This had me laughing, although I am sure that wasn’t the intent.  It seems that in the wake of Jimmy Carter’s bad press, he felt the need to schlep out Walter “Fritz” Mondale, his Vice President. I guess this op-ed didn’t go over too well for Jimmy? Â
I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended.
Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.
Actually,since the book was published just over a month ago, people have claimed, about Carter, that;  the book is filled with factual errors,  he plagerized(stole) materials for the book, he refuses to have public debates about the subject, advisers to the Carter Center are quitting in droves, he’s got an offensive against US Jewry,   , he has a problem with Jews, and he interceded on behalf of a Nazi SS Guard .  See image of letter here. A better copy is here.
Carter goes on to say:
Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party’s overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy
That right there raised a huge red flag. In the case of the House, two of the most important functions related to foreign policy are budgetary authority and the right to decide on trade deals.Â
Congress can make foreign policy through:
- 1) — resolutions and policy statements
2) — legislative directives
3) — legislative pressure
4) — legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) — informal advice
6) — congressional oversight.
The President or the executive branch can make foreign policy through:
- 1) — responses to foreign events
2) — proposals for legislation
3) — negotiation of international agreements
4) — policy statements
5) — policy implementation
6) — independent action.
 William Buckley went into detail about  the constitutional dilemma facing the Democrats that I think you will find interesting.
So, with all of this in mind, i will leave you with a quote from Mondale.
Mondale: “If I had done as vice president what this vice president has done, Carter would have thrown me out of there,” Mondale said. “I don’t think he could have tolerated a vice president over there pressuring and pushing other agencies, ordering up different reports than they wanted to send us. I don’t think he would have stood for it.” ed-Of course he would have been angry. For 444 days, he was happy to do nothing as Iran held our people hostage!
Trackposted to 123 Beta, Wake Up America, Rightwing Guy, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The HILL Chronicles, Faultline USA, The Random Yak, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Phastidio.net, Thought Alarm, and Diggers Realm, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Carter a pig for all season, but isnt he in love with the Jihadist Barack Obama, ater all both may have been real good friends with Bin Laden.
IS NOT A JOKE.
“For 444 days, he was happy to do nothing as Iran held our people hostage!”
I don’t think that is a very fair statement. What are you suggesting that he should have done that he didn’t do? The hostages did end up coming home and no one died.
How about he do something other than appeasement Zelda. It was more than fair of me to say it. Democrats don’ even defend him on that! They didn’t get home because of him. They were released on the day of Reagan’s inauguration. It was Iran’s way of sending Jimmy a message.
Actually Zelda, people did die. The Iranians hung the CIA station chief and showed the video all over the tv. Carter also authorized a politically motivated and hence poorly planned rescue attempt that proved disastrous because it was driven not by what would work, but by what was most politically expedient. While the C-130 aircraft was perfectly suited to the mission, Sea Stallion helicopters were know to have problems flying in sandy environments but were used anyway as a means to insure that the Navy got to be a part of the rescue attempt. CH47 Chinooks are better equipped for desert operations but they are Army or (now) Marine aircraft and that would’ve left the Navy out of the equation. Better options were presented to Carter early on in the hostage situation and he refused to act on them. His refusal to continue to support our ally the Shah lead to the Iranian revolution. While the Shah was far from a saint, the resulting regime has been far worse in the name of Islam. Carter’s abrogation of Presidential power by signing the FISA act and implementing the recommendations of the Church commission towards gutting the US intelligence community has lead to the problems we are now having. Carter and the Democratic congress nearly destroyed our ability to gather human intelligence in favor of trying to rely on signal intelligence and satellites. The problem with that is that it only works when the enemy is using electronic communications, it doesn’t work at all when the enemy uses such low tech communications devices as paper, pencils, secret codes and messengers. These are the very kinds of communications that human intelligence intercepts.
BTW paper, pencil and messengers don’t require batteries, antennas, or give off heat or radio wave signatures.
Hey i can remember when WALLY MONDALE ran for president with ERALDINE FARARO and still the demacrats lost big:roll:
As FrmrArtyOffcr points out; President Carter did attempt a rescue mission (Although it was a horrible failure). Was he supposed to go to war with Iran? Should he have invaded? Should he have launched another rescue mission?
I see it as very similar to President Johnson’s actions when the North Koreans captured the USS Pueblo; and President Bush’s actions when a Chinese fighter crashed into an American spy plane and held our troops captive. President Bush even issued an apology letter.
My point is that I don’t think President Carter had any good options on the table.
“The Iranians hung the CIA station chiefâ€
“Carter’s abrogation of Presidential power by signing the FISA act and implementing the recommendations of the Church commission towards gutting the US intelligence community has lead to the problems we are now having.â€
Fair enough. I didn’t know…
7- My point is that I don’t think President Carter had any good options on the table. He had many good options on the table but chose not to do things properly. His party, the party of power, was willing to do what was necessary to get those people home and to address the problem..he ignored them. Yes, he had options.
