http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2IQiYI1Emw&feature=youtu.be

Carter has completely lost his one remaining marble.



1. He rails against Israel taking "Palestinian land". Unfortunately,
what is or is not "Palestinian land" is exactly what has to be
negotiated! Until that happens, there is no way to determine what is
Palestinian land and what is not.

2. Carter says that Netanyahu is the first Israeli PM to say that Israel must be considered a Jewish state!



Of course it is a Jewish state. That is the whole principle on which
it was founded FFS - so the Jews would finally have a safe place where
they could live and worship as they see fit. Every Israeli PM and all
previous US Presidents have recognized this - everyone except the
Arabs repeated attacking and trying to do away with Israel that is...(and Jimmy Carter).



Netanyahu is just wisely saying that before Israel accept and work toward
a realistic 2-state solution, Israel needs to know that such a
state will accept Israel as a permanent Jewish state and not try
to attack it or destroy it. The fact that none of the Palestinians
are able to agree to this very simple request is extremely revealing
and underlies the entire Mideast conflict. It is the reason for the
conflict.



3. Carter objects to the Israeli's insistence that they maintain
military control of the Jordan river valley from which many attacks
have come in repeated attempts to divide and conquer Israel. It is
a matter of security Mr. Carter. There is no need for Palestinians
to militarily control this area. Why not just accept that? Carter
ignores the fact that the Palestinians already govern themselves
completely in the W Bank and Gaza yet spend their time launching
attacks at Israeli civilians rather than building a peaceful society.

Israel is absolutely right to insist on recognition and commitments
to security first. The only thing preventing the existence of the
Palestinian state in the region they already govern is the
Palestinians themselves and the warring factions Fatah, Hamas and
Islamic Jihad.

Those who suffer most the average Palestinians.

Carter has lost any relevance long ago and is only a voice of
contention and obstruction. Sad. He is the only US Pres I can think
of who got more and more extreme, hateful, and irrelevant year by
year after he lost office.

Jimmy Carter... A true statesman, humanitarian, Peace negotiator and a man of the world who tells it like it is!

Don't mind the Isreali lobby here too much Johnn... their comments are so publicized and biased by media repetition in their content they actually believe it themselves.

Can't fault them for demigoging their choice of media hype, that pea rolls down both sides of the issue. Split pea soup

Two wrongs will never make a right....that's just bad math!

The affairs of others just isn't our problem... unfortunately, our leaders wanna play god with the world and pi$$ everybody off as they sell us out to the UN and world banks.

Once again, ALL common people lose! All about the Benjamins!!

In April 2008, the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat reported that Carter met with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal on his visit to Syria. The Carter Center initially did not confirm nor deny the story. The US State Department considers Hamas a terrorist organization.[86] Within this Mid-East trip, Carter also laid a wreath on the grave of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah on April 14, 2008.[87] Carter said on April 23 that neither Condoleezza Rice nor anyone else in the State Department had warned him against meeting with Hamas leaders during his trip.[88] Carter spoke to Mashaal on several matters, including "formulas for prisoner exchange to obtain the release of Corporal Shalit."[89]

In December 2008, Carter visited Damascus again, where he met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and the Hamas leadership.

Carter visited with three officials from Hamas who have been living at the International Red Cross office in Jerusalem since July 2010. Israel believes that these three Hamas legislators had a role in the 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and has a deportation order set for them.[93]

In August 2006, Carter criticized Blair for being "subservient" to the Bush administration and accused Blair of giving unquestioning support to Bush's Iraq policies.[112] In a May 2007 interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he said, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," when it comes to foreign affairs.[113][114] Two days after the quote was published, Carter told NBC's Today that the "worst in history" comment was "careless or misinterpreted," and that he "wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history, but just with President Nixon's."[115] The day after the "worst in history" comment was published, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that Carter had become "increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."[116]



Meanwhile the Carter administration is surely far from one of the
finest to grace Washington....

http://www.acan.gohotsprings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=286


Jimmy Carter’s Pathetic Lies

For those with eyes to see, there were hints as far back as the 1976 presidential campaign of the trouble to come. Early that year, Harper’s magazine published “Jimmy Carter’s Pathetic Lies” - a devastating exposé of Carter’s record in Georgia by a then little-known journalist named Steven Brill.

Reg Murphy, who as editor of the Atlanta Constitution had kept a close eye on Carter’s rise in state politics, declared, “Jimmy Carter is one of the three or four phoniest men I ever met.”

