Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert - June 4, 2006 - Jimmy Carter: Talk to Iran without Conditions
Regime Change Iran ^ | 6/4/06 | freedom44

Posted on 06/04/2006 10:39:12 AM PDT by freedom44


Top News Story




Reuters

The former American president, Jimmy Carter, has said that the United States should begin talks with Iran without preconditions.

Mr Carter believes prerequisites could present the Iranian Government with too great an impediment to overcome.

His comments are significant, given that he was the president when US relations with Iran hit an all-time low.

He witnessed the Iranian revolution and the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. He struggled for 444 days to release the US Embassy staff held hostage. A failed rescue attempt led by the US military brought about the resignation of his secretary of state.

It was the crisis that has scarred relations between the two countries ever since. But Mr Carter thinks attempts to improve relations should have started long ago. And he believes that this administration's offer to sit down and talk on conditions that Iran gives up its uranium enrichment program may not be enough.

A Daily Briefing of Major News Stories on Iran:


Rice says wait and see on Iran oil threat

Iran hints it may use oil as a weapon

Experts warn Iran may unleash Hezbollah if cornered

Intelligence Agencies: Dealing with Iran

Iran says considers nuclear options on national interest

Bush willing to change tactics to deal with Iran
>
India to host Iran pipeline talks

Rumsfield brands Iran as leading sponsor of terrorism

Sharif wants MKO terror label removed

Pope warns Blair over Iran attack



TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ahmadinejad; atomic; axisofevil; axisofweasels; ayatollah; azadi; centrifuges; china; communistcarter; democracy; dissidents; freedom; freeiran; humanrights; iaea; insurgency; iran; iranattack; iranazadi; iranianalert; iraniannukes; iranianregime; iranletter; irannukes; iranpolicy; iranstrikes; irgc; iri; islam; islamic; islamicrepublic; jimmuh; khamenei; khomeini; khomeinism; mullahs; muslims; nuclear; nukes; persecution; persia; persian; persians; politicalprisoners; protest; protests; regime; regimechangeiran; revolutionaryguard; russia; shiite; studentmovement; studentprotest; tehran; terrorism; theocracy; traitor; treason; vevak; wot

1 posted on 06/04/2006 10:39:14 AM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freedom44

strap Jimmah's ass on the first inbound cruise missile.


2 posted on 06/04/2006 10:40:46 AM PDT by axes_of_weezles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Jimmah is an expert on talking to the Iranians. After all, who else can claim 444 days of experience? /sarc


3 posted on 06/04/2006 10:44:01 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Too soon to remember??? How about TOO SOON TO FORGET!" from Mr. Silverback)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Jimmah has PROVEN that he has no idea how to deal with the Iran he created.


4 posted on 06/04/2006 10:44:05 AM PDT by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
"Reuters The former American president, Jimmy Carter, has said that the United States should begin talks with Iran without preconditions."

If there are no 'conditions' then what is there to talk about? Maybe he thinks we should help them develop a nuclear bomb? Carter has slipped into senile dementia and the media are still quoting him. LOL

5 posted on 06/04/2006 10:45:03 AM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

It would be something if Bush sent Carter over there to talk to them and they took him hostage.


6 posted on 06/04/2006 10:45:24 AM PDT by Crawdad (I cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

What a variety of hated people in that MKO article!


7 posted on 06/04/2006 10:46:32 AM PDT by nuconvert ([there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Carter advising on how to deal with Iran is comical. Is he also going tell us how to bring gas prices down? How about a lecture on Rescue Missions 101?


8 posted on 06/04/2006 10:47:17 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

I'm sure that Iran thinks that Jimmy Carter is the best thing since sliced bread. Keep talking Jimmy. At least somebody loves you, you old fool.


9 posted on 06/04/2006 10:48:32 AM PDT by Clara Lou (A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. --I. Kristol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
Next will come the kumbaya photos of jimmmah, arm in arm with the madman of Iran...like the photos of him and Arafat, Castro, Chavez....

Wake up, sheeple, and tell this sorry piece of sh*t to STFU - he is no longer in office, he has no place interfering and aiding and abetting the enemy.

10 posted on 06/04/2006 10:49:34 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (Lincoln: "...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

The peanut man needs to understand he is not the President anymore


11 posted on 06/04/2006 10:49:39 AM PDT by vigilante2 (Thank You Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Just wait, it won't be long before the Carter bashers arrive.


12 posted on 06/04/2006 10:50:16 AM PDT by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
Carter has slipped into senile dementia and the media are still quoting him.

if that is true, it came on decades ago

13 posted on 06/04/2006 10:50:44 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (Lincoln: "...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
he was the president when US relations with Iran hit an all-time low

You don't say. He was the guy that helped overthrow the Shah so the Iranian people could have the tyranny he wanted them to have. Then, after doing all he could to put the Ayatollah in power, he found that that old bearded man was only interested in humiliating him.

Jimmah kept groveling back for a new dose of humiliation.

James Earl Carter, who insists to this day on the juvenile "Jimmy," shrunk from the Ayatollah when he had the whole United States behind him. Oriana Fallaci stood up to the same cleric with nothing behind her but her backbone -- an anatomical structure that centuries of inbreeding seem to have removed from the Carter bloodline.

The Carter Legacy: "Let's Bow Down Before Monsters." No, "Jimmy," the grown-ups would just as soon not.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

14 posted on 06/04/2006 10:52:46 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F (America has no native criminal class, apart from Congress -- Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Hey Jimmah,

Talk to the hand!


15 posted on 06/04/2006 10:53:28 AM PDT by Florida native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Traitor!!!!

16 posted on 06/04/2006 10:54:47 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crawdad
It would be something if Bush sent Carter over there to talk to them and they took him hostage.

Get Thee behind me Satan!

17 posted on 06/04/2006 10:55:35 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Just wait, it won't be long before the Carter bashers arrive.

We're heeeeere.

He's still gunning for a Nobel Prize. Unfortunately the only thing he ever qualified for was the Order of Lenin and they don't give that out any more.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

18 posted on 06/04/2006 10:55:44 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F (America has no native criminal class, apart from Congress -- Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Crawdad
It would be something if Bush sent Carter over there to talk to them and they took him hostage.

Excellent idea.
President Bush should ask Jimmie to go, and request of the Iranians that they keep him for at least 444 days.

19 posted on 06/04/2006 10:56:16 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
Fox News to Report on Ties Between Bin Laden Family & JIMMY CARTER!
20 posted on 06/04/2006 10:58:27 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

I usually post this on Carter threads:

EDITOR'S NOTE: Former president Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on October 11, 2002. In the May 20, 2002, issue of National Review, and in an online column around the same time, Jay Nordlinger provided an alternative read on the Carter presidency, and post-presidency. For the print magazine piece click here. The NRO column is reprinted below.



A ll right, I’ve got Carter on my mind, so look out. Why Carter? Didn’t he leave office in 1981 (the same day the mullahs decided to spring the hostages, lest RR send a few up their gazoo)? Yes, but he’s back in the news, yapping absurdly about the Middle East and getting ready to visit Castro down in Cuba (May 12 to May 17).




For several days, I rooted around in all things Carter, preparing for a piece that appears in the new NR (“There He Goes Again: Jimmy Carter, Our ‘Model Ex-President’”). I’m not done with our 39th prez — not nearly done — and I wanted to share some things with Impromptus-ites that I couldn’t quite get off my chest in the magazine. Up for a kind of Carterpalooza? I didn’t think so, but try a little of it anyway. The below items will be more or less at random, although I’ll try to impose a speck of order on them. If you have forgotten about Carter, you will be reminded.

I, personally, have always been sort of fascinated by the man (and his family, and his home environs). I suppose I’ve read just about everything significant ever written about him. (Does anyone know what the phrase “Lordy, Lordy, Jim Jack Gordy” could possibly mean? If so, you are a fellow Carterologist.) I have followed Jimmy C. since the Democratic primaries of 1976. The other day, in conversation with someone, I described his chronicler Douglas Brinkley as “a great admirer of Carter who’s not blind to his faults.” I suppose I’d describe myself as a great critic of Carter’s who’s not blind to his virtues.

