Jimmy Carter goes even more over the edge, undermines US policy, blurts secrets

[Manedwolf]

Can we revoke his visa, maybe? How about citizenship? Now he's actively undermining US policy!

Britain and other European governments should break from the US over the international embargo on Gaza, former US president Jimmy Carter told the Guardian yesterday. Carter, visiting the Welsh border town of Hay for the Guardian literary festival, described the EU's position on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as "supine" and its failure to criticise the Israeli blockade of Gaza as "embarrassing".

Referring to the possibility of Europe breaking with the US in an interview with the Guardian, he said: "Why not? They're not our vassals. They occupy an equal position with the US."

The blockade on Hamas-ruled Gaza, imposed by the US, EU, UN and Russia - the so-called Quartet - after the organisation's election victory in 2006, was "one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth," since it meant the "imprisonment of 1.6 million people, 1 million of whom are refugees". "Most families in Gaza are eating only one meal per day. To see Europeans going along with this is embarrassing," Carter said.

He called on the EU to reassess its stance if Hamas agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza. "Let the Europeans lift the embargo and say we will protect the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, and even send observers to Rafah gate [Gaza's crossing into Egypt] to ensure the Palestinians don't violate it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa1

And if that wasn't enough? He just deliberately disclosed what was probably secret information.

Israel has 150 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, former President Jimmy Carter said yesterday, while arguing that the US should talk directly to Iran to persuade it to drop its nuclear ambitions.

His remark, made at the Hay-on-Wye festival which promotes current affairs books and literature, is startling because Israel has never admitted having nuclear weapons, let alone how many, although the world assumes their existence. Nor do US officials deviate in public from that Israeli line.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4004300.ece

Enough of this crap. If anyone in D.C. had a backbone, it would be time to use the Logan Act on this clown.

[Werewolf]

The Logan Act has only been used once since it was made law and that was in 1803. In addition it applies to those who deal directly with foreign governments. One could make the argument that Carter should be indicted under it for his dealings with Hamas and maybe N. Korea (not sure whether he got permission for that or not) but not his comments to the EU. IMO that falls more under free speech since he wasn't dealing directly with EU governments - just making a speech.

Never the less I agree with the OP - Carter needs to be muzzled. Is it possible that as a previous president he isn't subject to certain laws?

[Manedwolf]

I'd meant the dealing with Hamas, yes. That was completely out of bounds in dealing with an enemy.

But that "Israel has 150 warheads", that is not something ever said in Israeli or US policy. Not that they had any, let alone the quantity. That's likely top secret information, if true!

Even if it isn't...who do you think is going to use that soundbite over and over and over? What sorts of people?

[agricola]

I'd meant the dealing with Hamas, yes. That was waaaaay out of bounds in dealing with an enemy.

But that "Israel has 150 warheads", that is NOT SOMETHING EVER SAID in Israeli or US policy. Not that they had any, let alone the quantity. That's likely top secret information, if true!

Even if it isn't...who do you think is going to use that soundbite over and over and over? What sorts of people?

I would be amazed if the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal is a matter of grave national security in the US, and as for Hamas - if you praise democracy, promote elections and then ignore the result because the "wrong people" were voted in, as opposed to your preferred candidate (who by the way were voted out by the Palestinians because they were deeply corrupt - and its also worth noting that they are the ones still carrying out suicide bombings), you are deeply hypocritical. 

There should be no problem, at all, with the world sending humanitarian supplies to Gaza.

[Waitone]

But that "Israel has 150 warheads", that is not something ever said in Israeli or US policy. Not that they had any, let alone the quantity. That's likely top secret information, if true!

No, but it is pretty much an open secret.  I've been seeing the same figure for years.  Never has Israel denied the number or the nukes.

I for one want to see Carter out front pursuing his idiot dreams.  That way when something truly ugly happens we all know where to go to find him.  The man is an ethical moron and should be held in contempt.

[ilbob]

I don't consider his statement that Israel has atomic/nuclear weapons to be blurting out a secret that is not already well known. Several declassified government documents have stated conclusively that Israel has such weapons. IIRC, most of them put the number at between 50 and 100.

Personally, I suspect Israel wants it well known they have these weapons. It makes them less likely to be attacked.

That does not make JC any less of a nitwit for some of his statements. I wish he would just stop talking about such things and go back to building houses. I think he means well, but he just does not have a good handle on the way things work in the real world. His changes to the CIA and other intelligence agencies are one of the main reasons we are in the pickle we are today with Islamic terrorists.

[roo_ster]

I'd meant the dealing with Hamas, yes. That was waaaaay out of bounds in dealing with an enemy.

But that "Israel has 150 warheads", that is NOT SOMETHING EVER SAID in Israeli or US policy. Not that they had any, let alone the quantity. That's likely top secret information, if true!

Even if it isn't...who do you think is going to use that soundbite over and over and over? What sorts of people?

I would be amazed if the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal is a matter of grave national security in the US, and as for Hamas - if you praise democracy, promote elections and then ignore the result because the "wrong people" were voted in, as opposed to your preferred candidate (who by the way were voted out by the Palestinians because they were deeply corrupt - and its also worth noting that they are the ones still carrying out suicide bombings), you are deeply hypocritical. 

There should be no problem, at all, with the world sending humanitarian supplies to Gaza.

Feh, I just saw that election as confirmation that the majority Palis are savages.

If they want humanitarian aid, act in a civilized manner and don't try to kill random folks with missile attacks.

Until then, let them eat Qassams.

[De Selby]

I'd meant the dealing with Hamas, yes. That was waaaaay out of bounds in dealing with an enemy.

But that "Israel has 150 warheads", that is NOT SOMETHING EVER SAID in Israeli or US policy. Not that they had any, let alone the quantity. That's likely top secret information, if true!

Even if it isn't...who do you think is going to use that soundbite over and over and over? What sorts of people?

I would be amazed if the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal is a matter of grave national security in the US, and as for Hamas - if you praise democracy, promote elections and then ignore the result because the "wrong people" were voted in, as opposed to your preferred candidate (who by the way were voted out by the Palestinians because they were deeply corrupt - and its also worth noting that they are the ones still carrying out suicide bombings), you are deeply hypocritical. 

There should be no problem, at all, with the world sending humanitarian supplies to Gaza.

Feh, I just saw that election as confirmation that the majority Palis are savages.

If they want humanitarian aid, act in a civilized manner and don't try to kill random folks with missile attacks.

Until then, let them eat Qassams.

So where was the humanitarian aid and human rights work between 1967 and 1994?

Between 67 and 94-no suicide bombings, no rocket attacks.

What exactly did the Palestinians receive in this period?

It seems improbable to claim that rocket attacks are the cause of the Palestinians living under occupation, when they lived under exactly the same conditions for a good thirty years before any rocket/suicide attacks ever took place.  What was the reason for occupying their land and building settlements for Jews only during that period?

[agricola]

I'd meant the dealing with Hamas, yes. That was waaaaay out of bounds in dealing with an enemy.

But that "Israel has 150 warheads", that is NOT SOMETHING EVER SAID in Israeli or US policy. Not that they had any, let alone the quantity. That's likely top secret information, if true!

Even if it isn't...who do you think is going to use that soundbite over and over and over? What sorts of people?

I would be amazed if the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal is a matter of grave national security in the US, and as for Hamas - if you praise democracy, promote elections and then ignore the result because the "wrong people" were voted in, as opposed to your preferred candidate (who by the way were voted out by the Palestinians because they were deeply corrupt - and its also worth noting that they are the ones still carrying out suicide bombings), you are deeply hypocritical. 

There should be no problem, at all, with the world sending humanitarian supplies to Gaza.

Feh, I just saw that election as confirmation that the majority Palis are savages.

If they want humanitarian aid, act in a civilized manner and don't try to kill random folks with missile attacks.

Until then, let them eat Qassams.

So where was the humanitarian aid and human rights work between 1967 and 1994?

Between 67 and 94-no suicide bombings, no rocket attacks.

What exactly did the Palestinians receive in this period?

It seems improbable to claim that rocket attacks are the cause of the Palestinians living under occupation, when they lived under exactly the same conditions for a good thirty years before any rocket/suicide attacks ever took place.  What was the reason for occupying their land and building settlements for Jews only during that period?

No suicide bombings, no rocket attacks... but Black September (and then the terror group named after it), other terrorist attacks from Palestinian groups, the first war in Lebanon, and the First Intifada.  Its not as if nothing was going on. 

I do however wonder at the intelligence and honesty of people who are surprised that anti-Israeli groups get elected amongst Palestinians though.

