May 28, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Joanne Puglia of Dresher thinks the Bush administration was WAY out of line for striking back at former prez Jimmy Carter's harsh words about it:

How dare White House spokesman Tony Fratto dismiss former President Jimmy Carter as "increasingly irrelevant" after Carter criticized the Bush administration (May 21)? When was the last time Fratto or Bush constructed a Habitat for Humanity home? When was the last time they authored a well-received book on the continuing crisis in the Middle East, complete with ideas and suggestions based on years of presidential experience? For that matter, when was the last time Bush articulated the strategy for a peace process in the Middle East? Sadly, it is Bush and his administration that are "irrelevant."

Aside from building those homes (AFTER his pathetic presidency), the only success Carter can really point to is the Camp David agreement that established peace between Israel and Egypt. Let's take a look elsewhere:

  • Unemployment was over 10%,
  • inflation was over 15%,
  • the USSR rumbled into Afghanistan,
  • Communists took over in Nicaragua,
  • Iranians held American hostages for 444 days,
  • botched hostage rescue operation

And his book -- Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid?? Puh-lease. It caused the resignation of 14 members (15, eventually) of the Carter Center advisory board because of its one-sided "analysis" of the Israel-Palestinian problem. One CC advisor says that on page 213 of the book Carter goes so far as to actually condone Palestinian terrorism until they get a state of their own. Another former Carter Center advisor says the book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

The book was "well-received," Joanne? If 15 members of Carter's own center resign over the book, who is "receiving" it "well"? The Palestinians? Probably. And most likely the utopian Left of which Carter arguably is a member.


"So I held my hands on Arafat's
head like this and said
'You are a great man!'"

Posted by Hube at May 28, 2007 09:50 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

# Unemployment was over 10%
# inflation was over 15%

Pulling both off at once was a third accomplishment in my book. Prior to Carter, many economists thought double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment were mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Xrlq at May 28, 2007 06:57 PM

Hube, you are showing your abject and total ignorance of the history of the Middle East. Either that, or you are not responding to your knowledge in any sort of a reasonable manner.

I admit that I have not yet read his book, but I have heard him interviewed about it and think he is pretty much on target.

We can see his thesis playing out in the daily news, that Israel (and the US) continue to starve the Palestinians by withholding from them payment of taxes collected in their behalf, preventing travel about in their own territory, expanding settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank and in Jerusalem, and capturing duly elected Hamas leaders, not to mention the bombings of civilian property as retaliation against mortar fire.

I have great sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, very little for the Israelis, except for great sympathy for them and their ancestors who suffered due to the Holocaust. However, the Holocaust tragedy cannot be brought to bear on the Palestinians who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust, yet suffer mightily in order to provide a homeland for the Jews, as determined by colonial powers and victors in wars.

Tell me what is wrong with this, Hube?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6543594

Posted by: Perry Hood at May 28, 2007 11:16 PM

When Carter says you're doing something wrong, you must be doing something right. He may not be the worst President of the 20th century, Harding has that locked up, but he's in the bottom three or four.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at May 29, 2007 10:09 AM

Spare me the usual pompous meanderings, Perry. It is YOU who are showing complete and utter ignorance on the matter. I've written myriad times about Israel here; just use the search function. Read the history of the struggles of Israel. I am not going to go into the details of how you are so pathetically on the wrong side of this issue except to say that for a country whose surrounding neighbors wanted (and want) nothing less than its total annihilation, Israel is doing a pretty damn good job. You got that, Perry? TOTAL ANNIHILATION.

And maybe you can ask yourself this simple question: Why is it that the Palestinians' "friends" -- the Egyptians and Jordanians, mainly -- didn't allow the Palestinians their own homeland per UN mandate back in 1948? It wasn't the JEWS or the Americans, Perry. Palestine had its state. It was the Arabs that prevented it from coming into existence, all because of their visceral hatred of Jews. They attacked the nascent Jewish state, were defeated handily, and hence the problem we have now. (Not to mention a little thing called the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, too, but hey, they were Israel's fault too, according to ignoramuses like you, right Perry?)