Anyway, let’s Carter away.

For years, Carter has been a thorn in the side of presidents, acting as a kind of “anti-president,” as Lance Morrow once put it in an essay for Time. You recall how Carter irked Clinton on Haiti and North Korea. His low moment, however, came during the run-up to the Gulf War, when he wrote members of the U.N. Security Council — including Mitterrand’s France and Communist China — urging them to thwart the Bush administration’s effort. Our government found out about it when the Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney, called the defense secretary, Dick Cheney, and said, “What the . . .?” Some people actually allowed themselves to utter the word “treason.”

Sometimes, Carter says he would never act at odds with the government; at other times, he talks about a higher law, a duty to conscience, etc. Either would be fine: but the ex-president doesn’t stick to one or the other.

Carter has long enjoyed a reputation as a Middle East sage, owing, of course, to his role in the original Camp David accords. That reputation, however, rests on shaky grounds. Truth is, Sadat and Begin had their deal worked out before ever approaching Washington. And the facilitators they used were far from saintly Southern Baptists: They used the dreadful King of Morocco and the even more dreadful Ceausescu of Romania! When they had their plan essentially worked out, however, they called the White House (whose occupant just happened to be J.C.) (initials not accidental, he and his most fervent admirers have seemed to think for years).

Why did they contact the White House? Prof. Bernard Lewis put it succinctly to Charlie Rose recently: “Well, obviously, they needed someone to pay the bill, and who but the United States could fulfill that function?”

Still, Carter is proud-as-all-get-out of his rendezvous with Middle East history. He trades on it incessantly. I remember Mario Cuomo, giving his famous (though ridiculous) keynote address at the Democratic convention in 1984. He went down a list of Democratic presidents, lauding them: and when he got to Carter, all he could think of, apparently, was Camp David — the “nearly miraculous” accords, he called them. Carter, in the stands, beamed and beamed, and teared up badly.

I don’t think I’ve ever known, or known of, someone who so nakedly loved praise. I saw him on C-SPAN once, appearing on a radio show (if you know what I mean). This was a call-in show somewhere, and the cameras were on Carter. One elderly caller began her question with a long paean to the ex-president and his special human greatness. Carter enjoyed it in a truly unseemly fashion, grinning and grinning, seeming to draw his very life from it. It was perfectly human — perfectly natural — but obscene in a way. I felt almost as though I had to look away: like I was seeing something too private, something I wasn’t meant to see.

(As I re-read this — yes, I occasionally re-read these columns — I see that this particular item relates to my final one. No fair peeking!)

The ex-president has always considered himself screwed out of the Nobel prize, and he and his Carter Center have campaigned rather embarrassingly openly for it. He has won prizes, however, about which he crows: There was one named after his fellow liberal southerner, Fulbright; there was one from the U.N. (natch); and there was my favorite: the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, named for His Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates!

Arabs are heavy-duty funders of the Carter Center, and they get a lot for their money.

No one quite realizes just how passionately anti-Israel Carter is. William Safire has reported that Cyrus Vance acknowledged that, if he had had a second term, Carter would have sold Israel down the river. In the 1990s, Carter became quite close to Yasser Arafat. After the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia was mad at Arafat, because the PLO chief had sided with Saddam Hussein. So Arafat asked Carter to fly to Riyadh to smooth things over with the princes and restore Saudi funding to him — which Carter did.

You who read Impromptus have heard me say: When I was growing up, I perceived the Arab-Israeli conflict as a great civil-rights drama. The white oppressors were the Israelis, and the black sufferers and innocents were the Arabs, in particular the Palestinians. Menachem Begin, I thought, was George C. Wallace, and his defense minister, Ariel Sharon, was Bull Connor. (This was in the early ’80s.)

Well, blow me down. I had never heard anybody else — a soul — say anything like this. But here is Carter, to Douglas Brinkley, Carter’s biographer and analyst: “The intifada exposed the injustice Palestinians suffered, just like Bull Connor’s mad dogs in Birmingham.”

The Carter-Nordlinger axis rides again (but, hang on, I’ve changed my mind — had “an evolution of thought,” as we say).

In The Unfinished Presidency, Brinkley writes, “There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat.” The former president “felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition with unremitting sixteen-hour days, seven days a week, decade after decade.” Neat, huh?

At their first meeting — in 1990 — Carter boasted of his toughness toward Israel, assuring Arafat at one point, “. . . you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis.” Arafat, for his part, railed against the Reagan administration and its alleged “betrayals.” Rosalynn Carter, taking notes for her husband, interjected, “You don’t have to convince us!” Brinkley records that this “elicited gales of laughter all round.” Carter himself, according to Brinkley, “agreed that the Reagan administration was not renowned as promise keepers” (this, to Arafat).

If you are sickened by the thought of a former U.S. president and a former First Lady of the United States and the career terrorist Yasser Arafat all sitting around bashing Ronald Reagan . . . you and I think alike.

Mary King was Carter’s key aide and emissary. She once took a flight with Arafat, and “Arafat noticed that I was tired and insisted that I take his customary seat on his plane because it reclined in a certain way, so that I could sleep. I used my handbag as a pillow. After some time had passed, I noticed that a pillow was being ever so gently substituted for the handbag. Arafat himself was trying to place the pillow under my head without waking me. This reflected a caring side to his character which has rarely been evident to the international public as a whole.”

Here, folks, we are in Amb. Joseph Davies territory. Remember him? “He gives the impression of a strong mind which is composed and wise. His brown eye is exceedingly kindly and gentle. A child would like to sit in his lap, and a dog would sidle up to him.” Davies spoke these words about Stalin.

When Saddam Hussein invaded and raped Kuwait, Mary King cabled her boss, Carter: “Saddam learned from the Israelis that might makes right — they took most of Palestine by force and 20 years later occupied the West Bank and Gaza.” That’s the Carter mindset: no thought to the wars of attempted annihilation waged against Israel, which made such occupation thinkable or necessary.

After Carter had that first meeting with Arafat, he went home and promptly served the PLO head as PR adviser and speechwriter. What do I mean? Listen to Brinkley: “On May 24 Carter drafted on his home computer the strategy and wording for a generic speech Arafat was to deliver soon for Western ears . . .” Said Carter, “The audience is not the Security Council, but the world community. The objective of the speech should be to secure maximum sympathy and support of other world leaders . . . The Likud leaders are now on the defensive, and must not be given any excuse for continuing their present abusive policies.”

Carter went on,

A good opening would be to outline the key points of the Save the Children report. . . . Then ask: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren? As the Palestinian leader, I share the responsibility for them. Our response has been to urge peace talks, but the Israeli leaders have refused, and our children continue to suffer. Our people, who face Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining when our homes are destroyed by the Israeli bulldozers.” . . . Then repeat: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren?” . . . This exact litany should be repeated with a few other personal examples.

Things are a little clearer now.

Carter’s op-ed piece for the New York Times last month — April 21 — was a nasty piece of work, an apologia for Arafat (despite a pro forma and unconvincing attempt at “balance”) and a mendacious attack on Sharon and Israel.

His hatred for Sharon is deep, obvious, and personal. At times he seems to use the man as a proxy for Israel: in other words, it’s okay openly to despise Sharon, if it’s slightly less okay openly to despise Israel. He refers to Sharon’s — Sharon’s — “invasion” of Egypt and his “invasion” of Lebanon. Of course, Meir was prime minister in the one instance, and Begin was prime minister in the other. Sharon was a general or defense minister. Carter also forgets the annoying little detail that Israel is a democracy, and that the people of that country democratically elected Sharon their prime minister. This is in sharp contrast to the Arab states, plus the P.A., that Carter admires and excuses.

Although he does view Arafat as a democratically elected leader: The 1996 elections in the P.A., he writes, were “democratic,” “open,” “fair,” and “well organized” (they were well organized, all right). Needless to say, those elections were like any other in the Arab world, which is to say, rigged from beginning to end. I hope you all enjoyed former CIA director Jim Woolsey’s quip to Joel Mowbray, writing on NRO last week: “Arafat was essentially ‘elected’ the same way Stalin was, but not nearly as democratically as Hitler, who at least had actual opponents.” Arafat’s “opponent” was a prop.

I will tell you a couple of curious things about Carter’s op-ed piece (which I address at slightly more length in my National Review article). In the newspaper — the actual, physical newspaper — a line came out, “the recent destruction in Jenin and other towns of the West Bank.” But in the version of the piece found on the Times’s website, that line reads: “the recent destruction of Jenin and other villages.” Big difference. The latter line, of course, merely repeats false PLO propaganda, as Carter is wont to do. Hard evidence disproves the charge that Jenin was “destroyed.” In fact, a tiny portion of it was wrecked, as the Israelis fight terrorists — who insert themselves among civilians, who are in truth human shields — punctiliously, compared with the battle tactics of the rest of the world (and they suffer the added casualties that go with that, not that Carter or his like care).

At the end of his piece, Carter calls — no surprise — for an American crackdown on our ally, Israel: Silence its weapons, threaten its aid. Carter then writes, “I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis” — which, to me, sounds an awful lot like, “Sure, that blasted Jewish lobby controls U.S. policy, as it always has — except maybe for the shining years of 1977 to 1981.”

Really disgusting, this effort, and utterly revealing of Carter.

The ex-president is known as Joe Human Rights, but he’s mighty selective about whose human rights to champion. If you live in Marcos’s Philippines, Pinochet’s Chile, or apartheid South Africa, he’s liable to care about you. If you live in Communist China, Communist Cuba, Communist Ethiopia, Communist Nicaragua, Communist North Korea, Communist . . .: screw you.

Remember when the Left used to say, “Okay, maybe the West has ‘political rights,’ but the East has ‘social rights’”? Carter isn’t far off from that. A mission statement of his Center reads, “‘Human rights’ is a broad term, encompassing freedom from oppression and freedom of speech to the right to food and health.” This is on the way to Erich Honecker. And as Jeane Kirkpatrick — whom Carter also openly despises — points out, it’s amazing how those who lack the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom of assembly, and so on, also tend to lack food, shelter, and health.

In a 1997 op-ed piece entitled “It’s Wrong to Demonize China” (also for the New York Times), Carter wrote — and forgive the awkward prose — “American criticism of China’s human rights abuses are justified, but their basis is not well understood. Westerners emphasize personal freedoms, while a stable government and a unified nation are paramount to the Chinese. This means that policies are shaped by fear of chaos from unrestrained dissidents or fear of China’s fragmentation by an independent Taiwan or Tibet. The result is excessive punishment [excessive punishment!] of outspoken dissidents and unwarranted domination of Tibetans.”

Carter said that “ill-informed commentators in both countries have cast the other side as a villain and have even forecast inevitable confrontation between the two nations.” You see the exquisite moral equivalence between a giant and repressive Communist state and the American republic. He then said, “Mutual criticisms are proper and necessary [mutual criticisms, mind you: Communist China, America . . .], but should not be offered in an arrogant or self-righteous way, and each of us should acknowledge improvements made by the other.” Carter arrogant or self-righteous, ever? Improvements made by the United States, too?

This is sick-making.

In the same piece, Carter came very close to claiming that freedom of religion had come to China — causing activists in the field, who know the wretched truth, to groan in pain.

In a 1999 op-ed piece (USA Today) called “Let’s Keep Chinese Spying in Perspective,” Carter said that “some . . . American leaders, who have habitually demonstrated animosity toward the People’s Republic of China [note the mimicking of the Communists’ own false description of themselves], have attempted to drive a deeper wedge between our two countries at what is already a troubled time.” Anyone who doesn’t demonstrate “animosity” toward that horrible state, Realpolitik or no, is no friend to mankind.

A walk down Memory Lane? While in office, Carter hailed Yugoslavia’s Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.” He said of Romania’s barbaric Ceausescu and himself, “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.” While out of office, Carter has praised Syria’s late Assad (killer of at least 20,000 in Hama) and the Ethiopian tyrant Mengistu (killer of many more than that). In Haiti, he told the dictator Cédras that he was “ashamed of what my country has done to your country.”

