WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, either your a brainless Democrat or never lived through that era!

By the way his own party did not want him at the 1984 Democratic National Convention for the embarassment he caused. Believe me his monker in 1976 was “Jimmy Who?’ Believe me it finds!

Let’s put the Carter years in perspective: gas lines, windfall profits tax that did nothing, failed energy policy with Congress controlled by his own party, the Fed chairman Carter picked with no economic experience that resigned one month into his tenure before he wisely picked Paul Volcker, mass firing of his cabinet more than two years into his adminstration, the “malaise” speech which said “I don’t know what is wrong with you people”, asking his daughter, Amy, for advice about nuclear weapons treaty, hostage crisis, failed hostage rescue mission with more movable parts than my car.

Panama Canal and Camp David treaties were started by Nixon and Ford and a monkey could have concluded those two. What did Jimmy Carter successful start and successful conclude?

If that’s really an honest belief, then I ask you if you REALLY think they would have resigned had Carter taken a “pro Israeli” bias as well? Or what if he had too harshly critisized Palestinians? Would they have resigned there too? It’s not because he “took sides” that’s being disingenuous, it’s because he critisized Israeli policies, which is apparently unacceptable. And ironically, the fact that such discussion is unacceptable is frankly proving his point. We can critisize Chinese foreign policy in Mongolia, but we can’t talk about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in any way which suggests its less than completely praiseworthy. Moreover, his book was about “PALESTINE” and not “ISRAEL” and if you watched his interviews he is careful not to attack Israel on its treatment of Arabs within israel, and instead discusses only Israeli policies in UN-mandated Palestinian lands (per Resolution 242).

Thirdly, I think your viewpoint suggests that you could not even DEFINE Pro-Israeli bias. What would such a bias look like? since you take it for granted that the Israeli’s are justified in all their policies, then I submit to you that you are in no position to lecture the former president on “biases” and on “neutrality.” You sir, have taken a side, far more in comparison to Mr. Carter, who has shown that he is the only politician brave enough to bring peace to the Middle East.

Carter’s latest revealing shows the same problen he had while President: he is for everything and stands for nothing. Nobel Peace Prize or not, the man gets less understandable the older he gets. When Gerald Ford died last month and his adminstration was put into historical perspective, it is a wonder we Americans elected Jimmy Carter to begin with. Carter never got anything accomplish that was his own. I know someone will write about the Panama Canal Treaty or Camp David Accords but his two precedessors had as much to do with those two diplomatic suceesses than Mr. Carter.

Jimmy Carter nearly destroyed the economy in the late 70s. More businesses folded under his tenure than any modern President. His latest books shows why this country denied him a second term, and for good reason.

Danny L. McDaniel

This is why I’ve tried to thrash out that cut and run expression. I agree with you guys 100% but I see is a major, fundamental problem and that is whether or not that very much needed and desired goal is attainable. I assume you see it as attainable. HOW is it attainable. That’s why I refer to Pantano about doing what’s needed to be done. Then I see that picture I gave you all the link to…. But I think I can get beyond the unintended consquences to children and others “in the way” – what I worry about as far as winning are at last two (2) things: the people we are fighting do not care if they die, and may see value to them and all their relatives in dying. (This is a major difference between the Cold War and probably Viet Nam – maybe some Japanese didnt care). Second problem is soethigs I’ve seen in on the news, war/soldier documentaries and read. That’s the excuse or explanation given by the Iraqis we seek to help. The Iraqi soldiers have this attitude of G’d (or Allah or whomever) willing the result or thier behavior then that’s he route they go. This fatalistic, out of my hands, blame Allah or Mohammed or whomever and take no responsibility for their country’s welfare.

So, this is why I believe many favor leaving. The perceived lack of a winning plan that will enable a win. The perception that we are putting troops into a no win situation (Viet Nam like) as far as the way the war is now fought or must be ethically fought. Our country has an aversion of doing the things that the dictators neededto use to keep the peace in their countries. And probably so do I – probably.

Did you pay attention to the part of Bush’s speech tha sai that we will NOW go into places tha were off limits? Did you know that we restricted the war to certain neighborhoods and places? I couldn’t believe I heard tha and the part about not worring about the various sectarian groups. Why would we be curtailing our fight like that?

(http://donnatoo.blogspot.com/2007/01/welcome-i-hope.html#links)

Now for the reason I’m posting this as a comment to the new post (which I heartily agree) is I want to know if anyone thinks this horrific picture and outcome is actually real? If so, what do you think? Here is the link to the post on this Iraqi’s blog. The post has the link but read the post.

(http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/iraq_dispatches/000511.php)

I linked to the blog from a what I thought was reputable blogroll at the time and which I can’t remember right now.