Speechwriter Bob Shrum quit the Carter campaign after just a few weeks, disgusted with what he described as Carter’s penchant for fudging the truth. He also related that Carter, convinced the Jewish vote in the Democratic primaries would go to Senator Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson, had instructed his staff not to issue any more statements on the Middle East.

“Jackson has all the Jews anyway,” Shrum quoted Carter as saying. “We get the Christians.”

Relations between Carter and Israel were tense from the outset of the Carter presidency. Carter’s hostility was evident to Israeli foreign minister Moshe Dayan, who in his memoir Breakthrough described a July 1977 White House meeting between Carter and Israeli officials. “You are more stubborn than the Arabs, and you put obstacles on the path to peace,’’ an angry Carter scolded Dayan and his colleagues.

“Our talk,” Dayan wrote, “lasted more than an hour and was most unpleasant. President Carter ... launched charge after charge against Israel.”

On October 1, 1977, the U.S. and the Soviet Union unexpectedly issued a joint statement on the Middle East calling for an Arab-Israeli peace conference in Geneva, with the participation of Palestinian representatives. The communiqué marked the first time the U.S. officially employed the phrase “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

Reaction in the U.S. was immediate and furious. “[A] political firestorm erupted,” wrote historian Steven Spiegel. “After American officials had worked successfully for years to reduce Russian influence over the Mideast peace process and in the area as whole, critics could not understand why the administration had suddenly invited Moscow to return.”

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who five years earlier had expelled thousands of Soviet military advisers from Egypt, neither liked nor trusted the Russians, and decided to kill the U.S.-Soviet initiative in the womb. His decision to go to Jerusalem to address the Knesset electrified the world and caught the Carter administration completely off guard.

Eventually the U.S. would broker what became known as the Camp David Accords and oversee the signing of the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. But Carter was far from a dispassionate third party. His disdain for Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and near hero-worship of Sadat were clearly reflected in his demeanor and has informed nearly everything he’s written on the Middle East since leaving office.

In The Unfinished Presidency, his book about Carter’s post-White House activities, the liberal historian Douglas Brinkley provides a detailed account of the former president’s obsession with helping Palestinian terror chief Yasir Arafat polish his image. Carter, according to Brinkley, regularly advised Arafat on how to shape his message for Western journalists and even wrote some speeches for him.

Carter was also a vocal critic of Israeli policies and “view[ed] the unarmed young Palestinians who stood up against thousands of Israel soldiers as ‘instant heroes,’ ” wrote Brinkley. “Buoyed by the intifada, Carter passed on to the Palestinians, through Arafat, his congratulations.”

Former New York mayor Ed Koch, in his 1984 bestseller Mayor, recounted a conversation he had shortly before the 1980 election with Cyrus Vance, who’d recently resigned as Carter’s secretary of state. Koch told Vance that many Jews would not be voting for Carter because they feared “that if he is reelected he will sell them out.”

“Vance,” recalled Koch, “nodded and said, ‘He will.’ ”

In Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn revealed that during a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the Jewish community, snapped, “If I get back in, I’m going to [expletive] the Jews.”

Carter – such was the country’s good fortune – did not get back in. But as evidenced by his years of pro-Palestinian advocacy, reams of anti-Israel op-ed articles, and the release last week of his latest book/screed, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, he’s been trying to [expletive] the Jews ever since.


http://angrywhitedude.com/2009/04/jimmy-carter-the-idiot-that-wont-go-away/

http://frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/jimmy-carter-and-the-politics-of-apology-%E2%80%93-by-jacob-laksin/

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jimmy Carter is no stranger to apologies. The former president has spent years making excuses for Hamas, championing the Palestinian jihadists as the embattled victims of Israeli aggression – the group’s exterminationist founding charter and record of terrorism notwithstanding. Now it’s Israel’s turn to profit from Carter’s dubious public relations tactics.

After years of demonizing the Jewish state on the world stage, Carter at last has seen the error of his ways. Or so he says: Last week, Carter issued a statement to the Jewish community in which he apologized for his role in tarnishing Israel’s image and, invoking a traditional Jewish prayer, asked for forgiveness.

“I never intended or wanted to stigmatize the nation of Israel, even though I have disagreed with the settlement policy all the way back to the White House,” Carter reportedly said. He also urged that “[w]e must recognize Israel’s achievements under difficult circumstances,” and that “we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel.”

In completely unrelated news, Carter’s grandson, 34-year old Atlanta attorney Jason Carter, is running for a state senate seat in a suburban Georgia community that just happens to be home to a proportionally small but politically significant Jewish population.

If Carter’s conversion to nuance on the issue he has long viewed through a thoroughly anti-Israel lens seems more than a trifle expedient, it is. This after all is the man whose 2007 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, notoriously equated democratic Israel with South Africa’s regime of racist discrimination. The author now suggests that he overstated his case, and that he regrets the book’s inflammatory title. Carter remains critical of Israeli settlements, but he now allows that Palestinians aren’t actually suffering under the yoke of racist apartheid. His mistake

For Israel’s supporters, that concession, however self-evident, could still be welcome. Yet it’s difficult to see Carter’s mea culpa as a genuinely good-faith effort to undo the damage his campaigning has done to Israel’s reputation. Most conspicuously, there is the convenient timing of his contrition, which comes as his grandson aims to fill a post vacated by Jewish politician – David Adelman, now the Obama administration’s nominee for ambassador to Singapore – in a district with an influential Jewish community. In such circumstances, having one of the world’s preeminent detractors of the Jewish state as a direct relative is not exactly a selling point.

Even if opportunism doesn’t fully explain Carter’s apology, his second thoughts remain deeply suspect. Just days before airing his regrets, Carter published an op-ed in London’s Guardian that rehearsed many of the anti-Israel tropes for which he now purports to be sorry.

In making a case for a renewed Middle Eastern peace process, Carter excused Arab intransigence (“no Arab or Islamic nation will accept any comprehensive agreement while Israel retains control of East Jerusalem”); whitewashed Palestinian terrorism (Carter made only an oblique reference “Palestinian recalcitrance”); and blamed Israel and Israeli leaders for the failure of past negotiations even as he exempted Palestinians from comparable scrutiny.

Equally deplorable, if typical, was Carter’s one-sided and selective account of the background of the conflict. Though lamenting the “intense personal suffering” of Palestinians living “under siege in Gaza” in the aftermath of last year’s war, Carter never mentioned the relentless eight-year rocket bombardment of Israeli cities and villages that forced the Israeli offensive. Similarly, Carter denounced Israel’s reluctance to allow the shipment of construction materials like cement into Gaza, but failed to note both that Israel has indeed allowed some limited shipment of materials and the reason why it has to screen such shipments in the first place: Construction materials are routinely used by Palestinian terrorists to build rockets and fortifications. In yet another revisionist flourish, Carter accused Israel of destroying Palestinian schools and hospitals with “precision bombs missiles” during the Gaza war, while omitting the critical fact that they often served as havens for Hamas gunmen who tried to exploit the Israeli military’s restraint and its reluctance to strike civilian targets.

But nothing betrayed Carter’s biases as plainly as the one concrete proposal he offered to begin the peace process: urging the United Nations Security Council to pass even more resolutions condemning Israel. It was precisely the kind of stigmatization of Israel for which Carter would reject within days. Apologizing for such attacks apparently did not mean abandoning them.

Unfairly singling out Israel for criticism is not the worst of Carter’s sins. After all, the United Nations, whose Goldstone report is only the most recent example of the agency’s anti-Israel animus, has long made a habit of doing just that. Far more harmful to the interests of enduring peace in the Middle East is the ex-president’s longtime courtship of Hamas terrorists.

Carter has made no secret of that sinister partnership. On his travels to the Palestinian territories, Carter routinely sings the terrorist group’s praises, assuring all who will listen that, were it not for Israel’s belligerence, Hamas long ago would have accepted a ceasefire and laid down its arms. At times, Carter’s apologetics have gone from the merely credulous to the pernicious, as when he claimed that the tunnel networks that Hamas used to attack and kidnap Israeli soldiers were really “defensive” structures.

That the United States and Europe consider Hamas a terrorist group has not dampened Carter’s enthusiasm for the jihadists. In January 2006, he called on the international community to defy laws on terrorism financing and launder money to Hamas in the form of relief aid. Not even Hamas leaders themselves can convince Carter that peace is the furthest thing from their intentions. Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Meshal has never hidden his support for suicide terrorism and has called destroying Israel the “destiny” of the Palestinian people. That didn’t keep Carter from seeking out Meshal for a friendly chat about peace negotiations in the spring of 2008.

If Carter truly feels that an apology is in order, he might consider atoning for his role in promoting a terrorist organization that has murdered thousands of Israelis, brutalized its fellow Palestinians, poisoned the political climate in the region, and destroyed any hope for a present-day peace settlement. But that sorry contribution to the peacemaking that Carter still claims as his life’s work would require something more substantial than a bankrupt and cynically proffered apology.

