Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jimmy Carter: America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace
The New York Times ^ | 04/21/2002 | JIMMY CARTER

Posted on 04/20/2002 7:27:46 PM PDT by Pokey78

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last
To: no w in prosperity
Do you suffer from an illness. Carter help make Arafat. What kind of deal leaves out the main agitators. As I recall it took much of the Reagan years to dig us out of the mess Carter left us in.
41 posted on 04/20/2002 7:59:44 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: no w in prosperity
You've got to be kidding. Jimmy "Malaise" Carter appointed Volker in 1979 after three years of disastrous policies by his own administration, exacerbated by the tax-and-spend practices of a Democratic Congress which had had a hammerlock on Washington for decades. Those policies and practices led to runaway inflation and mile long lines at gas pumps.

It was sheer dumb luck that Carter chose in Volker someone who had the guts to implement at the Fed the painful fiscal and monetary policies that brought inflation under control.

Jimmy Carter was a failed President --- no part of his record shows otherwise, including the Begin-Sadat agreements that he ostentatiously mentions twice in the column above.

42 posted on 04/20/2002 8:00:00 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Jimmie Carter is named after a road just north of Atlanta, which crosses over I-85. The road is called "Jimmie Carter Blvd". Jimmie Carter's mother must have named him after the road.
43 posted on 04/20/2002 8:00:09 PM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
You're right, except Rosie O'Donnell DID go on the O'Reilly Factor. She gave up a lot of her beliefs, even on the gun issue. She said 9/11 made her change her views.
44 posted on 04/20/2002 8:01:10 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I know, I have a lot of questions. I can't help myself. Somehow I suspect that Jimmy Carter can't answer one of them. The man is lame city. But then I already knew that. In fact I have known that for about 25 years

Well posted Torie, Carter is forgetting that agreements are not agreements until both sides agree. The admission that he totally failed to get Hamas to support the agreement means that there was no agreement. However much he wanted there to be one.

45 posted on 04/20/2002 8:01:29 PM PDT by KC_for_Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
No peace that Jimm-uh uh-Caw-tuh, would accept, would be anything that was just, nor would it be anything that would result in the continued existence of Israel beyond a five-to-ten year period of Death on the Installment Plan.

There is no room for another Arab sovereignty in the Middle East; there are too many already. If the Pallies require "protection," it is mainly against their own stupidity and murderous blood-lust and irrational hatred of Jews.

Such protection MIGHT just come from Jordan or Egypt, as long as the USA had a big gun pointed at the head of either, safety off, cocked locked and loaded. Otherwise those nations would just conspire with the Pallies to kill more Jews.

46 posted on 04/20/2002 8:01:44 PM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Runner
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

the ex always said that was something i had a talent for identifying ...


47 posted on 04/20/2002 8:02:44 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Bet it was Rosies shrinking payroll that changed her views.
48 posted on 04/20/2002 8:03:21 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: no w in prosperity
"he was the President that set the framework for economic change in this country. "

Agreed. If Carter hadn't been such a total failure, Reagan would probably not have been elected and not have been able to popularize supply-side economics.

49 posted on 04/20/2002 8:04:49 PM PDT by bayourod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: no w in prosperity
Carter didn't really have any economic policies. He just printed money, and licked Iran's ass, because the thought of bloodshed disturbed his pacific soul. He did nothing to stop the rot of our defenses, or the demoralization of our country. He also had about as much social grace as his brother. Few liked him personally who dealt with him. The man was not a leader. He was a technician without vision who wasted his time on irrelevancies, like who should be playing on the white house tennis court.
51 posted on 04/20/2002 8:05:05 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
even on the gun issue. She said 9/11 made her change her views.

But will she let K-mart put guns back on the shelves? Oh, that's right, she put them out of business already. Never mind.

52 posted on 04/20/2002 8:06:08 PM PDT by PsyOp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
I know she did, but she admitted she was afraid to go on his show. My question to liberals like her is.. WHY, if they believe in their heart that what they stand for is correct and good for this country, WHY are these liberals afraid to answer tough questions. Have you ever heard of someone like Rush Limbaugh refuse to be interviewed by a left wing liberal?
53 posted on 04/20/2002 8:08:46 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: no w in prosperity
Maybe you had better go back to that pubic school and learn a little more about the reason the MARINE barracks were bombed. Seems a Democrat controlled congress had their dirty hands in that blood.
54 posted on 04/20/2002 8:09:04 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I find it hard to believe that anyone with a brain could write such outrageous untruths. The Palies knew in advance that Sharon was going to visit said Temple mount, which is btw in his country, and then of course, used it as propaganda against Israel, and an excuse for terrorism.
Israel under Clinton's lackey, Barak, (sp?) offered the company store to Arafat, but gee whiz, he didn't want it did he? Why? Because the Palies do not want peace with Israel. They want Israel driven into the sea.
Jimmy Carter, who I once supported and campaigned for as a democrat, knows full well this is the truth. He also knows that Arafat is and always has been a terrorist.
Shame on you Jimmy!
55 posted on 04/20/2002 8:09:32 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no w in prosperity
Carter had no idea what Volcker was up to, and neither did Volcker, for about 2 yrs.Check the record, pal.Try your revisionism against boobies at DU who know diddly about economics, otherwise you are too stupid to engage in sensible debate.
56 posted on 04/20/2002 8:10:16 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: no w in prosperity
"Well, Carter may babble a lot, but he was the President that set the framework for economic change in this country. No one here mentions the liberal economic policicies of Nixon and Ford that Carter tried to undo with his appointment of Volcker. Reagan was just the dumbass recipient of his forsight."

You are joking right? Your post is totally off topic and patently ridiculous. Carter left the country with a 21% interest rate, 19% inflation rate, and a looming recession all due to his inflationary policies. Carter's self created energy crisis evaporated with the stroke of Reagan's pen, deregulating gasoline production. Reagan's tax cuts led to the longest economic recovery in the post war period, with two dips of recession caused by Democrat doctrinaire re-taxation by Bush #1 and Clinton's mismanagement and abuse of the DOJ against major industries in America. It continues today. So much for Carter the economist.

As for the peace maker, I give Anwar Sadat more credit in the Camp David Accords peace of 1979 than I give Carter. Carter's brokered agreement with North Korea is a joke, we have given more in aid to the terrorist totalitarian state of North Korea that we give to any other East Asian country. For this foolish appeasement, North Korea abides by none of the agreements provisions, continues to develop nuclear weapons, sells missile technology to other terrorist states, and regularly threatens war against the U.S. and all its neighbors. Carter oversaw an election with a predetermined outcome, all of Arafat's hand picked candidates easily won, and Arafat's own competitor for the position of President-PM-Chairman et al, was never a serious contender at all. Now Carter insists upon ignoring the obvious truth that more and more analysts are gradually accepting; Arafat never had any intention of concluding a negotiated peace with Israel, and is directly responsible for the terrorist suicide bombing offensive against Israel. When will this man wake up? Probably never.

57 posted on 04/20/2002 8:11:20 PM PDT by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: no w in prosperity
Fine call me a disruptor.

That and dumb enough to think that Carter was anything but a sad and dangerous setback for this nation. Stanfield Turner did what he could to decimate the CIA. We are still living(or should I say dying) of the effects of that.

58 posted on 04/20/2002 8:12:41 PM PDT by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Richard Axtell
Good post. It is better than mine all put together. I hate when that happens. :)
59 posted on 04/20/2002 8:12:42 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by international law.

Can someone explain what this means? What is he talking about when he mentions the "lands of the Egyptians and the Lebanese?"

60 posted on 04/20/2002 8:13:54 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson