 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
jhall
Posts:1237
 | | 04/15/2008 8:58 AM |
 Alert | http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D902C69O0&show_article=1 RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Former President Jimmy Carter embraced a leading Hamas figure Tuesday, according to participants in a meeting that infuriated Israeli officials already upset by Carter's freelance Mideast peace mission.Carter also laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, whom the Bush administration and many Israelis blame for the breakdown of peace talks seven years ago and the violence that followed. At a reception in the West Bank town of Ramallah organized by Carter's office, the former president hugged Nasser Shaer, a senior Hamas politician, meeting participants said. Embraces between men are a common custom in Arab culture. "He gave me a hug. We hugged each other, and it was a warm reception," Shaer told The Associated Press. "Carter asked what he can do to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel ... and I told him the possibility for peace is high." Carter's office refused to comment, saying he does not discuss closed meetings. Shaer, who served as deputy prime minister and education minister in the Hamas-led Palestinian government that unraveled last year, is considered a leading member of the Islamic militant group's pragmatic wing. After a stint in an Israeli prison last year, he is now a professor at a West Bank university, teaching comparative religion. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Carter's meeting with Hamas "dignified" a group committed to Israel's destruction. "One cannot but wonder how this attitude is supposed to promote peace and understanding," he said. Israel and the West Bank are the first stops on a visit that also is to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Syria—where the virulently anti-Israel Hamas movement is headquartered. Shunned by his Israeli hosts and criticized by the White House for his willingness to meet with Hamas, Carter has urged that both stop isolating the militant group. "Since Syria and Hamas will have to be involved in a final peace agreement, they have to be involved in discussions that lead to final peace," Carter said Tuesday. The U.S. has also expressed displeasure at Carter's overtures to Hamas, an Islamic group responsible for the deaths of some 250 Israelis in suicide bombings and labeled a terrorist organization by both countries. Carter is to meet Khaled Mashaal, the group's exiled leader, in Damascus, Syria, on Friday. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is not meeting with Carter during his visit, and the only Israeli leader to host him, President Shimon Peres, scolded Carter for his planned meeting with Mashaal. Critics say also say engaging Hamas will undermine moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as he tries to make peace with the Jewish state. Abbas is in a bitter rivalry with Hamas, which routed his forces in the Gaza Strip last year and seized control of the area. The Israeli daily Haaretz on Tuesday criticized the government for giving Carter, a Nobel laureate who brokered Israel's first peace agreement with an Arab nation, a cool reception. "The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history," the newspaper said. "Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world." Earlier this week, Carter said isolating Hamas is counterproductive and volunteered to serve as a conduit between the group and the U.S. and Israeli governments. Carter acknowledged Tuesday he was not on an official mission and had "no authority at all." "I'm not a negotiator. I'm just trying to understand different opinions and provide communication between people," Carter said. When meeting Mashaal, Carter said, "I'm going to try everything I can to get him to agree to a peaceful resolution," both with Israel and with Hamas' internal Palestinian rivals. Carter said he requested permission to enter Hamas-ruled Gaza but was turned down. He did not provide details. Israel and Egypt control Gaza's border crossings and such a visit would also require the approval of Carter's U.S. Secret Service detail. There have been no official visits to Gaza by Americans since Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections in early 2006. President Bush did not visit Arafat's mausoleum in Ramallah when he visited earlier this year. Carter's office also said a request for security protection from Israel's Shin Bet agency had not been met. The Shin Bet said it never received a request to provide security. Stewart Tuttle, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy, said the embassy never relayed a request for Shin Bet protection because Carter was on a private visit. A statement from the Carter delegation said the former president's U.S. security detail "was always, without exception, assisted" by the Shin Bet in previous visits after he left office. However, the statement did not directly blame Israel. | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
| | alanf
Posts:1473
| | 04/15/2008 9:09 AM |
Alert | That is quite a statement you made about a man who has done so much for the WORLD since his presidency. If he is scum, that must really make you a bottom feeder jhall. LOL | | | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 04/15/2008 9:26 AM |
Alert | This pretty much sums it up... how you could see him as anything other than scum is beyond me... He is the worst appeasement "leader" since Sir Nevile Henderson..
During his four years in the White House, he presided over the worst economic downturn since World War II, allowed a bunch of thugs to seize our embassy and our citizens, and supported Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos, Pakistani General Zia al Huq, Saudi King Faud and many other dictators. But Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he is an ex-president.
In fact, Jimmy Carter holds the hands-down record for being the worst ex-president the United States has ever known. His post-presidential meddling in foreign affairs has cost America dearly, both in terms of international credibility and international prestige.
He defied US law by visiting Cuba, even addressing the Cuban public and handing Castro a huge propaganda victory. He oversaw the elections in Haiti, against the expressed wishes of the Clinton administration. A coup followed.
Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as "a man who believes in human rights." Regarding North Korea's dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him "vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country," adding "I don't see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation."
He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, "Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights."
Virtually all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation abroad have been in direct opposition to US foreign policy. Carter called Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" was "overly simplistic and counterproductive.”
Added the man who was once attacked by a rabbit, "I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement."
His most recent adventure may be partly behind the predicted $3.00 per gallon analysts say we'll be paying for gas by year's end. Jimmy Carter went to Venezuela to 'monitor' that country's effort to recall President Hugo Chavez.
In 1992, a band of army officers led by Lt. Col. Hugo Chávez Frías attempted to overthrow President Carlos Andrés Pérez. Although court-martialed and jailed, Chávez emerged a hero.
In 1998, he was elected president on promises to clean out corruption and reduce poverty. Once in office, Chávez promoted a new consitution to consolidate his powers and began to constrain the business community, civil society, and rival politicians.
As a presidential candidate, Hugo Chávez campaigned against the "savage capitalism" of the United States. On August 10, 2000, he became the first foreign leader to visit Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War, and he allegedly aided Afghanistan's Taliban government following the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States.
At the same time, Chávez said that Cuba and Venezuela were "called upon to be a spearhead and summon other nations and governments" to fight free market capitalism.
Venezuela is also one of the countries upon which the United States is dependent for oil, and has been since the US first began relying on imported oil supplies back in 1948.
Besides supplying the United States with 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, Venezuela provides most of the petroleum consumed by U.S. allies in the Caribbean and Central America.
Regional leaders know that opposing Chávez in any significant fashion could result in less favorable sales terms or cuts in deliveries.
In September 2003, President Chávez accused the Dominican Republic of harboring Venezuelans--like former President Carlos Andrés Pérez--who allegedly might conspire against his government. Chavez then stopped oil deliveries, prompting a temporary energy crisis while Dominican officials scrambled for new suppliers.
From the perspective of American economic interests, not to mention homeland security issues, Hugo Chavez is a very bad man to have in the neighborhood. And, thanks to Jimmy Carter, Chavez isn't going away anytime soon.
Venezuela's opposition party finally forced a recall election, with opinion polls showing that voters favored his recall by a margin of more than 2 to 1.
When there were questions about possible vote tampering by the Chavez side, the opposition called for election monitors. Chavez agreed to let Jimmy Carter oversee the election, and the Carter Center headed for Caracas.
Under Jimmy Carter's watchful eye, Hugo Chavez defeated the recall attempt by a wide margin -- reflecting almost a mirror-image of the opinion polls.
While two out of three Venzuelans polled before the election wanted Chavez out, when the ballots were counted, Chavez was declared the winner by an almost exact opposite margin. "About 58 percent said 'no' to a recall, while 42 percent said 'yes,'" wrote the Washington Post.
Carter ignored a press release from the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland Assoc. that reported, "Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez." The release, dated 7:30 p.m. on election day, said, "With Venezuela's voting set to end at 8 p.m. EST according to election officials, final exit poll results from Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, an independent New York-based polling firm, show a major victory for the 'Yes' movement, defeating Chavez in the Venezuela presidential recall referendum."
One of the most effective ways to monitor the fairness of an election is to employ the use of exit polls. In a nutshell, here's how exit polls work. After somebody has finished voting, a pollster will ask them how they voted. In emerging democracies, about 90% of voters participate.
By contrast, in America, where exit polls are widely used to call elections before the votes are all counted, less than 40% of voters participate.
Statistically, exit polls should mirror the actual vote, within a relatively thin margin of error.
The margin of error between Carter's certified fair-and-square ballots and the independent exit poll results constituted a swing of almost forty points -- a statistical impossibility. Chavez counted on Carter leaning his way -- Carter's history of promoting anti-American dictators is no secret.
As Stephen Hayward noted in a column at Front Page, "among his complex motivations is his determination to override American foreign policy when it suits him."
Indeed, Carter's penchant for interfering in US foreign policy is so well known it won him a Nobel Prize. Jimmy Carter will go down in history as the first US ex-president ever to be awarded a Nobel Prize for the sole purpose of conveying an insult to his country from the Nobel committee.
Gunnar Berge, chairman of the five-member committee, told reporters that giving the Peace Prize to Carter "must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq ... It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."
("How can we REALLY show how much we hate the Americans? I know! Let's give a Nobel Prize to Jimmy Carter!")
Once Chavez had stolen the election and Jimmy Carter certified the results, certain American critics (pretty much anybody with a brain) started questioning whether or not Jimmy Carter had just sold American interests down the river -- again.
Carter hit back in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece, writing;
"We are familiar with potential fraudulent techniques and how to obtain a close approximation to the actual results to assure accuracy."
Having established that Jimmy Carter is far too savvy to be conned by a mere thug like Chavez, Carter then dismissed the results of the exit polls, writing;
"During the voting day, opposition leaders claimed to have exit-poll data showing the government losing by 20 percentage points, and this erroneous information was distributed widely."
Well, that's that! The New York pollsters 'widely distributed erroneous information' -- Hugo Chavez won fair and square. Jimmy Carter says so.
Penn Schoen evidently must have cheated, although it is a reputable New York polling firm with a 20 year track record, including working for Bill Clinton in 1996, Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2001, Michael Bloomberg in 2001 and many other national political campaigns.
Why would it risk its hard-won professional reputation over an election in Venezuela? Carter doesn't explain.
Hugo Chavez is bad news from the perspective of US national security. He is bad news from the perspective of homeland security. He is bad news from the perspective of US dependence of foreign oil. And he is bad news for America's economic security.
Which makes Hugo Chavez good news from the perspective of the worst ex-president in US history.
Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume:35: Issue 26 | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 04/15/2008 10:00 AM |
Alert | | I for one am sick of Carter trying to go around and play President long after the American people spoke and said he wasn't qualified to be President past his first disaster term. I don't see how we let him run around and try making a dual foreign policy that is different than what our elected President and our current government has as policy. Its borderline Treason for him doing what he is doing. Meeting with those that have a belief that our government and citizens are infidels. Quite Amazing, and all on my tax dollar paying for his security while doing so. | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:2581
| | 04/15/2008 10:20 AM |
Alert | Carter = loser
Maybe he should just join the Taliban and publish a photo of him holding an AK.......... | |
"My favorite health club is the International House of Pancakes" -- Lewis Black | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1473
| | 04/15/2008 11:14 AM |
Alert | He is working as the head of the Carter Center, or as a private citizen. He clearly states that. Though I do not agree with everything he does or has done, he is out there trying to make a difference to the world. His view on specific religions or regions are his business as long as he does not try to lay claim to spreading the word of the USA. So what if he talks to the "undesirables". I think it's been proven that they can't just be killed off, so somebody needs to get in there. But that's my opinion. Calling the man scum is pretty ignorant if you ask me.
And the security detail on our tax dollars...wouldn't we be paying for that detail in Georgia if he was out in a peanut field? I'd be curious to hear a comparison done between how much our ex-Presidents rack up in ex-President perk $$$. I heard recently that Clinton takes those perks to an all time high in tax payer dollars.
And yes, I agree he was a crappy President. | | | |
|
|  | kenmoreguy72
Posts:204
| | 04/15/2008 4:04 PM |
Alert | Alanf--
Haven't you learned by now? If someone is a Democrat, they are scum. Nevermind what they have done, they are scum. Republicans are great and do no wrong. The country has been sliding into a recession (even before Novermber 2006). It is all the fault of the Democrats. The country will be attacked again because of a Democrat. Taxes willl be raised (not because of the money spent in Iraq), but because of a Democrat. Democrats are evil. Republicans are the greatest. Every email forawrd and copy/pasted article on the net is about how bad the Democrats are and how great the Republicans are.
Let's not focus on the reasons for the recession, blame the Democrats. Let's not discuss McCain's extra-marital affairs, it is only American to talk about Clinton's. Let's not talk about restoring the image and rightful place of our great nation, let's talk about how bad Democrats are.
On another note. Carter was probably one of the 5 worst presidents of all time. He is up there with Nixon, Bush Jr, Hoover and Buchanan.
One positive, he didn't play politics with 52 American lives in Iran. It would have been very easy for him to start a war with Iran over the 52 hostages. At the time, many Americans were calling for that. In the long run, 52 American lives would have been lost. I think he pretty much knew that by not doing so, he was giving away the election. Making the right decision in the best interest of the Americans that were there was a very difficult thing to do....even though he was sealing his own fate. | | | |
|
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 04/15/2008 4:33 PM |
Alert | I disagree that he is over there as a private citizen. Hamas would behead any other Peanut farmer from Georgia.
As for security cost, please don't tell me that the security cost is the same if he is playing Peanut farmer or making a friendly visit to our enemies.
Yes, he was one of the worst. I think we all agree there.
As for not starting a war, the hostages were freed, and without a war, so your statement doesn't make much sense, or is applicable to this topic.
And my last point- There is little difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. This story isn't about one party being Golden and the other having Brown Eyes because they are full of ____. The point is that he is trying to run a foreign policy that isn't approved by our current adminstration. If you don't like the policy, go to the polls and make a change, don't go and make your own policy. He can say Private Citizen all day long, but he bottom line is he wouldn't be over there is he wasn't a head of state many years ago. | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | kenmoreguy72
Posts:204
| | 04/15/2008 7:59 PM |
Alert | I disagree.
Yes, the hostages were freed. Carter could have used force much earlier.
My point is that by not going in and "standing up" to the hostages, Carter lost a lot of support. He was viewed as a, well, insert your own word. This cost him a lot of votes. He easily could have pulled the macho card and went all-in. He never did so. In my eyes, this cost him the election and he knew that it would.
I see it as him sacrificing the election for the freedom of the hostages. Even after losing the election, much of his last 2 months in office was spent negotiating the safe return of the men and women.
So, my point in short...There have been (and will be) plenty of other president that would've invaded Iran...for the sole purpose of pleasing the majority of American people, not ensuring the safety of the hostages. | | | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3605
| | 04/15/2008 8:37 PM |
Alert | Jhall is pure scum. | |
"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves" | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 04/15/2008 9:53 PM |
Alert | | Your mom goes to college..... | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3605
| | 04/15/2008 11:08 PM |
Alert | Ok, I really must be stupid, because I didn't get that Jhall.
Your dad goes to daycare.... | |
"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves" | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 04/16/2008 6:46 AM |
Alert | yep you sure didn't... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=your+mom+goes+to+college
| |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 04/16/2008 6:49 AM |
Alert | He is scum also because he placed a reith on yasser arafat's grave, a know terrorist and anti Semite like himself. Here is a lil doc about the thug arafat aka the father of modern terrorism.... what a role model http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=795&x_context=7
| |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| | Bionicbunny
Posts:593
| | 04/16/2008 3:03 PM |
Alert | I would agree he was scum if he realized what he was doing and did it anyway. I would like to think that he isn't that much of an 'a'wipe. He is quite possibly a doddering old fool. (accentuate the FOOL part). He just doesn't seem "right" to me. And no drummer72 I don't mean right as in right wing, I'm talking about his sanity. | | | |
|
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 04/16/2008 3:24 PM |
Alert | | President Carter IS the village idiot. | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3605
| | 04/17/2008 12:26 AM |
Alert | Posted By jhall on 04/16/2008 6:46 AM
yep you sure didn't... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=your+mom+goes+to+college That's pretty stupid. | |
"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves" | |
|
| | RichTig
Posts:0
| | 04/17/2008 1:39 PM |
Alert | Carter is an idiot. He was possibly the worst president, ever and he should stop tryiing to represent the USA oversees. And for those of you who say he is a private citizen and not a former POTUS, then you go meet with HAMAS or Chavez and see how far you get. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:230
| | 04/17/2008 3:55 PM |
Alert | How anyone expects peace over there without any interaction is beyond my comprehension.
Perhaps if the people the US Government sent out there to hold peace talks would have talked to Palestianian goverment, private citizens wouldn't feel they need to.
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 04/17/2008 8:14 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 04/17/2008 3:55 PM
How anyone expects peace over there without any interaction is beyond my comprehension.
Perhaps if the people the US Government sent out there to hold peace talks would have talked to Palestianian goverment, private citizens wouldn't feel they need to. Talking and negotiating with dictators works great, just ask Sir Neville Chamberlain about how he continuously had talks and negotiations with Adolf Hitler, right up until bombs were dropping on London... something Hitler said he would never do. The only thing those monsters understand is death. And if they want it, I am more than willing to have my tax dollars go towards paying to make it swifter. | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|