, which is why I was just responded to one point of that quote. I would hope Iraq was on the minds of all elected officials in 1998.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:44 PM

The world was no different after 9/11 than the time before 9/11.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Yeah, cause we all just shrugged the thing off as no big deal and went about our daily lives as though nothing happened.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Yeah, cause we all just shrugged the thing off as no big deal and went about our daily lives as though nothing happened.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Your sarcasm is a poor substitute (and poor defense mechanism) for cognitive ability, intellectual curiosity, and defense of argument. The world is no different today than it was 10 years, 100 years, or even 1,000 years ago. Drop the histrionics.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Your sarcasm is a poor substitute (and poor defense mechanism) for cognitive ability, intellectual curiosity, and defense of argument. The world is no different today than it was 10 years, 100 years, or even 1,000 years ago. Drop the histrionics.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 5:54 PM

You say the world has never changed, but I’m the one being hysterical? How am I supposed to respond to that?

I’ve never shied away from a difficult discussion with you, and I don’t need a substitute for my intelligence. But if you want a conversation, you should try to find some common ground instead of just being contrarian.

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 6:00 PM

YiZhangZhe on June 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But we are responsible for intervening in their affairs, and can’t expect to not suffer blowback.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

So, going back to 1776, please list any and all grievances that the Muslim/ME had with the US, not Europe, not the UK, not just the West, just the USA.
We need a chicken/egg analysis here to see which came first.
I will wait.

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Dante?

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Are you going to continue to ignore my question, Dante?

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 6:05 PM

You say the world has never changed, but I’m the one being hysterical? How am I supposed to respond to that?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I didn’t say hysterical. I said drop the histrionics. Nations and people behave exactly as they have since the beginning of time. Nations go to war; people fight. Nations and people seek power through force.

What is different about the world due to 9/11? Nothing. It is exactly the same as it was before.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Laughable claim, Lew. I couldn’t get your silly link to work either, but don’t have to.

You conveniently want to ignore that 2 years later, Clinton himself signed the Iraq Liberation Act. An act that was unanimously passed in the Senate, and passed by a 360-38 vote in the House. Were those all “neocons” too?

Clinton also that year had his DOJ indict bin Laden. One of the Counts in the indictment specifically stated that bin Laden was in cahoots with Iraq.

Remember, the same year (1996) you claim the N-words had their eyes on Baghdad, bin Laden’s Fatwa specifically mentioned Bill Clinton by name. He never once mentioned any of those other dudes you cited.

And please lose the “neocon” word, Lew, it’s so 9/10.

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM

You’re right.

Iran is seeking weapons to grab more power. America should move to stop them to protect our power and the nations around Iran. What’s wrong with that, then?

thebrokenrattle on June 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I didn’t say hysterical. I said drop the histrionics. Nations and people behave exactly as they have since the beginning of time. Nations go to war; people fight. Nations and people seek power through force.

What is different about the world due to 9/11? Nothing. It is exactly the same as it was before.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM

If nothing ever changes ever, then why even bother talking about it?

Histrionics and hysteria are remarkably similar words. Is this all about semantics?

Or can this actually be about the intent of my post, which was simply to point out that just because America went to war with Iraq in 2003, does not mean that an American president can today use that same justification for obliterating Iranian scientists?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3