By JEFF EMANUEL
August 9, 2006
Former President Jimmy Carter, winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development," went on record after this year's Palestinian elections with a new catchphrase: "Give Hamas a chance." I wonder, with the recent developments in the Gaza strip, if he still thinks that is a good idea.
Sure, Carter admitted shortly after the election, Hamas may consist of "so-called terrorists," and may "deny Israel's right to exist" -- but at least "there have been no complaints of corruption against [their] elected officials"! Spoken like a true international pollwatcher -- especially one who claims there is "no doubt" that Gore won the 2000 election, and who certified a Venezuelan election "so rigged in favor of President Hugo Chavez that even the European Union refused to play an observer's role."
Pardon me if the words of the man who was arguably the worst President in our history (oil lines, malaise, and under-the-table dealings with the murderous, totalitarian leader of the Soviet Union in an effort to team up and defeat Ronald Reagan in 1980 -- including telling Leonid Brezhnev that Reagan wanted to start a nuclear war once he became president), and inarguably the worst ex-President ever (certified elections in Haiti that ultimately led to a coup, endorsement of the rigged election of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and support for Kim Jong-Il's North Korea and for Castro's Cuba, and anti-American statements at every stop he makes worldwide), do not give us immediate pause, but, in my humble opinion, Carter's track record -- at decision making, identifying rogue dictatorships, and spotting rigged elections when he sees them -- leaves just a bit to be desired.
In a Washington Post op-ed shortly after the election, Carter urged patience with the "transition process" in the Palestinian territories, pointing out that President Mahmoud Abbas still has a good deal of power, especially since, "with nine of its elected members remaining in prison, Hamas has only 65 votes" in the 132-seat (123 if those nine are subtracted, preserving a majority) Parliament.
The former President warned America and Israel that treating the Hamas terrorist organization like -- well, like a terrorist organization -- could be unwise. "During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government," he said, "it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences."
This "punishment of the Palestinian people" he refers to includes the cutting off of the "humanitarian aid" that the US ($300 million) and, unbeknownst to most on the Left (and, most likely, to most within Palestine), Israel ($50 million) give to the Palestinian Authority monthly. Just why it would be wise to give over $4.2 billion annually to a terrorist organization, in hopes that they would use it for something other than bombs and guns -- for which they have used the vast majority of their funding in the past -- is unclear.
Carter claimed that Hamas was "inherit[ing] a bankrupt government," and said that, knowing this, "U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel." Perhaps there would be more labor and more money to pay for it, had Hamas not invested so much money and energy since 2000 carrying out over 500 terrorist attacks, killing 390 and injuring 2,100 innocent Israeli schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police, and maintenance personnel -- and that was before this latest escalation.
America "has not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services." Of course, we should be more than willing to trust the UN to be capable of properly distributing our aid and money, and of keeping order. Just ignore the oil-for-food scandal, the refugee sex trade conducted by UN peacekeepers in Rwanda, and the anarchy in Haiti, among all of the other examples. Actually, better ignore anything the UN has ever touched, lest one be dissuaded from ever trusting them again.
"This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials...may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies," finished Carter--although even he was sane enough to recognize that Hamas will "not soon take the...steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist."
Listening to Jimmy Carter, on this matter or almost any other, would be a mistake, as World Net Daily CEO Joseph Farah has succinctly pointed out. Move America Forward has even launched a campaign to reprimand the erstwhile former President, launching the website CensureCarter.com in late May, and airing television commercials detailing Carter's errors.
Israel and the world would be best served by treating this most recent escalation of violence in the Middle East -- both with Carter-endorsed Hamas, and with Iran-backed Hezbollah -- as what it is: a (necessary) opportunity to fight terrorists in their territory, rather than in Israel, and to severely damage the machinery of violent anti-Semitism in the region. As has been pointed out here, Israel must ignore the calls for a "proportional response," and establish the precedent that the consequences for inciting violence against it will be so great that any decision to do so would be beyond sheer madness.
This presidential election should be a "no-brainer." It's so obvious that Obama is an empty suit. Apparently, a few of the people that read his book told him he should run for president. I can't think of any other explanation.
He is touted as a "rock star." They are even planning for him to give his acceptance speech at a stadium that will hold more people swooning over him. With the world on the brink of Armageddon, the last thing we need is a rock star for president.
On a lighter note, how about the "green" menu for the Democrats' convention? I think Obama may lose the Denver caterers' vote! Now I know why I'm a Republican after 36 years o!f loyalty to the Democrats!
A reporter asked Nobel Prize winner Albert Schweitzer, "What is the major short coming of mankind"? Schweitzer's answer was short and to the point, he said; "Man doesn't think."
My challenge to McCain=Bush supporters is this. THINK; The economy was in good shape when Bush came to office. We did not have a deficit, we had a $127 billion surplus. Goldman Sachs forecasts that the federal deficit will skyrocket under the Bush Administration to a whopping $425 billion for year 2008 to and to $440 billion in 2009.
In Clinton's last year in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion. Congress raised the debt ceiling three times in three years to increase the government's borrowing authority by as much as $800 billion. The debt limit amounted to a grand total of more than $2 trillion during Bush's first term forcing the United States to borrow money from governments such as China and foreign investors. The more the interest we pay on this debt the less is available for health care, education and other programs. The debt is currently on track to reach the $6.5 trillion mark by 2011.
Bush Tax Cuts has created the largest deficit ever, leaving future generations to pay the bill. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy. Two years later Bush pushed through another tax cut because the first one did not work. In 2003, President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation's history with his tax cutting with no cutting in spending. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan's biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB's outrageous spending.
The Post reported that White House budget director Joshua B. Bolton attributes 23% of the nation's deficit to the three successive Bush tax cuts. Sources: Washington Post, The "White House Foresees 5-Year Debt Increase of $1.9 Trillion" Two recently released Census Bureau reports show that median household income declined 1.1 percent in real terms from the 2001 figure to $42,409. The number of people in the US living in poverty has risen for the second year in a row to 34.6 million, an increase of nearly 3 million people since 2000. The proportion of Americans living in poverty increased to 12.1 percent in 2002 from 11.7 percent in 2001—an additional 1.7 million people in poverty. Sources: Frederick, Md. News-Post, Bush Tax Cuts Lead to Largest Deficit Ever, Leaving Future Generations to Shoulder the Burden.
Bush Claims He's Not Rich. Bush and first lady Laura Bush had income totaling $822,126 last year, and according to the Wall Street Journal, their net worth is somewhere between $7.7 and $18.9 million. Under Bush, The Rich Get Richer. The Associated Press reports that the total net worth of America's richest people rose 10 percent to $955 billion this year from 2002.
The McCains have a net worth around $40 million, almost all of it from Cindy's holdings. The Obamas' net worth is closer to $4 million, most of it earned from Barack's two recent books. John McCain supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent rather than allowing them to expire, as they are scheduled to do under current law. Now, John McCain runs around saying things like, "The Democrats have already ... told us they will increase our taxes." Who do you think McCain means when he says "our"?
Bush=McCain, has had 7 years with a republican congress to correct the employment problems in this country and he has done little or nothing to help American workers. Now McCain is trying to con the workers into believing that he will solve their problems if they vote for him. McCain has the insensitivity to arrogantly tell workers at a factory in Belleville, Mich., Thursday: (07-10-08) that "America is hurting today. Michigan is hurting today." What an insult to their intelligence, they know that because they are the ones that are hurting. This is pre-election rhetoric (BS) to get the working peoples votes by conning them into believing that he is sensitive to their plight and that he will create good jobs for them. If America is cursed by some fluke that McCain gains the presidency he will help the working class just as he has done in the past which is nothing. McCain's constituency is the wealthy class that he belongs to which is the oil companies, the war machine and the corporate CEO hogs. McCain will continue to lavish them with tax breaks and corporate subsidies at the expense of the working class.
McCain's lifetime rating from the ACU, considered the authority on conservative rankings, is that 82.3% of McCain's votes supported Bush's policies. McCain=Bush is a strong supporter of the Iraq war which is a major contributor to the deficit and supports a long term military occupation of Iraq.
The Republicans have had eight years to improve the economy, you decide from the facts, have they?
THINK! Do you want more of the McSame. (AKA McCain)
Post new comment