Please don't talk to me about "ignorance" or "knowledge," especially when it's a clue that you are sorely lacking -- especially on this topic.

Try, for starters, today's Philly Daily News editorial section. Oh, and don't forget why those 15 people resigned. And why won't Carter debate various folks about his book, notably Alan Dershowitz? Doesn't sound like he's very confident. He even admitted the "apartheid" in the title was erroneous, but he left it there to "provoke discussion." Geez, I just wrote a whole post about falsehoods being disseminated all in the name of "provoking discussion." It's so much bulls***.

Posted by: Hube at May 29, 2007 06:11 PM

No meanderings, Hube, just statements of fact with my own opinion included.

Anyone who would even attempt to argue only the Israeli side is pathetically politically immature, just like our Middle East policy has been for decades.

You did not even bother to respond to my points, instead launching into one of your typically arrogant tirades and personal innuendo.

All that said, it is certainly true that the Arab nations have played the Palestinians as pawns, motivated by their hatred of the Jews, and the reverse is true on the Israeli side, continuing to this very day as I pointed out before.

Here, check this out Hube:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1219/p01s04-wome.html

And this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0227/p06s01-wome.html?s=widep

The hatred is on both sides, but to me the long overlooked Palestinian side is way past due for compassion, retribution and return, including the pre-1967 boundaries. The US has a huge political/diplomatic role to play in all this, which if successful could work well in our interest as well as the entire Middle East. What the hell is Bush waiting for??? Could even help in pacifying Iraq with additional cooperation gleaned from their Arab and Persian neighbors.

Posted by: Perry Hood at May 31, 2007 06:22 PM

As a matter of fact, the hatred ISN'T on both sides, Perry. This is why your naivete is not only stupid, it is dangerous.

Do Israelis purposely target Arab women and children for suicide attacks? Do Israeli schools purposely omit Arab countries from their maps? Do Israelis refer to Arabs as less than human (usually some sort of dirty animal)? And what's more, do Israelis want to obliterate Arabs from the face of the Earth?

The answer, Perry, is "no." (This is excluding the usual miniscule # of nuts who DO think so. Unfortunately, the "nuts" number quite significantly -- as in a majority -- in Arabs countries.)

When you actually make sense, I'll consider responding to whatever "point" you have. Until then, you're just an ignorant old man.

Posted by: Hube at May 31, 2007 06:32 PM

Here is Hube's idea of debate: ...you're just an ignorant old man.

Obnoxious, Hube!

Aside from the examples I've already cited, I would also cite the recent Israeli invasion into Southern Lebanon. Israeli hatred for Arabs is quite obvious from their actions. If your bias does not allow you to see that the hatred is on both sides, there is nothing I could say to dissuade you. So be it, unfortunately!

Posted by: Perry Hood at June 1, 2007 08:30 AM

Perry's idea of a debate: "Hube, you are showing your abject and total ignorance of the history of the Middle East," all the while proving not a damn thing.

Once again, Perry, it is not my job here to provide "balance." You want that, flip on a news channel. That's more balanced. Second, regarding the Israeli invasion of Lebanon -- are you friggin' serious??? As Lebanon allowed the various terror groups to keep launching rockets and other attacks against Israel, the Perrys of the world expect the Israelis to do what -- say "That's OK!"?? The Israeli "hatred" of Arabs just MIGHT be induced by the visceral desire of Arabs to KILL Israel and Israelis for ... being Jewish. 'Ya think?

As I said, debate with YOU on this matter is futile because you haven't one iota of a CLUE. Don't waste my time until you do. Get it?

Posted by: Hube at June 1, 2007 01:59 PM

At least you could quote me completely, Hube. Here is what I wrote: "Hube, you are showing your abject and total ignorance of the history of the Middle East. Either that, or you are not responding to your knowledge in any sort of a reasonable manner."

That aside, even the Israeli's themselves are dissatisfied with the their attack on Lebanon, as evidenced by Olmert's very shaky hold on power, and Perez about to lose his position.

Moreover, the collateral damage was horrific. They make the same exact mistakes we have been making in Iraq, that is, there is no way to win a war when the enemy is embedded in the civilian population. To attempt to do so breeds more animosity and hatred, in addition to the native reaction to being occupied by perceived hostile forces.

A negotiated political settlement is the only way, like in Northern Ireland. The Israeli leaders do not want such a solution, although their people do. Note how Israel always puts pre-conditions on negotiations; moreover, they insist on choosing their "partner". How about a partner that has been duly elected?

Here is something you can give your students, Hube, to get them going on some research and discussion of the issues regarding Palestine: "For the Palestinians the last 100 years have brought colonisation, expulsion and military occupation, followed by a long and difficult search for self-determination and for coexistence with the nation they hold responsible for their suffering and loss.

For the Jewish people of Israel, the return to the land of their forefathers after centuries of persecution around the world has not brought peace or security. They have faced many crises as their neighbours have sought to wipe their country off the map. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/default.stm

Your pre-conditions for debate utilize exactly the same tactic as Israel's government. All this does is shut off discussion; nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Posted by: Perry Hood at June 1, 2007 06:15 PM

*Yawn* As I said Perry, when you have a semblance of a clue, THEN we can have debate. You don't, so we can't.

Here is something you can give your students, Hube

See? You don't have a clue! I teach SPANISH, clueless. Sheesh.

Posted by: Hube at June 1, 2007 08:32 PM

Because you don't want to debate, Hube, not surprising, as you continually resort to personal attacks.

And I'm supposed to know that you teach Spanish? I made a guess and got it wrong. Come to think of it, I'm happy for students that you don't teach history or something related, because you have demonstrated on here with me your inability/unwillingness to step back and see all sides; your pro-Israeli anti-Palestinian bias is unfettered by fact-based intellect and reason.

Posted by: Perry Hood at June 2, 2007 11:54 AM

What do you want to debate, Perry? Really, what precisely do you want to debate? That there's a moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians/Arabs? THERE IS NOT. If this is what you truly believe, there is NO reason to "debate" you because your moral equivalence is not only wrong, it is repugnant. It is almost akin to claiming there is a moral equivalence between the Nazis and the Jews; the only difference this time is that the Jews are not taking it sitting down in grim acceptance.

BTW -- I am also a certified social studies teacher, having taught the subject(s) before Spanish. You really ought to have sat in on some of my classes -- your ignorance level would be a fraction of what it is now.

Posted by: Hube at June 2, 2007 12:23 PM

BTW, my view does NOT mean that I believe Israel inviolate of any criticism. However, they are under NO moral obligation to withdraw from the West Bank until many more demands are met, not the least of which is a renunciation of violence by various states/groups and formal recognition of their right to exist. People can yell and scream about UN Resolution this and UN Resolution that which demand Israel do this or that; however, just as the Jim Crow South had "laws," they were clearly immoral and had to be changed. And fights had to be waged to change them.

Posted by: Hube at June 2, 2007 12:36 PM

Let's start with the modern era problem regarding Palestine, the Zionist movement in the 1890's, a movement of "God's chosen people" to reclaim the "Holy Land", based on Biblical teachings and prophecies. Territorial acquisition cannot be based on faith based proclamations which then displaces the residents of said territory, those now referred to as "The Palestinians". But that is exactly what has happened!

"The First Zionist Congress met in Basle, Switzerland, to discuss the ideas set out in Theodor Herzl's 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). Herzl, a Jewish journalist and writer living in Vienna, wanted Jews to have their own state - primarily as a response to European anti-Semitism.

The Congress issued the Basle Programme to establish a "home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured by public law" and set up the World Zionist Organisation to work for that end."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm

Then twenty some years later western forces were to mandate a portion of Palestine a homeland for the Jewish people:

"In 1916 the British Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, had promised the Arab leadership post-war independence for former Ottoman Arab provinces.

However, at the same time, the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between war victors, Britain and France, divided the region under their joint control.

Then in 1917, the British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour committed Britain to work towards "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", in a letter to leading Zionist Lord Rothschild. It became known as the Balfour Declaration."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1917.stm

These two actions set in motion the Arab-Israeli conflict which now, almost one hundred years later has grown and festered unresolved, exacerbated by the militancy of the State of Israel to expand their territory even beyond that granted to them by UN mandate in 1948.

"The State of Israel, the first Jewish state for nearly 2,000 years, was proclaimed at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv. The declaration came into effect the following day as the last British troops withdrew. Palestinians remember 15 May as "al-Nakba", or the Catastrophe.

The year had begun with Jewish and Arab armies each staging attacks on territory held by the other side. Jewish forces, backed by the Irgun and Lehi militant groups made more progress, seizing areas alloted to the Jewish state but also conquering substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one.

Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April. Word of the massacre spread terror among Palestinians and hundreds of thousands fled to Lebanon, Egypt and the area now known as the West Bank."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

Thus you have the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem by force of violence.

Since then it has essentially been a David and Goliath battle, with Goliath empowered by American and Western European Jewish interests and the military superiority that this has furnished.

Isn't it obvious to you who are the principle victims of this violent, decades long encounter? It is to me!

Posted by: Perry Hood at June 6, 2007 09:13 AM

Perry: *Yawn* As I said, your ignorance is staggering. Not only that, but the BBC is notoriously anti-Israel. The United Nations currently is too, but at least they provide a balanced account of what transpired in the late 1940s.

Read and learn, from none other than the UN:
Link.

On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the Partition Plan. Fierce hostilities immediately intensified between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the Arab States entered the territory to assist Palestinian Arabs.

Etc.

Posted by: Hube at June 6, 2007 03:44 PM

Hube, you don't debate. Instead you lead with a personal attack, then, rather than responding to any point made, you divert.

You are like a bright high school kid who is not yet able to step back and connect some important dots, instead relying on rote from some earlier preachings.

Anyway, to your point: To a Palestinian, the British Mandate was made without their concurrence, correct? That was unacceptable and still is. Who can blame the Palestinians and their Arab allies for fighting against that political mandate? Is this much different from we Americans giving aid and backing to Israel down through the last century to the present? I don't think so!

Now to mine: You said nothing about the justifications for territorial grabs by the Zionist insurgents into Palestine. Were they proper? Legal?

Moreover, you ignored the impact on the Palestinians of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1917 followed by the Balfour pronouncement to make an "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". This is insignificant, you imply by your silence.

In addition, as a Palestinian would you not be highly disturbed and inflamed by the UN Mandate of 1948 proclaiming and defining a State of Israel on Palestinian lands? Who cares about the Palestinians, I ask you Hube?

How could you ever accept this? But the Palestinians finally have, giving up more than 50% of their former lands.

So what is the Israeli response currently? Their response is to strangle the Palestinians economically, to expand their settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank, to arbitrarily arrest duly elected Palestinian leaders, to build walls, and to refuse to negotiate with any Palestinian leader except those whom the Israelis define as partners.

Is it any wonder, then, that extremists continue to send a few mortar shells into occupied regions? I don't think so! The Israeli response is to invade and to occupy more.

Is it even any wonder that extremists like Hamas and Hezbollah arise and become attractive to these downtrodden Palestinians? I don't condon their behavior, but I understand how circumstances have created these forces, just as is happening in Iraq as a response to the Cheney/Bush insurgency.

Violence and occupation secure neither victory nor resolution, the reverse in fact, Palestine and Iraq being two prime examples. When will we utilize the full force of diplomacy and compromise to resolve these issues? Never, I'm afraid, as long as those of your ilk, Hube, continue to be decision makers. What will it take for you to realize this reality?

Posted by: Perry Hood at June 7, 2007 08:49 AM

It must be noted that the unresolved refugee problem is an outstanding open sore, untreated, unresolved.

Palestinian refugees, over a million now multiplied to over four million, two generations later now, continue to live in refugee camps principally in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Nothing has been done regarding return or even compensation. They have been displaced from their homeland, many in 1948-49, and more in 1967.

What has been/is being done about this? Nothing!!!

Posted by: Perry Hood at June 7, 2007 08:58 AM

Perry, once again you really need to get off your high horse. When YOU stop with your constant usual intros about how "Hube, as always, ignores the facts," "shows his ignorance," yada yada yada, then maybe you'll actually have a POINT about so-called personal attacks.

As I wrote back a-ways, I am not going to "debate" this matter here. I've done it ad nauseum on this blog already, and besides, we will not change each other's minds. (If you wish, again, search this blog under the various topics.) BTW, when you actually PROVIDE some "important dots," I'll be happy to acknowledge them.

Palestine was NOT a state and it was occupied by both Arabs and Jews during the time of the British Mandate. Granted, the UN's solution was not perfect, but it was the best option available. The Palestinians HAD their state. Yes, some (many) were not happy about the UN Partition Plan, but neither were many Jews. Yet, the Jews accepted the Plan; the Palestinians rejected it. Instead, they decided that they wanted ALL THE LAND of the former Mandate and utilized the surrounding Arab armies to attempt to possess it. Yes, "David and Goliath," Perry. But not as you thought.

Why did Egypt and Jordan take over the area set aside for the Palestinians during the first war in the late 40s, Perry? Why did they not give it [back] to the Palestinians as it was by the UN? Oh, but you see, it is much easier to use Israel as a scapegoat -- much as it has for over 50 years now.

At any rate, let's go to it, just this once:

To a Palestinian, the British Mandate was made without their concurrence, correct? That was unacceptable and still is. Who can blame the Palestinians and their Arab allies for fighting against that political mandate? Is this much different from we Americans giving aid and backing to Israel down through the last century to the present? I don't think so!

Except that, as I note above, "Palestine" was NOT a state, it was a British colony, and Arabs AND Jews lived there. (You seem to be under the impression there was little or no Jewish presence in Palestine at all.) And it IS different from the US backing Israel since Israel has not engaged in any wars of aggression aimed at OBLITERATING the enemy in its entirety.

You said nothing about the justifications for territorial grabs by the Zionist insurgents into Palestine. Were they proper? Legal?

What "land grabs"? During the '48 War? After (like in the Six Day War)? The UN Plan was "legal" in the sense that since neither national entity was a sovereign state at the time of the plan, there is no "legal" claim of such sovereignty. In terms of the occupied lands 1967-present, "legally" Israel is on precarious ground; however, since you also used "proper," I see little impropriety in their holding those lands until they have secured numerous security guarantees from the surrounding Arab parties.

Moreover, you ignored the impact on the Palestinians of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1917 followed by the Balfour pronouncement to make an "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

Since Jews were (are) significant portion of the population of Palestine, so? You act as if Jews have little or no national claim on the area.

In addition, as a Palestinian would you not be highly disturbed and inflamed by the UN Mandate of 1948 proclaiming and defining a State of Israel on Palestinian lands?

Probably. Except that many Jews were also "highly disturbed and inflamed" by the UN Mandate too. Yet, somehow, they seemed to accept it, imperfect a solution as it was. They did not seek to annihilate their Arab neighbors, but to live in peace w/them. The Palestinians wanted to eradicate the Jews. Again, "Palestinian lands" pre-Partition Plan also meant "Jewish lands."

Who cares about the Palestinians, I ask you Hube?

Certainly not their Arab brethren, else they'd have their state by now.

How could you ever accept this? But the Palestinians finally have, giving up more than 50% of their former lands.

Are you referring to the current state of land possession? If so, to say the "Palestinians finally have" is an example of why your views on this are disturbing. By "finally have" they have accepted Israel's right to exist? By stopping suicide bombers? Launching missiles into Israel? Get real.

So what is the Israeli response currently? Their response is to strangle the Palestinians economically, to expand their settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank, to arbitrarily arrest duly elected Palestinian leaders, to build walls, and to refuse to negotiate with any Palestinian leader except those whom the Israelis define as partners.

You forgot to mention "pull out of Gaza completely," but that's to be expected. "Arbitrarily arrest," huh? Pathetic. When the Palestinians insist on electing known terrorists as leaders who still promote terrorism against Israel, Israel has every right to arrest these scum.

Is it any wonder, then, that extremists continue to send a few mortar shells into occupied regions? I don't think so! The Israeli response is to invade and to occupy more.

Dude, do you even have a CLUE as to the nature of radical Islam? I suggest you listen to Christopher Hitchens here to become educated. As I said, your "view" on this is truly scary.

Is it even any wonder that extremists like Hamas and Hezbollah arise and become attractive to these downtrodden Palestinians?

And the Palestinians are "downtrodden" because of Israel. Despite the fact that 1) they had their own state but rejected it, 2) attempted to take ALL the former British Mandate with the "help" of the Arab buddies, 3) had most of their lands gobbled up by their Arab buddies (Egypt and Jordan), 4) lost THESE very lands because in 1967 the Pals and Arab buddies attempted to take ALL the former British Mandate AGAIN -- and lost. Lost big.

But it's Israel's fault. Uh-huh.

Violence and occupation secure neither victory nor resolution, the reverse in fact, Palestine and Iraq being two prime examples. When will we utilize the full force of diplomacy and compromise to resolve these issues?

I won't argue Iraq b/c I've been against that invasion since day one. And I also agree that eventually Israel is going to have to cede some [more] land for a lasting peace IF its Arab neighbors ever truly want such a peace. Bill Clinton, to his lasting credit, attempted exactly the diplomacy and compromise you note. And it led to ... Yassir Arafat REFUSING to accept a plan that would have gotten the Palestinians 95% of their former lands back. Now before you start, yes, the plan was imperfect -- every plan is. But there HAS to be a give and take. The Israelis gave; Arafat took ... and then refused.

Personally, if I was Israeli PM, I'd offer to give up most of the West Bank excepting certain security zone buffers. If this was unacceptable to the Palestinians, I'd basically give them a "take it or leave it" ultimatum. Considering the history of Arab aggression and utter hatred of Israel, security buffers are QUITE reasonable. In addition, if I were in charge of the Palestinians, the best way to achieve their goals, IMO, would be to adopt a Gandhi-like strategy of peaceful resistance. If that were implemented, I think you'd see Israel back out of more occupied areas sooner than you can shake a stick at it.

Posted by: Hube at June 7, 2007 02:40 PM

Still more for your education here, Perry, including arguments that the land taken in 1967 is quite legitimate since it was gained in a defensive war.

Posted by: Hube at June 7, 2007 08:24 PM

Looking at Carter's legacy more broadly, here is James Petras writing for Counterpunch--neither of which are 'right wing'

Beware Jimmy Carter!

Jimmy Carter is "the quiet American" of Graham Greene fame, who legitimates voter fraud, blesses corrupt elections, certifies murderous rulers, encourages elections, in which the opposition is funded by the US state and semi-public foundations, and the incumbent progressive regime suffers repeated violent disruption of the economy.

Behind the simple and humane fašade, Carter has a strategy to reverse progressive regimes and undermine insurgent democrats. Carter and his "team" from his Center probe and locate weaknesses among insecure democrats, particularly those under threat by US-backed opponents and thus vulnerable to Carter's appeals to be "pragmatic" and "realistic"--meaning his barely disguised arguments to accept fraudulent electoral results and gross US electoral intervention. Carter is a quiet master in mixing democratic rhetoric with manipulation of susceptible democrats who think he shares their democratic politics. The international mass media feature his self-promoted overseas trips to conflictual countries and above all his phony "human rights" record. The mass media provide Carter with the appearance of democratic credentials.

In fact, his frequent political interventions have been dedicated to sustaining dictators, legitimizing fraudulent elections and pressuring popular democratic candidates to capitulate before US-backed opponents. Carter has deliberately and systematically worked over the past quarter of a century to undermine progressive regimes and candidates and promote their pro-imperialist opponents.

---

--And lest we lose sight of what kind of president Carter was, here is Investor Business Daily's 10 Part Series on Carter: Profile In Incompetence, whom they call the worst president in history.

Posted by: Daled Amos at June 8, 2007 11:02 AM