The Israeli lobby says so...it must be true!

most seem to forget that in 1967 the arab world attacked isreal and in defending themselves obtained lands from conquering those that attacked them

one major problem in the world today (whether it be the global world or the personal world) is that people seem to forget there are consequences for their actions

as it goes, I have always liked Carter too,,,,substance that seems to not correlate to popularity or wealth,, a genuine man

No kidding? A peace negotiator meeting with the other side?
Hahahaha!



Respect for the dead.... and respect for someone he has met on many occasions




YOU Sir, should be thanking Carter for Shalit's release!



Uh... Cause Blair was?
and it was just as "unquestioning" as US support for Israel


Slow! You have a foot on a banana peel and the other in the coffin when it comes to Carter... Way to go!
Your feverish search on Carter's faut pas... has shined a bright light on your intentions here... Smear Carter???? Even for a Canadian, It's unacceptable!

Carter has smeared himself!

http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.ch/2006/12/jimmy-carters-arab-money-train.html

Jimmy Carter's Arab Money Train

They say that you can't know someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes -- or in Jimmy Carter's case, until they've bought you a thousand dollar pair of shoes or two.

Having read a lot about Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, all the imponderables fell into place upon reading Rachel Ehrenfeld's op/ed in todays WashTimes about all the millions of dollars of Arab money that have been stuffed into Carter's pockets over the years.

It all started 30 years ago, a scant two years before Carter was sworn in as our worst president, when his peanut business received a "bailout in the form of a $4.6 million, 'poorly managed' and highly irregular loan from the National Bank of Georgia," which was in kahoots with the "bank that would bribe God," the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

BCCI's motto?

BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. [Founder Agha Hasan] Abedi wanted the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and "the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."

Ehrenfeld goes on through the decades to detail the continuous river of petrodollars that have kept the Carters in luxury and presidential libraries. I lost count at $6.7 million plus "hundreds of millions" of Gulf donations to Carter's presidential library.

Carter's response? I'm not sure, but it could be something along the lines of "Rachel Ehrenfeld? That sounds like a Jew name."

Carter’s Arab financiers
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/dec/20/20061220-092736-3365r/

The Man is deeply indebted to the Arabs!

This thread has been edited of derogatory comments
aimed at members rather than the Topic.

soufie
Site Moderator

It is truly a shame. Carter has disgraced himself terribly.
Carter has become politcally a pariah due to his disrespect
for current administration's foreign policy work, his close
relationship to war criminals like Hamas and the hilarious
book which tries to compare Israel to apartheid S Africa.

Carter lost all credibility long ago along with his relevance.

It is a blot on the Presidency as well as personally shameful.

I kind of feel sorry for him.

http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2008/04/president-carte.html

Hamas: President Carter will meet with Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal

Another press release issued by the terrorist thugs of Hamas claim President Carter is set to meet with the exiled terrorist leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, who lives in Syria. The U.S. has asked Syria to arrest Mashaal in the past. There is also a video from Al Jazeera about the meeting below.

The Carter camp does not deny the meeting will take place stating they cannot confirm the meeting. Right. The press release states Carter is going to talk about the release of the Israli soldier captures in 2006. There is obviosly something to it because our State Department is advising him not to do it:

"We have counseled the former president about having such a meeting," said State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack, adding the advice was not to go ahead with such talks. US government policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't believe it is in the interests of our policy or in the interests of peace to have such a meeting," he told reporters when asked about Carter's plans.

Doesn't talking to our enemy behind the backs of officials representatives of the U.S. government falls under the scope of a treasonist act of some kind? The shame of Carter continues.

Bringing this back a little closer to home we find that there is a connection between Hamas and Oklahoma that goes back a few years. Mufid Abdulqader is the younger half-brother of Khaled Mashaal. Abdulqader married a girl named Diane from Oklahoma in 1985, went to college at OSU, and then worked for the Oklahoma State Department of Transportation. He moved to Dallas shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. He is a defendant in the Holy Land Terror Funding retrial that will take place this coming August. From Discoverthenetworks we know that a video placed Mashaal and Abdulqader in Oklahoma City in 1992:

A 1992 video places Abdulqader and Mashal together at a major Hamas fundraising conference in Oklahoma City, where Abdulqader and his fellow Al Sakhra members, all wearing traditional kaffiyeh headscarves and desert robes, sang: "I have nerves of steel, and no threats scare me. Only the one who is proud of carrying the rifle will succeed. No to the peace conference! Yes to jihad!"