| There was a time the country thought Jimmy Carter was the worst leader
since we were trying to pry free of those English types. Then when he was
thankfully out of office he worked hard to distance himself from his
failed presidency. He became a charity wunderkind. We forgot about his
lack of testicles and the country thought him to be a great ambassador for
peace. Starting around 2004 with his partying with Michael Moore we were
reminded of how bad a leader he was. Now after countless instances of
bashing the president and doing everything but calling the State of Israel
"a bunch of bastards" we no longer see him as a terrible leader but as a
sad, pathetic, failed, traitorous bit of navel fluff. He has become more
inconsequential than say Ramsey Clark. He should have stopped while he was
ahead.. I'm seriously considering adopting the mindset that Jim has Alzhiemers. Either that or he has mastered the art of selective memory. In his recent interview with Der Spiegel Jim stated "Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis". The key bit is "Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened". Has Jim been to New York Recently? There are these two rather large buildings no longer being printed on post cards. I suppose the new that plots to blow up the subway and the Brooklyn bridge were simply April fools jokes. Call me over zealous but when the people responsible for the two rather large buildings no longer being printed on post cards releases videos stating they are going to kill us I'd say our security is threatened and pre emptive war is in fact a good idea. Now not to worry dear reader I know what you are thinking. The hysterical liberals reading this will quickly point out that Sadaam Hussien had nothing to do with 9/11. That's true. No one has suggested otherwise. Sasdaam would never attack the US he hasn't the bottle. He would however aide anyone interested by arming, or financing them. We couldn't risk him selling any WMD's he had to those who are responsible for the two large buildings no longer being printed on post cards. Besides that if you violate the terms of your peace treaty your entitled to an ass wuppin'. Violate those terms 17 times and it's time to hand in your chips. What I also found shocking is his outright disdain for Israel. According to Jim Israel had no justification to attack Lebanon.. "What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no." what Jim fails to acknowledge is the 100,000 Palestinians held by Israel are criminals caught in their attempts to attack and kill innocent Israelis. Israel didn't wander into Lebanon and select a few people waiting for the bus. These were people caught in Israel. However according to Jim there is nothing wrong with two Lebanese terrorists wandering into Israel and kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. Jim said "I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon". I quess the same way he had no legal or moral authority to go into Iran after they kidnapped 66 American and held them until a President with real testicles came into office... Jim continues, on an almost daily basis criticize the President's policies and the point to his own failed policies to bolster his argument. Is he insane? Maybe. Bitter? Absolutely. Diplomacy is the lefts way of saying "I don't want to fight". unfortunately there are those who want to fight and will do so regardless of how much you offer them. "Have money, take my car, take my wife. Just don't kill me" Extremists will take your car, your money and your wife and still kill you" Democrats don't get that. What they will do is negotiate peace agreements meant to last until they are out of office. Then hell breaks loose and the Republicans have to pick up the pieces and are then assailed for fighting back. Jimmy Carter almost single handedly created the situation in the mid east. He was right in one aspect though. He claimed to represent the vast majority of Democrats. True. None of them want to face the reality that extremist Muslims want to kill us. What they do in a weak attempt to appease them is to blame the United States for our unpopularity among crazy Islamofacists. I wish he would go back to swinging the hammer.... -Bert |