[roo_ster]

So where was the humanitarian aid and human rights work between 1967 and 1994?

Between 67 and 94-no suicide bombings, no rocket attacks.

What exactly did the Palestinians receive in this period?

It seems improbable to claim that rocket attacks are the cause of the Palestinians living under occupation, when they lived under exactly the same conditions for a good thirty years before any rocket/suicide attacks ever took place.  What was the reason for occupying their land and building settlements for Jews only during that period?

You're kidding, right?

Ever hear of these guys?:
http://www.un.org/unrwa/
"Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949 to carry out direct relief and works programmes for Palestine refugees."

There are many others.  I suspect you did not pose that question out of ignorance.

The Palis would have had a state in 1948 if they were not so savage as to rather push the Jews into the sea rather than live beside them as equals.  The lost land was a spoil of war started by the adjoining Arab states in 1948 and carried on with more or less fervor since then. 

Such decisions have consequences.  This is as it ought to be.

[roo_ster]

I do however wonder at the intelligence and honesty of people who are surprised that anti-Israeli groups get elected amongst Palestinians though.

You're not the only one.

I read the Pali polls in the years before* the elections and opposed granting the PA the "A" and thought that PA elections were a farce wrapped in an absurdity stuffed into a road apple.

"Offering democracy to an Arab is like bringing a horse to a steakhouse."
----Jeff Cooper



* First one I recall was during the first rock-chucking intifada.

[De Selby]

So where was the humanitarian aid and human rights work between 1967 and 1994?

Between 67 and 94-no suicide bombings, no rocket attacks.

What exactly did the Palestinians receive in this period?

It seems improbable to claim that rocket attacks are the cause of the Palestinians living under occupation, when they lived under exactly the same conditions for a good thirty years before any rocket/suicide attacks ever took place.  What was the reason for occupying their land and building settlements for Jews only during that period?

You're kidding, right?

Ever hear of these guys?:
http://www.un.org/unrwa/
"Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949 to carry out direct relief and works programmes for Palestine refugees."

There are many others.  I suspect you did not pose that question out of ignorance.

The Palis would have had a state in 1948 if they were not so savage as to rather push the Jews into the sea rather than live beside them as equals.  The lost land was a spoil of war started by the adjoining Arab states in 1948 and carried on with more or less fervor since then. 

Such decisions have consequences.  This is as it ought to be.

Wait a second-so the Palestinians (who had no army in 1948) are to be punished because they didn't agree to a new state being formed for recent immigrants from Europe, and after that everything done to them is irrelevant.....

Until today, where they'd just get peace if they stopped launching rockets???

Sorry, but I don't see how that makes any sense. 

On the one hand, you're saying that the cause of Palestinians having no rights is the launching of rockets.  Then on the other, you say it's because they didn't want a state for Jews to be formed on their land by recent immigrants-and because someone else lost that war for them (again, the Palestinians had no army at that time....), therefore, they are entitled to.....no rights?

Which is it? Are they mistreated because of the rockets, or because of 1948?  And how would stopping rocket launches change what happened in 1948?

Looks like what you are saying is that the Palestinians don't have any rights because of what someone else did in 1948-and then calling the Palestinians savages because they just don't understand this simple fact that they had no land rights or right to self-determination back then, and consequently that they have no rights today.  That's not a savage position, but it's certainly hard to justify with reasonable arguments.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

with all that oil money floating around the arab world how come they don't help their brothers out?
could it be they don't want em either?

[De Selby]

with all that oil money floating around the arab world how come they don't help their brothers out?
could it be they don't want em either?

A big part of it is that the other countries are dictatorships-dictatorships don't respond to the sympathies of their own people, and are generally only concerned with doing the bare minimum to maintain power.  Helping palestinians actually hurts them, because much of their support comes from Israel and the US...hence, the dictatorships around Israel do not want any Palestinains stirring up trouble.

And of course, there is the issue of who is responsible-the other Arabs weren't the ones who took away the Palestinians' land, although some tried...they ultimately failed where the Israelis did not.

Do not be fooled though: if those countries were democracies, they would uniformly elect pro-Palestinian governments.  So it's misleading to say that the Arabs don't want them; no, Arab leadership doesn't want them, but Arab people are by and large highly sympathetic.

[agricola]

with all that oil money floating around the arab world how come they don't help their brothers out?
could it be they don't want em either?

A big part of it is that the other countries are dictatorships-dictatorships don't respond to the sympathies of their own people, and are generally only concerned with doing the bare minimum to maintain power.  Helping palestinians actually hurts them, because much of their support comes from Israel and the US...hence, the dictatorships around Israel do not want any Palestinains stirring up trouble.

And of course, there is the issue of who is responsible-the other Arabs weren't the ones who took away the Palestinians' land, although some tried...they ultimately failed where the Israelis did not.

Do not be fooled though: if those countries were democracies, they would uniformly elect pro-Palestinian governments.  So it's misleading to say that the Arabs don't want them; no, Arab leadership doesn't want them, but Arab people are by and large highly sympathetic.

Indeed... bad though Saddam was, he was at the head of one of the more liberal - especially in terms of rights for women and religious minorities - regimes in the Middle East.   The people who have been hardest hit by events post 2003 in Iraq are women and those religious minorities.  A great triumph for "democracy".

[grampster]

"Indeed... bad though Saddam was, he was at the head of one of the more liberal - especially in terms of rights for women and religious minorities - regimes in the Middle East.   The people who have been hardest hit by events post 2003 in Iraq are women and those religious minorities.  A great triumph for "democracy"."

Yep, Saddam was the great liberator of minorities and women.  Great Progressive.  They were "liberated" with poison gas and introduced to the joys of sex by his sons and minions who arbitrarily picked them off the street for rape and ultimately a torturous death.  He "liberated" a lot of other minorities by offering surprise vacations in the middle of the night and the joys of amputation.

Some of you apologists for the dreck running the Arab states need to get a grip on reality.  You seem to support feudal tribalism coupled with distorted religiosity along with murderous dictators.  Your comments seem to always have an implied shrug when defending that behavior.  Your remarks might be taken a bit more seriously if once in awhile you'd offer some comments that were constructive rather than flagrantly ridiculous at worst and defensive at best.

The West hasn't been uniformly pleasant in its behavior over the past.  But at least has been willing to attempt to give way to those countries that were colonized.  Not much of a good track record for those who demanded the West stand aside.   Most places have devolved into internecine class warfare, murder, starvation et al.

As for Carter, he ought to have his passport revoked.  If he were such a humanitarian, why didn't he end the embargo of Cuba for starters?

[agricola]

Yep, Saddam was the great liberator of minorities and women.  Great Progressive.  They were "liberated" with poison gas and introduced to the joys of sex by his sons and minions who arbitrarily picked them off the street for rape and ultimately a torturous death.  He "liberated" a lot of other minorities by offering surprise vacations in the middle of the night and the joys of amputation.

That he did some of those things (we sure punished him for using poison gas, eh!) is correct - which is why I stated he was bad - but given what is happening now to women and religious minorities in Iraq he was a lot better than the "democracy" we have created there.  Indeed, you can make a good argument that Iraq under Saddam was a generally better place for women and religious minorities than Saudi Arabia was at the time (indeed, probably better than it still is).

As for "You seem to support feudal tribalism coupled with distorted religiosity along with murderous dictators.", wake up and smell the coffee - thats what is being done now by the US and the rest of "The Quartet". 

[Manedwolf]

As for "You seem to support feudal tribalism coupled with distorted religiosity along with murderous dictators.", wake up and smell the coffee - thats what is being done now by the US and the rest of "The Quartet". 

Daily Kos much?

[agricola]

As for "You seem to support feudal tribalism coupled with distorted religiosity along with murderous dictators.", wake up and smell the coffee - thats what is being done now by the US and the rest of "The Quartet". 

Daily Kos much?

Nope.  Why are we allied with Saudi Arabia again?

[roo_ster]

Wait a second-so the Palestinians (who had no army in 1948) are to be punished because they didn't agree to a new state being formed for recent immigrants from Europe, and after that everything done to them is irrelevant.....

Until today, where they'd just get peace if they stopped launching rockets???

Sorry, but I don't see how that makes any sense. 

On the one hand, you're saying that the cause of Palestinians having no rights is the launching of rockets.  Then on the other, you say it's because they didn't want a state for Jews to be formed on their land by recent immigrants-and because someone else lost that war for them (again, the Palestinians had no army at that time....), therefore, they are entitled to.....no rights?

Which is it? Are they mistreated because of the rockets, or because of 1948?  And how would stopping rocket launches change what happened in 1948?

