SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pompsander who wrote (762366)5/21/2007 11:39:33 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
demoRATS better get back to sewers



To: pompsander who wrote (762366)5/21/2007 11:42:22 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
Look Who's Talking
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, May 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Leadership: So Jimmy Carter calls the Bush administration "the worst in history." This from the man who wrecked the world's greatest economy and made a nuclear Iran and North Korea possible.

We didn't think we'd see the day when a president-elect of France would be more appreciative of America's role in the world than one of our own former presidents.

But here is Carter telling the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that President Bush's "administration has been the worst in history," one that has "endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war even when our own security is not directly threatened."

Worst President in American history.
Later, Carter called his comments "careless or misinterpreted." But given a chance to retract, he didn't. Apparently the man whose idea of leadership was to sit in front of a fireplace and blame everything on America's "malaise" does not consider Islamofascists turning passenger jets into manned cruise missiles and flying them into skyscrapers a direct threat.

Nor does he consider himself responsible for the chain of events that gave us not only 9/11, but al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah and a nuclear Iran and North Korea.

Iran

On taking office in 1977, Carter declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. America's ally, the Shah of Iran, was one of his first targets, with Carter chastising him for his human rights record and withdrawing America's support.

One of the charges was that the Shah had been torturing about 3,000 prisoners, many of them accused of being Soviet agents. Carter sent a clear message to the Islamic fundamentalists that America would not come to the Shah's aid. His anti-Shah speeches blared from public address systems in downtown Tehran.

The irony, as noted by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in his book, "The Real Jimmy Carter," is that the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini "executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's SAVAK had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years." Khomeini's regime was a human rights nightmare.

When Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in 1979, he established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and the jihadists to follow. And when the U.S. embassy was stormed that November and 52 American hostages were held for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.

The wreckage of Carter's foreign policy was seen in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages, a plan never formally presented to the Joint Chiefs, resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines. The rest, as they say, is history.

Hezbollah

As we have noted, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and who paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.

It was Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon. And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. Marines in their Beirut barracks in 1982.

The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan, and it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. The Iranian revolution led to the Iraq-Iran War that took a million lives and encouraged Hussein to invade Kuwait to strengthen his position.

That led to Operation Desert Storm and bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan. Now we're about to face a nuclear Iran as we are embroiled in a war on terror.

If we'd stuck by the Shah and his successors, the history of the last 25 years in the Middle East and here at home would have been very different. As Hayward observes, the fruits of Carter's Iran disaster are with us still, spawning the rise of radical Islam, terrorism, the Taliban and al-Qaida.

North Korea

When President Clinton first learned of the North Korean nuclear program in 1994, a surgical strike against its Yongbyong reactor might have sufficed to send Pyongyang a message that a nuclear North Korea was unacceptable.

Instead, Clinton allowed Jimmy Carter to engage in some private foreign policy and jet off to the last Stalinist regime on earth to broker a deal whereby North Korea would promise to forgo a nuclear weapons program in exchange for a basket of goodies that included oil, fool and, amazingly, nuclear technology.

Along the way, Carter praised North Korea's mass-murdering dictator as a "vigorous and intelligent man." And of North Korea itself, Carter said of this habitat for inhumanity: "I don't see they are an outlaw nation."

Cold War

Jimmy Carter also once challenged Ronald Reagan's "aggressive" and successful strategy for winning the Cold War. Perhaps he'd like to send one of his Habitat for Humanity crews to rebuild the Berlin Wall brick by tyrannical brick. The fact is that Jimmy Carter could not have done more to damage our national security had he been a hand-picked mole planted in the White House by the KGB.

When Carter left office, the Soviet Union was on the march from Grenada to Afghanistan, control of the strategic Panama Canal had been given away, our military had planes that couldn't fly and ships that couldn't sail for lack of trained crews and spare parts, production of the B-1 strategic bomber had been canceled and our economy was in no shape to resist Soviet expansion.

Jimmy Carter, the man who makes Neville Chamberlain look like Dirty Harry, made his remarks about President Bush while promoting his audiobook series of Bible lessons for children. Jimmy, thou shalt not bear false witness against your president and country. Haven't you done enough damage? If you want to see our worst ex-president, look in the mirror.

Tomorrow: How Carter ran the world's greatest economy into the ground.



To: pompsander who wrote (762366)5/21/2007 11:43:30 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
Jimmy Carter's Li'l Ol' Stink Tank
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Ethics: Jimmy Carter says he's just being fair-minded by continuously condemning Israel. Meanwhile, his Carter Center draws ever more money from anti-Israel sources. Follow the money.

The ex-president's irritating opinions on Mideast matters are one thing. But the funding of his Atlanta think tank by big-money, state-linked Arab sources is quite another — and points to a conflict of interest.

According to the Carter Center Web site's 2004-05 annual report — the most recent available — the center has received "in excess of $1 million" from characters like Prince Al-Walid bin Talal.

Bin Talal, you might recall, is the Saudi prince who insultingly offered $20 million to New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. The cash was held out not because the prince cared about terrorism but to rub in that the attack was really a byproduct of the Palestine conflict.

The streetwise Giuliani, who once threw Yasser Arafat out of a New York theater, wasn't fooled by bin Talal's power play and told him to keep his dirty money to himself. Giuliani smelled the quid pro quo and wasn't a man who could be bought.

Carter looks a little different. His new book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid" lays all the blame on Israel for the Palestinian conflict in an interpretation worthy of a Cairo coffee shop. It is so extreme — and so seemingly out of character — that a top staffer at the Carter Center resigned in disgust.

It may be easy to dismiss Carter's nutty statements about Israel as the ranting of a bitter man in his twilight years. But it's not so easy to look the other way as Arab cash flows into the Carter Center from people known to demand something in return. It is worth noting that the center's anticipated contributions receivable and Carter's anti-Israeli diatribes have both increased dramatically.

Carter's foundation has a $200 million endowment, according to Rachel Ehrenfeld, an expert on terrorism, writing in the Washington Times, and the center's own 2004-05 statement says it took in $172 million in donations, with some as high as $25 million.

Fat cats who've given $1 million since the center's founding in 1982 (and in the hazy disclosures we don't know how much more) include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the Saudi Fund for Development and the Government of the United Arab Emirates.

Among individuals who donated more than $100,000 in 2004-05, there is His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, in addition to bin Talal. Among listed "founders" of the center are the king of Saudi Arabia, BCCI scandal banker Agha Hasan Abedi and Arafat pal Hasib J. Sabbagh.

All of these contributors have virulently anti-Israel elements, and most have medieval records of opposing and obstructing democracy in their own countries. Maybe someday, in one of those softball interviews he gives, Carter will be asked to reconcile what he supposedly stands for with those from whom he gets his money.



To: pompsander who wrote (762366)5/21/2007 11:45:20 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Carter: Our Worst Ex-President?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 12, 2007 4:20 PM PT

The Presidency: When those close to a person of eminence sever ties because of his objectionable beliefs, something is very wrong. That's exactly where one disgraced ex-president finds himself these days.

Time was that Jimmy Carter, the ex-president in question, could rely on his reputation as a foreign democracy monitor and charitable home builder to maintain a modicum of public affection and respect.

Sadly, that time now seems past. With his recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Carter has deservedly been hammered for his twisted anti-Israel beliefs. Now, his namesake Carter Center has been rocked by the departure of a number of well-respected board members, angry over the book.

We've read the book, and it's a doozy. Its anti-Israel bias begins with the title — which likens Israel's legitimate efforts to defend itself from terrorism by building a fence with the racist system of apartheid — and permeates the entire book.

Israel's supporters understandably are outraged. The book tries to strike a note of moral equivalence between Israel and the terrorist thugs who now control the West Bank. In one typical passage (pages 205 and 206), Carter writes:

"There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East: 1. Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and 2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories."

There you have it: History as moral equivalence, no good guys, no bad guys. Both sides wrong.

In fact, as Carter knows, the "some Israelis" he references are in fact marginalized and largely pushed to the side in Israel's public debate. That's not the case with the "some Palestinians" he mentions, who are actually in charge of the West Bank now.

It's a sad fact, but the war between Israel and the Palestinians could be over, once and for all, tomorrow. And the Palestinians could have their state. All they'd have to do is make a clear, unequivocal statement that Israel has a right to exist. But they've never done so, contrary to what Carter suggests.

Such dishonesty stems in part from Carter's compromised position as head of the center. As we noted two weeks ago, since the center's founding in 1982 it has received millions in funding from Arab sources — including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Are such donations morally wrong? No. But taking that cash makes it hard to argue, as Carter does, that he is a neutral arbiter of a conflict that pits Arabs against Israelis. Or for Carter to imply that Jewish Americans, in exercising their right to free speech, are nefariously using their money and influence to kill all debate.

So when Carter says that "severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts" keep Americans from knowing about Palestinians' suffering, it's really just shorthand for "the Jews control the media" — an old anti-Semitic canard.

These lies are of a piece with others found in Carter's book.

One of the truly big whoppers is that Yasser Arafat, Hamas and others in the Palestinian leadership are men of peace. This is an absurdity, by any stretch of the imagination. These are men of terror, and should be treated as such.

Carter on page 62 recounts a meeting with Yasser Arafat in 1990. He quotes Arafat, uncritically, saying: "The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel." Arafat blames the idea on "Zionists."

Since Carter lets this lie go completely unchallenged, he must believe it. In fact, the very reason for the PLO's founding was to eliminate Israel. There are many other lies, large and small.

On page 39, for instance, Carter says that U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338 have as a basic premise that "Israel must withdraw from occupied territories." Strange, because the book itself has the texts of both 242 and 338. Neither says Israel "must" withdraw.

We could go on and on. The book is that bad. It's ruined a president's reputation. Sadly, Carter's descent seems to have also delegitimized his once-respected Carter Center. As we noted, since the firestorm over the book began, 14 members of the Carter Center's 200-person board have quit in protest.

In two letters, they charge Carter with "malicious advocacy" against Israel, adding that "we can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position."

We're pretty sure Carter's reputation will remain in tatters, given his anti-Israel diatribes. The peanut farmer from Georgia, once the leader of the free world, now seems a very small man indeed.



To: pompsander who wrote (762366)5/22/2007 9:28:36 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
"The President is out of touch on this one....a few more revelations like last week's and Alberto will have no supporters left."

Doesn't much matter....

He's far into his slide toward irrelevance now. (The clock is ticking down....)

It's possible that immigration will be the last thing of significance that he accomplishes.