Peejz he did its called mass bombing and the U.S.ARMY/MILITARY. By the way on june 6 1944 if we had stop sending troops after a few guys got killed what do you think would have happened?
THANK YOU Framrartyoffic great story.
sad, this War will be lost, for political reason of the one world ideals.
Carter is total evil.
“Yes, he had options.â€
Are there any similarities between President Carter in Iran and President Bush in Iraq?
Not at all. Carter had the window of opportunity to act in order to avoid much of what has happened in the region for the past 25 years..Bush is dealing with the by-product of Carter’s ineptness.
Zelda, now that you have been schooled, do you still have your basic ignorance?
12. “Bush is dealing with the by-product of Carter’s ineptness.”
That’s a pretty big stretch.
There is certainly some truth to that statement; but I think the same will be true of the President 30 years from now. I think President Bush has created a situation that America will still be dealing with in 30 years. And; in a much more significant and negative way than what we are dealing with in Iran. (Yes; Iran. I know the difference between the two unlike so many people that I talk to)
“Zelda, now that you have been schooled, do you still have your basic ignorance?â€
Please tell me. What is my basic ignorance? I don’t know what you are referring to.
You all know things that I do not (Just as I know things that you don’t know); and I listen to what you say so that I might educate myself. I have found as I grow older that most people don’t listen to others (so that they might educate themselves). You guys might never listen to me and learn; but I can still learn from you.
I have learned a lot from you guys already. I am using you all and many others to educate myself.
(“You allâ€: I’m from the South. You as a plural irritates us so we say ‘you all’ where as technically “you”is sufficient)
14- I should have made myself clear..Carter was inept in his handling of ME policy. Why?
Dershowitz:
Carter condemns Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring those of every religion the right to worship as they please consistent, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt’s brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.
Carter goes out of his way to point out that some Christians are separated from their churches by the “Apartheid Wall,” without mentioning that it was Muslim terrorists who used Christian churches as terrorist sanctuaries.
Carter even blames Israel for the “exodus of Christians from the Holy Land,”; totally ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah and the repeated assassination of Christian leaders by Syria
His bias against Israel is no where else more mistaken then his belief that Palestinians have agreed to a two-state solution all along while Israel has refused. That my friends is called delusion. Israel accepted the Peel Commission recommendation that they receive only a sliver of land in 1938 while the Palestinians rejected it. It accepted the Partition Plan of 1947, while the Palestinians rejected it. The Palestinians rejected all the concessions made by Israel in 2000.Â
You see a pattern here?Â
The Arab states will not accept anything but the total annihilation of Israel, that’s it in a nutshell (pun intended). Jimmy Carter can’t or won’t see it. No where does his bias shine through more deeply then when he makes excuses for the Palestinian terrorist acts against Israel:
Jimmy Carter has hugged and kissed all the worst of the worst throughout the world over the decades. He shared a Nobel Peace Prize with a terrorist for god’s sake. But the left and the MSM have applauded his every move.Â
Was he supposed to go to war with Iran? Should he have invaded? Should he have launched another rescue mission?
First thing he should’ve done was back our ally, the Shah, instead of cutting off support and letting the Islamists get control of Iran in the first place. Barring that, he should’ve recalled all embassy personnel from Iran when things first started going down hill BEFORE the embassy was stormed. When it became apparent that the embassy was in danger, he should’ve sent reenforcements for the Marine Guard and withdrew the staff by helicopter. He also could’ve given the guards permission to engage anyone violating the perimeter of the Embassy grounds. Once the Embassy had been overrun, he could’ve immediately began preparations for and then executed a rescue mission within the first 2 weeks when it would’ve had a better than 50% chance of success. Ross Perot was able to launch a rescue mission to get some of his employees who were hiding in the Canadian Embassy out of Iran. And no he didn’t buy their release. He paid and equipped a group of professional soldiers to go into Tehran and bring his people out. Which they did.
>
In that respect you would be wrong. The circumstances are profoundly different. Under international law, embassies are the sovereign territory of the nation that they represent. They are NOT subject to the laws of the host country, nor are they considered to be a portion of that country. The Iranian militants who seized the US embassy in Iran were in effect invading the sovereign territory of the US. Would you expect the President to issue them an apology for invading a federal building in Miami and taking the occupants hostage? While the incidences that you quote happened in questionably another country’s air space or coastal waters, the US embassy in Iran was US territory NOT Iranian territory. Just as the Iranian Embassy in Washington wasn’t subject to US law, it was Iranian sovereign territory.
When terrorists seized the Iranian embassy in London, the British didn’t sit back and negotiate on behalf of the terrorists. Once they got permission from the Iranian government, SAS troopers stormed the building killing the terrorists and saving the hostages. When the US embassy in Tehran was seized, the Iranian government took the side of the terrorists and refused to help end the hostage situation or even allow the US military to do so.
That post cut out the paste of Zelda’s comments about it being like the spy plane that was captured by the Chinese.