Looks like what you are saying is that the Palestinians don't have any rights because of what someone else did in 1948-and then calling the Palestinians savages because they just don't understand this simple fact that they had no land rights or right to self-determination back then, and consequently that they have no rights today.  That's not a savage position, but it's certainly hard to justify with reasonable arguments.

Your litany of straw-men and deliberate distortion of both my arguments and history is getting less entertaining with each post.

agricola:

Indeed... bad though Saddam was, he was at the head of one of the more liberal - especially in terms of rights for women and religious minorities - regimes in the Middle East.   The people who have been hardest hit by events post 2003 in Iraq are women and those religious minorities.  A great triumph for "democracy".

Wow, that was an interesting fit of coprograhia.

Ever hear of these groups known as "Kurds?"  Maybe you have heard of the religious minority (in Iraq) known as "Shiites?"  Also, how many Chaldean Christians were in Iraq at the beginning of Saddam's rule & how many after?

This seems fitting:
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy."
----John Derbyshire

[grampster]

"...Why are we allied with Saudi Arabia again?"

Once the Sleeping Giant wakes up to the damage the obstructionist leftists, more commonly called Democrat and RINO, have done over the last 35 years, and America begins to aggressively and carefully do what needs to be done energy wise, Saudi Arabia will be a non issue as far as a provider of oil and the single Arab entity, supported by America in the ME, that holds the moonbats in check.

I think America will leave them to settle with the Wahabbists themselves.

[agricola]

Indeed... bad though Saddam was, he was at the head of one of the more liberal - especially in terms of rights for women and religious minorities - regimes in the Middle East.   The people who have been hardest hit by events post 2003 in Iraq are women and those religious minorities.  A great triumph for "democracy".

Wow, that was an interesting fit of coprograhia.

Ever hear of these groups known as "Kurds?"  Maybe you have heard of the religious minority (in Iraq) known as "Shiites?"  Also, how many Chaldean Christians were in Iraq at the beginning of Saddam's rule & how many after?

Noone is questioning that.  The point is, as bad as Saddam was against the Kurds and Shia, the situation is much worse (in terms of religiously-based abductions and murders) now that we have got rid of him.     

I think America will leave them to settle with the Wahabbists themselves.

they ARE the wahabbists.

[De Selby]

Your litany of straw-men and deliberate distortion of both my arguments and history is getting less entertaining with each post.

Sorry, but I see that as entirely fair in representing what you said:

You started by saying that the Palestinians have no rights because of rocket launches.  When I pointed out that they were in this position before they even had rockets, you claimed that 1948's events justify this treatment. 

I would really like to know which it is: Is the rocket launching irrelevant to their situation because they lost all rights in 1948, or do they have rights now that would be gained should they stopped launching rockets? If so, which rights, and why weren't those rights available to them for the 30 years between the 67 war and the beginning of the terror campaign?

[grampster]

Quote from: grampster
I think America will leave them to settle with the Wahabbists themselves.

"they ARE the wahabbists."

Some say the House of Saud made a deal with the original Wahabbi sect.  House of Saud becomes the earthly imams.  Later on in the early 20th century, House of Saud is set up as rulers of the new Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and agrees to not mess with the sect and provide them with money when the oil thing became apparent.   Wahabbist's agree they will not bring down the kingodom.

[De Selby]

Quote from: grampster
I think America will leave them to settle with the Wahabbists themselves.

"they ARE the wahabbists."

Some say the House of Saud made a deal with the original Wahabbi sect.  House of Saud becomes the earthly imams.  Later on in the early 20th century, House of Saud is set up as rulers of the new Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and agrees to not mess with the sect and provide them with money when the oil thing became apparent.   Wahabbist's agree they will not bring down the kingodom.

Where did you get this history?

There are no "earthly imams" in Wahhabiyya; everyone is an authority, as long as they agree with the "plain text" readings of the other Wahhabists.  Wahhabists don't call themselves Wahhabists, so they are difficult to identify as a sect.  Most Wahhabis claim to follow the Hanafi school of jurisprudence.

The House of Saud is the primary financier of schools and organizations that follow the Wahhabi methods of teaching.  There are no other "wahhabists" for them to make agreements with, because there is no international wahhabist leadership....there are only wahhabists, and the vast majority of them are either part of the house of Saud, or receive their money from the Saudis.