He did even better in North Korea, singing praises to Kim Il Sung, one of the most complete and destructive dictators in history. Kim’s North Korea, as Kirkpatrick says, was, and is, truly a “psychotic state.” Said Carter of the “Great Leader,” “I find him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country” (well, he was absolute ruler). He said, “I don’t see that they [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.” Pyongyang, he observed, was a “bustling city,” where shoppers “pack the department stores,” reminding him of the “Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia.” Carter also employed his longstanding technique of praising the beauty of a dictator’s wife. Kim Jon Ae, he noted, “is a very attractive lady.”

(Joshua Muravchik reminded us of many of these nuggets in an excellent New Republic piece from 1994.)

Then there’s Carter’s notorious friendship with Daniel Ortega, former strongman in Nicaragua. In 1984, when the Reagan administration was trying to put maximum pressure on Ortega to submit to democracy, Carter urged Habitat for Humanity to build in Nicaragua. A fine idea, perhaps, but here’s the (classic) Carter twist: “We want the folks down there to know that some American Christians love them and that we don’t all hate them.” In 1990, of course, Carter traveled to Managua to monitor the elections and to certify what he figured — and hoped, it seemed — would be a Sandinista victory. When the democratic opposition won instead, Carter was remarkably churlish, even bitter. (Remember that fantastic P. J. O’Rourke piece for The American Spectator on all this?) As Kirkpatrick says, “You’d have thought a democrat would be happy.”

But Carter is not completely blinkered when it comes to brutal dictators. Here’s what he said to his interviewer and admirer James Zogby (one of America’s foremost PLO advocates) in 2001: “I think the sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq, and not Saddam Hussein, whom I consider to be a dictator, and I think an insensitive dictator [!], and he is able now to blame all of his maybe self-induced problems [“maybe self-induced”!], economically and socially, on the United States because of our sanctions and because of our fairly infrequent aerial attacks.”

Friends and foes can agree on one thing: There’s no one like Carter. No one.

Jimmy C. thinks very, very little of the current president of the United States. In an interview with the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer last year, he said, “I don’t think that George W. Bush has any particular commitment to preservation of the principles of human rights.” SDI? “A ridiculous project technologically” and “counter to control of nuclear weapons in the world” (huh?). Also, “it will be a waste of money” and “it’s driven by pressures from manufacturers of weapons and so forth, among others.” The Kyoto protocol? “I think we should carry it out, fervently.”

He is also on record as saying that to drill in ANWR would be to “destroy” it (ask Jonah Goldberg, pal).

And, of course, when Bush — leading

this nation into war, after a devastating attack — identified an “axis of evil,” Carter pronounced this “overly simplistic and counter-productive.” (Not infrequently does the ex-president sound like the French foreign minister.) He added, “I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement.”

Want more Carter? Okay, but I’m almost done. Here’s something personal — very — from Carter’s book The Virtues of Aging:

When I was married at the age of 22 and relishing an active sex life, I assumed that this was a pleasure that my middle-aged parents rarely, if ever, enjoyed. Now, well past 70, Rosalynn and I have learned to accommodate each other’s desires more accurately and generously, and have never had a more complete and enjoyable relationship.

Shudder, shudder, shudder, shudder, shudder, shudder, shudder.

Folks, I’m sorry, I don’t think I can go on. There’s your Carterpalooza. Hope you enjoyed it (or whatever). Have a good weekend.


Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-nordlinger101102.asp


21 posted on 06/04/2006 10:58:49 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
His comments are significant, given that he was the president when US relations with Iran hit an all-time low.

Significant only insofar as no other president "screwed the pooch" as badly as Jimmuh.

If Jimmy's advice is worthy of consideration, it should only cause everyone quickly to find the action would be the furthest thing from ol' JC's counsel.

HF

22 posted on 06/04/2006 10:59:56 AM PDT by holden (holden on'a'na truth, de whole truth, 'n nuttin' but de truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

His comments are significant, given that he was the president when US relations with Iran hit an all-time low.

Looks like maybe even Reuters understands carter's credibility problems with regard to Iran.

23 posted on 06/04/2006 11:02:09 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
Before the "Clash of Civilizations" aided by Carter is over, Jimmy may have more blood on his despicable claws than Hitler, Stalin and Mao....COMBINED. Way to go you puke, just had to try to shake down the Shah and, when rebuffed, just had to lash out in petty revenge. You are just a bitter old incompetent.
24 posted on 06/04/2006 11:05:21 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Carter should convert to Islam and retire to Qom.


25 posted on 06/04/2006 11:18:28 AM PDT by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

We all know that Jimmah is an expert when it comes to dealing with Iran.


26 posted on 06/04/2006 11:22:45 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
WAPO article: Iran has so far said enrichment is a national right.

Such a claimed right is reasonably compared to free speech falling short of being acceptable to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Analogously, a national right to explore high technology WMDs unhindered stops short when such country(-ies) unambigously have claimed it their right to wipe entire other countries from the face of the earth or introduce their Islamofascist "sharia" on all the West's "infidels".

The mullahs have been fomenting their destruction and terrorism aimed at Israel, the West and the US, "The Great Satan", unabated for most of three decades. They have proved that they're series and psychopathic on a global scale.

The figurative rachet should freely be allowed to escalate in the coming months or years to meet these threats in a way that preempts the West's becoming their victim in any overt way ever again.

HF

27 posted on 06/04/2006 11:28:16 AM PDT by holden (holden on'a'na truth, de whole truth, 'n nuttin' but de truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Reuters again! Don't trust them!


28 posted on 06/04/2006 11:53:15 AM PDT by RoadTest (For the love of money is the root of all evil - I Timothy 6:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

And what makes this a--hole an expert on diplomacy with Iran? Oh, yeah, I forgot, he's a DIPstick and that makes him 3/8 of a DIPlomat, and he acted like a DoorMAT and that adds another 3/8 of DIPloMAT, and he is the LOwest form of American and that completes making him a DIPLOMAT.

And he is an expert on Iran having pulled the rug out from under the Shah which allowed the mullahocracy to take root, and then doing nothing to anger the sheetheads for 444 days.


29 posted on 06/04/2006 12:00:42 PM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

30 posted on 06/04/2006 12:55:15 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Worst. President. Ever.


31 posted on 06/04/2006 2:33:58 PM PDT by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
His comments are significant, given that he was the president when US relations with Iran hit an all-time low.

Significant??? I would say irrelevant since he was the president that brought about the bad relations.

He witnessed the Iranian revolution and the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. He struggled for 444 days to release the US Embassy staff held hostage. A failed rescue attempt led by the US military brought about the resignation of his secretary of state.

Witnessed? Struggled? US military failure?
I LOATHE the media. It was the crisis that has scarred relations between the two countries ever since.

32 posted on 06/04/2006 2:41:06 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Carter and "Rescue Missions 101"

I read the title and saw red. Then, I realized Jimmah is a Red.


33 posted on 06/04/2006 2:54:12 PM PDT by combat_boots (Dug in and not budging an inch. NOT to be schiavoed, greered, or felosed as a patient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

I don't consider dropping a basic loadout of an Ohio (non-SSGN conversion) on Iran a "conditional talk" :-)


34 posted on 06/04/2006 3:11:30 PM PDT by steveegg (If the illegals would turn Mexico Red if they were forced there, why wouldn't they do that here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Carter should convert to Islam and retire to Qom.

Hopefully just before a bunch of incoming.

35 posted on 06/04/2006 3:12:13 PM PDT by steveegg (If the illegals would turn Mexico Red if they were forced there, why wouldn't they do that here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Hey Jimmuh! Does the phrase "and the horse you rode in on!" mean anything?


36 posted on 06/04/2006 5:04:28 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Carter would not be able to tekll the difference between Qom and Bum..


37 posted on 06/04/2006 5:06:07 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
His comments are significant, given that he was the president when US relations with Iran hit an all-time low.

That's putting it mildly,

38 posted on 06/04/2006 5:06:32 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
To read today’s thread click here.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

39 posted on 06/05/2006 10:31:22 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson