This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Jimmy Carter

  • Democrats and oil

    This morning, Associated Press writes that President Bush is expected to ask Congress to relieve restrictions on off-shore drilling;

    Then gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon this summer. Drivers and others began clamoring for federal lawmakers to do something about the record price of oil, much of it produced in foreign countries.

    In response, President Bush is renewing his call to open U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas development, arguing that it’s high time to battle high prices with increased domestic production. He is planning to ask Congress on Wednesday to lift the drilling moratoria that have been in effect since 1981 in more than 80 percent of the country’s Outer Continental Shelf and to let states help to decide where to allow drilling.

    But, surprise, the Democrats want to extend the ban into 2009 – when they hope to have the presidency and they can claim they solved the current energy problem.

    For their part, some lawmakers have their own plan: Legislation that would continue the ban into late 2009 was scheduled to be considered Wednesday by the House Appropriations Committee.

    Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for 27 years.

    On Monday, GOP presidential candidate John McCain made lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development a key part of his energy plan. McCain said states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts and get some of the royalty revenue.

    Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn’t affect gasoline prices for at least five years.

    Well, that’s not true, exactly. When President Bush announced his support for tax rebates, in anticipation of the infusion of cash, the economy responded immediately. The same would happen with the oil market.

    When Jimmy Carter was president, the Democrats were anxious to solve the problem. In his famous “malaise speech“in 1979, Jimmy Carter promised;

    To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

    We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

    Well, Democrats, we need to cut through red tape, we critically need refineries. Is it only a good idea when Democrats use the issue to expand government?

    Jimmy Carter even admitted that coal is a solution, that we have enough shale oil to be independent from the Middle East oil;

    We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth. We have the world’s highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.

    Apparently, we only have a national will when the Democrats own the seats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

  • Jimmy Carter makes leap from pest to traitor

    I’d wager that Americans are generally tired of being treated to the spectacle of an aging ex-President meandering the world, undermining our own foreign policy. His latest antics may cross the line from Jimmy Carter being a mere pest to his being a traitor. According to the Guardian, Carter urged our European allies to break with the US and ignore the common sense policy of ignoring the bloodthirsty thugs of Hamas;

    Referring to the possibility of Europe breaking with the US in an interview with the Guardian, he said: “Why not? They’re not our vassals. They occupy an equal position with the US.”

    The blockade on Hamas-ruled Gaza, imposed by the US, EU, UN and Russia – the so-called Quartet – after the organisation’s election victory in 2006, was “one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth,” since it meant the “imprisonment of 1.6 million people, 1 million of whom are refugees”. “Most families in Gaza are eating only one meal per day. To see Europeans going along with this is embarrassing,” Carter said.

    Or, dimwit, Hamas could care a bit about their own people and lay down their weapons and stop killing their people outright. They claim to be the representatives of their people, but they’re just another in a long succession of tyrants who oppress Gazans. The problem isn’t US policy or European policy – it’s Hamas and their refusal to join the modern world.

    But Carter wasn’t done. The Times Online, reports that Carter went ahead and gave away national security secrets;

    Israel has 150 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, former President Jimmy Carter said yesterday, while arguing that the US should talk directly to Iran to persuade it to drop its nuclear ambitions.

    I’m pretty sure that he knows how many nuclear weapons Israel has because of security briefings he received while President. That should persuade Americans that Carter will violate every law that exists to resurrect his legacy after ignoring and later lying about warnings the US government gave him to avoid meeting with Hamas. And talking with Iran worked so well for him in 1980 didn’t it?

    I read his memoir “Keeping Faith” and it became clear to me two decades ago that, despite the public perception of Carter as a decent well-intentioned man, Carter is a megalomaniac bent on rehabilitating his reputation at any cost. Proof that it’s working on the international stage is those buffoons in Oslo awarding him a Nobel Prize.

    Of course, we certainly can’t throw him a dungeon somewhere, but we can put him in a soundproof display case in the Carter Center until he finally shuts up.

  • “Hope” for “Change”

    So Barak Obama pulled his snotty little kid act because John McCain, in a conference call with bloggers last month, hinted at the fact that Obama is endorsed by Hamas (USAToday link);

     “I think it’s very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president,” the Republican nominee-in-waiting said. “If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

    So what does Barak say? (Yahoo/Politico link)

    Obama responded with the same sort of high-road message that seems to have worked fairly well against the gas tax holiday: The suggestion, he said, was “offensive,” and furthermore a mark that McCain is “losing his bearings” as he pursues the presidency.

    “My policy toward Hamas is no different than his,” said Obama, who called McCain’s comment a “smear.”

    So a smear is actually the truth now? Because what Hamas spokesman Ahmed Josef actually said was (Powerline link);

     “We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election.” Why? “He has a vision to change America.”

    It’s kinda hard to misinterpret that, isn’t it? Why shouldn’t John McCain take advantage of Hamas’ support for Obama?

    Clearly there is no “change” nor any “hope”. Obama is campaigning the same way Al Gore campaigned and the same way John Kerry campaigned. Whining little pussies who can’t take a punch.

    Obama hopes to control the debate by trying to shame John McCain into avoiding questions regarding Obama’s judgement and ability to lead. If Obama can’t take a couple of jabs involving actual facts, how can he lead this country in a world full of rogues? Is he going to call Ahmadinejad a racist everytime he threatens the US? Is he going to try to shame Hugo Chavez into ending his anti-American rhetoric?

    I’ve said it a thousand times – Obama is no leader, he’s just another drama queen who’ll be more fun to watch lose than either Gore or Kerry were.

  • Foreign policy by BDS

    r3038338851.jpg

    Earlier this month, we had Jimmy Carter in the Middle East conducting our foreign policy without anyone asking him to do so. He did his best to undermine the country’s standing in the world and accomplished nothing. Last year, Nancy Pelosi and a score of Democrat congress members did the same with Syria. Right before the Israelis bombed a nuclear facility Syria was building with another irrational member of the world community, North Korea. Carter and Pelosi both carried false messages (USAToday link);

    She said she brought a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Assad gave assurances that “he’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said. She later left Syria, heading for Saudi Arabia, the next leg of a Mideast tour.

    Carter falsely reported (Associated Press link);

    Former President Jimmy Carter said today that Hamas — the Islamic militant group that has called for the destruction of Israel — is prepared to accept the right of the Jewish state to “live as a neighbor next door in peace.”

    Today we are treated to Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico conducting his own foreign policy with Hugo Chavez; USAToday link);

    New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that he plans to put forward a proposal for the release of the three U.S. defense contractors in the coming weeks and that Chavez is willing to work with him as a “primary mediator.”

    The Democratic governor met with Chavez on Saturday night to discuss the issue. The president did not release any statements following the meeting.

    […]

    Richardson, a former U.S. presidential candidate and energy secretary, said he was visiting Venezuela not as an official envoy but at the request of the hostages’ families.

    So what is it with Democrats? Are they so steeped in their hatred for this country that they want to undermine our foreign policy at every turn? Are they convinced that they’ll win elections by pandering to our enemies? If a Republican had done the same to a Democrat administration, they’d holler to high heaven.

    The Constitution charges the President as our sole head of state, and rested the faith of the people in his agents to conduct our foreign policy. But, Democrats have on countless occasions shown what they care about the Constitution. John Kerry tried to conduct his own foreign policy with North Vietnam, as a Navy officer, and a decade later with the communist regime in Nicaragua as a Senator with Tom Harkin.

    Jim McDermott and David Bonior tried to undermine US foreign policy in Iraq months before our attack on Hussein, and was possibly financed by Hussein. Their trip may have influenced Hussein to remain in power despite offers from the US to step down and caused the whole military operation.

    If Democrats really were concerned about our foreign policy, they’d get out of the way and wait for their own turn at bat instead of conducting their own foreign policy based on Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    UPDATE: More on Richardson’s visit to Chavez from Gateway Pundit, Jammie Wearing Fool and Fausta’s Blog.

  • Carter: Hamas ready for peace

    captcpsmyr45210408111145photo00photodefault-512x343.jpg

    Jimmy Carter is an idiot – that probably can’t be said enough. According to Associated Press, he announced that Hamas is ready to accept Israel’s existence. Isn’t that grand? That’s probably why they attacked Israel this weekend, within hours after their last talks with Carter.

    Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as a neighbor next door in peace.”

    Carter said the group promised it wouldn’t undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

    Hamas, a militant Islamic group that both the U.S. and Israel consider a terrorist organization, calls in its charter for Israel’s destruction. It has also traditionally opposed peace negotiations with the Jewish state.

    Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, later said Carter’s comments “do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”

    So what was accomplished? They won’t undermine Abbas’ efforts to reach a deal as long as the people approve it – but they reserve the right to ignore the referendum. So, actually, Carter got nuthin’ – except he’s written a new lie that Democrats can use to tell their sheep. That being that Hamas responds to negotiations – we all know it’s not true, but it sounds nice and it’ll probably fit on a bumpersticker somehow and that’s all that matters to the tiny-brained, drooling dolts.

  • Jimmy Carter; Hugging terrorists so you don’t have to

    capt16cbf063626643cb9950d39d1f580e1amideast_israel_palestinians_carter_jrl116.jpg

    Jimmy Carter places a wreath on the AIDS-ridden corpse containment system of Yassir Arafat

    Hamas is so bloody that when the Israelis walled them off from killing Jews in Israel, they turned on their Fatah supposed  allies, dragged many into the street and shot them in front of their families. Yet, here we are treated to this description of Nobel Prize laureate Jimmy Carter hugging one of their senior leaders from the Washington Times;

    At a reception in the West Bank town of Ramallah organized by Mr. Carter’s office, the former president hugged Nasser Shaer, a senior Hamas politician, meeting participants said. Embraces between men are a common custom in Arab culture.

    “He gave me a hug. We hugged each other, and it was a warm reception,” Mr. Shaer said. “Carter asked what he can do to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel … and I told him the possibility for peace is high.”

    Mr. Carter’s office refused to comment, saying he does not discuss closed meetings.

    I’ll bet he doesn’t comment – especially when the discussion of a closed meeting would include a narrative involving Carter dropping trou and bending over.

    Quoted in the Chicago Tribune, Carter explained why he made overatures towards Hamas;

     “Since Syria and Hamas will have to be involved in a final peace agreement, they ought to be involved in the discussions leading up to … peace,” Carter said.

    Israel was displeased;

    Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Mr. Carter’s meeting with Hamas “dignified” a group committed to Israel’s destruction. “One cannot but wonder how this attitude is supposed to promote peace and understanding,” he said.

    Carter misses the primary prerequisite for reaching a peace agreement – both sides must be rational actors and they must have demonstrated a willingness in the past to keep their respective word. he should explain to the rest of us why we should trust anything that comes out of the mouths of Hamas or Syria.

  • Jimmy Carter; the Damascus candidate

    carterarafatfriends.jpg

    As is usually the case, the first I heard of Jimmy Carter’s impending visit to Hamas’ Khaled Meshal was from Little Green Footballs in Charles’ post entitled Jimmy Carter hits bottom, digs;

    America’s worst president will now apparently meet with the leader of an openly genocidal Islamic terrorist gang: Report: Jimmy Carter to Meet With Hamas Leader in Syria.

    NEW YORK CITY — Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

    The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

    Well, I’m not surprised – he’s stroked-off every other blood soaked thug in the world. Samantha Sault rounds up bloggers’ opinions at The Weekly Standard Blogs;

    Carter may claim he is working for peace, but bloggers aren’t at all convinced. Allahpundit reminds us of Carter’s view of Israel, so it’s no surprise that he’d consider a friendly little fête with Hamas. Michael van der Galien agrees: “First Carter accuses Israel of being an Apartheid state, then he goes to meet with the leader of an organization [whose] sole purpose is to destroy Israel and to kill all Jews.” And at the American Thinker, Rick Moran adds, “Hamas’s latest peace offering was to send a gunman to a Jewish seminary and slaughter 9 innocent people. I’m sure Meshal and Carter will have a lot to talk about considering the former President’s previous statements about Israel being the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East are perfectly in line with Meshal’s own fantasies.”

    Who’s next? After all, as the Gateway Pundit says, “There’s never been a violent dangerous dictator that Jimmy Carter did not have friendly relationships with or prop up in some way, so it should come as no surprise that he is going to meet with the leader of the violent terrorist group Hamas.”

    Me? Everything that needs to be said about Jimmy Carter, I’ve said before and it’s earned Jimmy Carter his own category on this blog – knock yourselves out and see if what I’ve written before applies equally well this time.

    I’ll just add that I hope TSA checks his bulky overcoat real well when he comes back through US security.

  • Specters from the Carter dark days

    zbigniewbrzezinskijimmycar.jpg

    We all remember all of the amazingly successful foreign policies that came out of the Carter Administration, don’t we? Um, don’t we? Well, we’re treated to a stream of opinions from these unmitigated failures – the latest being Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Washington Post yesterday morning entitled “The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War“.

    Claiming that the best way to end the conflict in Iraq is to withdraw all of the US forces, “Biggy”, as he was known in those heady years of the Carter fiasco, makes predictions without the knowledge of yesterday’s events;

    Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

    You can tell he’s just been holding on to that piece waiting for a flare up like what happened in Basra last week to rush it to an editor at the Post.

    But the flare up in Basra proves just the opposite – the vacuum created by the British withdrawal in the city was the impetus of the fighting last week. Brzezinski completely ignores that.

    And the proof that the US forces are holding Iraq together is what happened yesterday while the Post’s readers were just opening their copy – after US air power was applied to the situation, Mookey al-Sadr scrambled to save the remnants of his fighters. Save them for what? Well, for when the US pulls out and he can use them to seize the reins of government. Or to wait and see if there’ll be a Democrat President so Mookie can run the Americans out of Iraq and be the Great Savior of the New Islamic Republic Part II.

    See, Carter and Brzezinski brought us to this point in our history. Their indifference to early events in Iran brought about the Islamic Revolution and installed the mullahs. Their weak responses (like boycotting the Olympics when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan), encouraged the mullah, in fact, encouraged terrorists worldwide. Protecting the Shah openly enraged the mullahs.

    Pronouncing as the Carter Doctrine (the free flow of Persian Gulf oil at market prices) without having any intention of enforcing it made us a paper tiger. Allowing our military to deteriorate to the point that a few broken helicopters caused an operation to be canceled and cost the lives of eight military members deep inside Iran – giving us an even greater appearance of a paper tiger.

    I don’t know which is more disgusting; Brzezinski thinking he has something valuable to lend to the discussion, or the Washington Post for allowing into print this gomer’s opinion.