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?  

Carter:

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. 

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.

30 Responses to “Mondale: “If I had done as vice president what this vice president has done, Carter would have thrown me out of there,””

1. The Uncooperative Blogger
   January 20, 2007 - 11:00 AM on January 20th, 2007

   Uncooperative Radio 01-20-07 And 01-21-06

   Ok, for this weekend (sat and sun) at least, things are a bit confusing, We do our regular Blog talk radio show at 8pm eastern and then we added a show at 9:30 pm eastern on talkshoe. So, you have two different options of listening to the show based o…

2. Big Dogs Weblog
   January 20, 2007 - 12:05 PM on January 20th, 2007

   Wicked Witch in the Race

   For quite some time I have been saying that Hillary Clinton was going to run for the White House, the building she and her husband allowed to become the best little whorehouse in DC. I was told by many liberals who commented and untold numbers that em…

3. stikNstein....has no mercy
   January 20, 2007 - 12:53 PM on January 20th, 2007

   Hillary’s in……Drudge posts worst Pic they can find…heh

   Course whaddya expect from Drudge, but it got Stik to thinking……used to be the only pictures you got to see of Politicians was in Time or Newsweek. Now you have the whole Net to pick from.
   CNN’s PIC

   DRUDGE’s PIC

   Pics availab…

4. Rhymes With Right
   January 20, 2007 - 01:52 PM on January 20th, 2007

   Dem Notions Of Dialogue

   This is apparently what passes for “free speech” and “political dialogue” when you are a Democrat. Invoking Thomas Jefferson and Mr. Hankey from the television series “South Park,” the lawyer for an ex-professor accused of leaving dog feces at a…

5. Rhymes With Right
   January 20, 2007 - 01:59 PM on January 20th, 2007

   A Bad Decision By An Administrator — What A Surprise

   I cannot believe that the principal of St Francis High School (a public, not private, school in Minnesota) decided he just had to keep this picture from a school play out of the school paper. I’m sorry — it just…

6. Potbelly Stove
   January 20, 2007 - 02:08 PM on January 20th, 2007

   A very political climate?

   A very political climate surrounding the topic of climate change? You bet. And, the politics aren’t limited to just the non-climatologist crowd.

7. Potbelly Stove
   January 20, 2007 - 02:52 PM on January 20th, 2007

   Obama: Me, Too.

   One wonders if Mr. Obama talked to anyone closer to the action, e.g., Gen. Casey

8. Fred Dawes
   January 20, 2007 - 04:30 PM on January 20th, 2007

   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.

9. Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker
   January 20, 2007 - 04:42 PM on January 20th, 2007

   Alabama meteorologist fights back

   Comparing Global Warming hysteria to evil is stretching it a bit but the concept is the same. Unfortunately many of us sit quiet and ignore statements that claim that the sole cause of global warming is human induced and especially by people in the w…

10. Zelda
    January 20, 2007 - 05:26 PM on January 20th, 2007

    “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.

11. Perri Nelson's Website
    January 20, 2007 - 07:16 PM on January 20th, 2007

    Bad Behavior?

    I don’t know if my work-around will pass muster, but you can bet the spammers are working on their own ways to get past the anti-spam software we all use.

    The spam wars just keep escalating.

12. Peejz
    January 20, 2007 - 07:33 PM on January 20th, 2007

    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.

13. FrmrArtyOffcr
    January 20, 2007 - 09:02 PM on January 20th, 2007

    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.

14. FrmrArtyOffcr
    January 20, 2007 - 09:05 PM on January 20th, 2007

    BTW paper, pencil and messengers don’t require batteries, antennas, or give off heat or radio wave signatures.

15. Perri Nelson's Website
    January 21, 2007 - 01:56 AM on January 21st, 2007

    Galaxy…

    My sister-in-law sent me this link.

    Turn on your speakers and enjoy… especially if you like Eric Idle…

16. snowy egret
    January 21, 2007 - 01:34 PM on January 21st, 2007

    Hey i can remember when WALLY MONDALE ran for president with ERALDINE FARARO and still the demacrats lost big:roll:

17. Zelda
    January 21, 2007 - 02:05 PM on January 21st, 2007

    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.

18. Zelda
    January 21, 2007 - 02:07 PM on January 21st, 2007

    “The Iranians hung the CIA station chief”

    “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.”

    Fair enough. I didn’t know…

19. 123beta
    January 21, 2007 - 02:14 PM on January 21st, 2007

    Open Trackback Weekend #38

    Wow… I can’t believe it’s the weekend already! Please leave a post and I’ll be sure to send a tb ping your way. Keep in mind that I have to manually send pings so it may take a little while…

20. Peejz
    January 21, 2007 - 03:38 PM on January 21st, 2007

    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.

21. Fred Dawes
    January 21, 2007 - 06:48 PM on January 21st, 2007

    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.

22. Zelda
    January 21, 2007 - 07:53 PM on January 21st, 2007

    “Yes, he had options.”

    Are there any similarities between President Carter in Iran and President Bush in Iraq?

23. Peejz
    January 21, 2007 - 08:50 PM on January 21st, 2007

    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.

24. PCD
    January 22, 2007 - 06:48 AM on January 22nd, 2007

    Zelda, now that you have been schooled, do you still have your basic ignorance?

25. Zelda
    January 22, 2007 - 08:55 PM on January 22nd, 2007

    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)

26. Zelda
    January 22, 2007 - 09:08 PM on January 22nd, 2007

    “Zelda, now that you have been schooled, do you still have your basic ignorance?”

    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 all”: I’m from the South. You as a plural irritates us so we say ‘you all’ where as technically “you”is sufficient)

27. Peejz
    January 22, 2007 - 09:32 PM on January 22nd, 2007

    14- I should have made myself clear..Carter was inept in his handling of ME policy. Why?

    Carter’s presidency, widely renowned for its crowning achievement, The Camp David Accords, which established a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, was not however, a Carter initiative.

    Carter’s intentions and policy commitments were geared towards arranging a Geneva Peace Conference with all the parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute present, in addition to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

    Carter dispatched Cyrus Vance, his Secretary of State, to Moscow to get the Soviets to co-sponsor the conference. On May 21, 1977, Secretary Vance and Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko issued a joint statement that the “elimination of the continued source of tension in the Middle East constitutes one of the primary tasks in ensuring peace and international security.”The statement specified moreover the conviction of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. that in order to achieve the goal, “an important role belonged to the Geneva Conference on the Middle East.”

    Carter decided to coordinate his Middle East efforts with the Soviets on the premise that keeping them out of the picture could provoke them to undermine any American sponsored moves. This typical Carteresque strategy of appeasing dictatorships and dictators (Carter never met a dictator he did not like) backfired time and again.

    In the case of the Geneva Conference, Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s President, who five years earlier expelled the Soviets from Egypt, did not want the Soviets involved in negotiations, much less in a multilateral negotiations. Sadat understood that the Soviets would press the Arabs to be uncompromising (he also knew that Carter would press Israel for concessions) and was turned off by the thought that radical voices in Syria and Iraq would undermine Egypt’s position as the leader of the Arab world.

    Sadat was dead-set against going to Geneva. And, in order to scuttle the idea he had to get Israel to reject it.

    On November 7, 1977, Anwar Sadat made an historic trip to Jerusalem providing Israelis with one of the most euphoric days in their collective memory. Sadat’s dramatic move and Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s personal opposition to Geneva and Soviet participation scuttled the idea of the conference. Carter quickly jumped on the Begin-Sadat bandwagon and the rest is history. It is important to acknowledge that the Camp David Accords – Carter’s premier presidential achievement – happened in spite of his misjudgment.

    Dershowitz:

    Carter has tried hard to turn the mideast conflict into a religious one. He constantly refers to Israel as the “Holy Land,” which he defines as follows:

    “It became increasingly clear that there were two Israel’s. One encompassed the ancient culture and moral values of the Jewish people, defined by the Hebrew Scriptures with which I had been familiar since childhood and representing the young nation that most American envisioned.”

    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. 

    You see a pattern here? 

    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:

    The security barrier is a desperate, deeply imperfect and, God willing, temporary attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from detonating themselves amid crowds of Israeli civilians. And it works; many recent attempts to infiltrate bombers into Israel have failed, thanks to the barrier.

    The murder of Israelis, however, plays little role in Carter’s understanding of the conflict. He writes of one Hamas bombing campaign: “Unfortunately for the peace process, Palestinian terrorists carried out two lethal suicide bombings in March 1996.” That spree of bombings — four, actually — was unfortunate for the peace process, to be sure. It was also unfortunate for the several dozen civilians killed in these attacks. But Israeli deaths seem to be an abstraction for Carter; only the peace process is real, and the peace process would succeed, he claims, if not for Israeli intransigence.

    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. 

28. FrmrArtyOffcr
    January 23, 2007 - 11:24 PM on January 23rd, 2007

    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.

29. FrmrArtyOffcr
    January 23, 2007 - 11:26 PM on January 23rd, 2007

    That post cut out the paste of Zelda’s comments about it being like the spy plane that was captured by the Chinese.

30. World and Global Politics Blog » Blog Archive » ebooks, ibooks, gbooks
    January 29, 2007 - 03:12 AM on January 29th, 2007

    [...] Find these tags in Planck’s Constant Posts:amazon, be afraid be very afraid, book excerpt, book search, bryan appleyard, civilisation, google, infidel, jew the gypsy and el islam, muslim conquests, naked little girl, qurans, real books, sir richard francis burton, texas library, trip to the library Trackposted to Wake Up America, Cao’s Blog, Faultline USA, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, Rightwing Guy, Big Dog’s Weblog, basil’s blog, Gone Hollywood, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, Adam’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, Wake Up America, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. [...]

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Right Voices uses Gravatar to display individual comment author icons. If you'd like your own icon next to your name, then go to Gravatar.com and sign up - it's easy!

more »

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail